Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ron, Rand Paul: Get Government Away From Internet

July 6, 2012 by  

Ron, Rand Paul: Get Government Away From Internet
Ron, Rand Paul: Get Government Away From Internet

Over the Independence Day holiday, some Internet freedom groups sought to remind Americans of the importance of protecting the World Wide Web from overreaching government regulation, a cause that Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have joined wholeheartedly but with a different angle.

The Pauls set forth a plan to keep the Internet in the hands of the private sector, which they posit will shape the online world in a way conducive to freedom, liberty and economic growth in A Technology Revolution: A Campaign For Liberty Manifesto.

While other Internet freedom advocates have focused their efforts against Internet control more on corporate control of the Web, the Paul manifesto decries the “collectivist vision that seeks to regulate ‘fairness’, ‘neutrality’, ‘privacy’ or ‘competition’ through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available to all.”

They say in the statement that corporations should not be heavily scrutinized by the government in their efforts to collect vast sums of online data for advertising purposes, but that government should be barred from using the Internet for warrantless surveillance.

The manifesto says:

Technology revolutionaries succeed because of the decentralized nature of the Internet, which defies government control. As a consequence, decentralization has unlocked individual self-empowerment, entrepreneurialism, creativity, innovation and the creation of new markets in ways never before imagined in human history.

But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets and individual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology.

The manifesto warns that Americans will be tricked into allowing the government to take over new technologies with the use of subversive language and under the guise of protecting Americans from evil corporations.

“Internet collectivists are clever,” the manifesto says. “They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control. ‘Openness’ means government control of privately owned infrastructure. ‘Net neutrality’ means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be ‘neutral’.”

According to Buzzfeed, some Republican strategists contend that Internet freedom from government control will be the younger Paul’s go-to issue, similar to his father’s crusade against the Federal Reserve.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ron, Rand Paul: Get Government Away From Internet”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • FreedomFighter

    The manifesto warns that Americans will be tricked into allowing the government to take over new technologies with the use of subversive language and under the guise of protecting Americans from evil corporations.

    “Internet collectivists are clever,” the manifesto says. “They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control. ‘Openness’ means government control of privately owned infrastructure. ‘Net neutrality’ means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be ‘neutral’.”

    Government esp a totalitarian government must shut off the sources of truth.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Evelyn Johnson

      Yes they are sneaky with words, but ive caught on two there evil agenda, we the people will win this, God is behind us, we have won already, GODS words tells us.

    • Agi Groff

      I have been posting the following every where but it doesn’t fully imply in this case because this is not a side issue, but it’s at the crux of the matter, first amendment issue our most sacred right! However watch the documentary and I know you will agree this is a crucial issue also:

      Don’t get sidetracked with side issues, watch this video and you will know what is wrong with America:
      You-tube USS LIBERTY Cover Up – Full Documentary – “The loss of Liberty”
      Watch the video, sign the petition!
      Do not be afraid to put your name on this petition, initiated by one of the survivors of the attack. We must all hang together, or else we will hang separately.
      It is time to “Come From The Shadows” (Joan Baez) and demand that truth and justice reign over this land.
      Watch: Loss Of Liberty on You- tube!
      Sign the petition:
      Google: Investigate the Attack on the USS LIBERTY PETITION

  • Michael Lewis

    There have been a lot of false claims about the Citizens United v FEC decision.

    Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are supposed to be the inalienable rights of natural persons, “We the People”!

    Every article that I have read on this topic discusses free speech and avoids any discussion of free press!

    Exercising free press rights has always involved the cost of paper, ink and distribution.

    In the 184 year period prior to Watergate and the creation of the Federal Election Commission “We The People” enjoyed the same freedom to raise and spend money to pay the cost of exercising our free press rights that newspaper and broadcast corporations accomplish through stockholders today.

    The Federal Election Commission did not exist until 1975.

    The Citizens United v FEC decision was not the first Supreme Court decision that recognized corporations have speech and press rights as “legal persons”.


    The campaign finance reforms following Watergate included a press exemption:

    2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) exempts newspaper, broadcast and magazine corporations
    from the definition of contribution and expenditure. The Buckley v. Valeo decision, which upheld these reforms, effectively redefined free press as the right of media corporations!


    When a newspaper corporation expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate for public office or describes a candidate in a favorable or unfavorable news story, it is not a contribution or expenditure.

    Giant newspaper corporations are allowed to raise and spend an unlimited amount of stockholder money influencing the political process in the U.S. because their political communications have no value.

    But if a group of Citizens pool and spend money to advocate the election or defeat of the same candidate using the exact same words that a newspaper uses, their communication is either a contribution or expenditure. And, under the Buckley v Valeo decision, that could create the appearance of corruption and justifies regulations that restrict ordinary citizen’s freedom to pool money to pay the cost of paper, ink and distribution of political advocacy!

    Since Watergate regulations based on the definitions of expenditure and contribution have restricted the speech and press rights of every U.S. Citizen political party and organization.

    Campaign finance reforms have given corporations speech and press rights superior to “We the People”! But corporations cannot interview candidates, write editorial endorsements or speak their political opinions on radio or television. Their employees do that. Campaign finance laws have given editors, talking heads and reporters speech and press rights superior to every other citizen.

    Even foreign owned newspapers and cable networks are exempt from U.S. election laws!

    I do not believe congress intended to give foreign citizens and foreign corporations more freedom to influence our elections than their constituents and the Democrat or Republican parties.


    My solution:

    Amend the language used in 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) with the definitions included below!

    The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen or citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.

    The term contribution does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen or citizens group or corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.

    Press means any Citizen or group of Citizens of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    Media means any Citizen or group of Citizens of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    Newspaper means any form of printed material that includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public distribution, including information printed on paper, billboards, signs, fliers, web pages, and other electronic print material.

    Instructions for the federal and supreme court :

    Newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States are free to fund the cost of their political communication from pools of stockholders money that is not regulated by federal campaign finance laws. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that the speech and press rights of the flesh and blood Citizens of the United States are no less than the speech and press rights of legal persons taking the form of newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States.

    Corporations are just another way for people to assemble to demand a redress of grievances from government. The 1st Amendment does not limit how people assemble!

  • Glenn Bergen

    Oh, isn’t this SPECIAL; the Gov’t (DARPA) invents the internet and now they want to “control” the internet. Too late, you’ve let the genie out of the bottle, and it’s going to be a real bear getting it back in. I would personally oppose an attempts to limit or censor the activites that are internet-based. Spend the money saved on teaching our children on how to critically evaluate media/data on the internet.

  • chester

    Michael Lewis, I, for one, am still having problems with the deliberate equating of corporations with “natural” persons, or persons of any sort. The last time I looked, a PERSON could be personally arrested and incarcerated for his or her wrongdoing, yet there is NO mention anywhere of holding a corporation personally responsible for anything other than their RIGHT to throw cash at whatever politician they think will do them the most good. Granted, they may have to slightly disguise that contribution by opening a super PAC, or endowing one already in existence, but they are NOT required to account for what they spend or where they spend in, unlike most of us, who are required to disclose political contributions above certain limits, just as the politicians are required to disclose all the individual contributions they receive, regardless of amount. Super PACs are accountable to no one for anything, so can spend whatever they want to support or resist whoever they want. NOT a good idea, if you don’t like the idea of bought and paid for politicians.




    • Sanity Perhaps

      Simple online-adult entertainment (playboy vs slut magazine) places you on the back burner of federal ears and eyes.. You would (at this time) be considered low threat but don’t think for a moment that the red flags couldn’t wave at any given incident. Also, when it comes to porn, the feds do not discriminate between passive and blatant.. Just like the differences of illicite meds.. Drugs are drugs.


        “Sanity Perhaps,”



  • revnowwhilewecan

    The internet is the only true source of information that we can rely on. I’m not saying everything is true but if you do your research, you’ll find the information more reliable than 99% of the television and newspaper sources. This is, in my opinion, the most important threat to liberty that we face. With sneaky laws and backroom bills being passed almost daily, the one thing we have to combat this (so far) is a connection to each other. We must continue to do all and everything to keep this connection. Without it we have only our bought and paid for government and media outlets to receive our information and most of us here at PLD know how that’s working out.

  • Eric Jones

    I think what the pauls are trying to do is great but its a tad niaive of them to trust corperationns with the internet.

  • terris

    The FCC rules prevent corporations from limiting access to websites by any means. That means that there can be no tier charging, like the cable tv stations already do. They, currently, can not stop you from accessing any website you choose to access. The Paul’s are proposing that this change.

    I think that the rules need to stay the way they are. I don’t want anyone to be able to tell me where I can, or cannot, go.

  • Michael J.

    The freedoms granted by the Internet to the people of Earth are worthy of protection at all costs. Never before have humans been blessed with the free flowing of ideas and information on such a scale. A fact that the global elites are growingly frustrated about because of it’s ability to shine a light on their ongoing quest for world domination and population reduction.

    It has been said that the real reason for the enactment of Prohibition Laws in this country was not out of government concern of the health risks associated with the consumption of alcohol, but instead the stifling of free will political thinking that occurred in the bars and saloons where liquor was served. Look for similar doublespeak justifications for the curtailing of Internet access and the monitoring of usage.

    • The Christian American

      I use to do talk radio on WSUB out of New London CT. I learned the only thing that counts is the arbitron ratings, To get good rating managment had to know everything about the listening audience, income levels, race, age, choice of foods, cars, clothes etc.. By identifying the audience, and swaying the audience this way and that, they could know what to charge prospective airtime customers. This is what politicians used in writing their speechs. Think your a Pavlov’s dog? Believe me, we are. By controlling the internet they will make us into the people they want. Lenin said:…”People think in words and how they interpret words is what they are. We must add words and change words to mold the people to what we want”. The internet is a curse to the government schools of indoctrination. It can stimulate questions and questions stimulate enlightenment to what really is.

  • The Christian American

    I can’t recall which president it was, possibly Hoover. He said the federal government has so little impact on the people that they might read the news in about a week. Tell me, what aspect of our lives is not affected by federal intrusion? When you look at the resume’s of politicians about 1/3 of them couldn’t qualify for work in the private sector.

  • mike

    I forget which one it was now, but awhile back one of the congressmen said the internet was a terrible mistake and it should be shut down.

    It seems someone recorded him behaving and speaking in a way that would later be considered less then ideal. He revealed a side of himself he had been hiding. The video showed up on YOUtube and of course he didn’t like the truth being available to the public.

    Be not deceived, there ARE those in congress who would like the internet strictly controlled or even shut down. They see how well control can work for China and Iran, and they want it in America as well.

    They will keep inventing new “wording” to convince us it is for our own good to regulate what goes on the net.

  • Pingback: Web Walker: How to Bypass Internet Surveillance or Even a Total Web Shut Down « proparanoid


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.