Comments

While I can see the logic behind the 12 groups who signed this, it seems misguided for them to oppose Net Neutrality simply because an overly harsh ruling could prevent ISPs from filtering pornographic content. When most people think of Net Neutrality they think of file sharing and high-traffic sites, not pornography? How many ISPs are currently filtering porn anyway?

It's ridiculous that these groups are willing to sacrifice the freedom of people to say and do what they want on the Internet for the sake of their own moral agenda. The sad thing is that this is the reaction I've come to expect from Christian groups: they ignore every aspect of the issue except where it applies to sexual morality. Hopefully things will change soon and Christians in political groups will focus more on caring for the poor and the weak and less on sex.

Clearly these groups have not fully thought about what they are advocating for. This is similar to a freedom of speech issue. If Comcast is allowed to search for filesharing, video streams, etc., they they will soon be required to search for what the RIAA or MPAA think are illegally shared content. These two groups in particular have shown that they do not know when to stop once they get some authority. So then all of the traffic on the internet will have to be searched in order to filter for some of it.

What that can lead to is eventually a lessing of free speech. So you cannot share illegal files, then you cannot share hate speech. At what point will the sharing of the gospel be constred as hate speech.

Second arguement, right now China and many middle eastern countries have severe limitations on their internet. They are using the same filtering technology that Comcast and others would like to use. First, it can be broken, so people that are serious about sharing illegal files, porn, or whatever is being shared will be able to get around it. But people that are trying to legitimately share things or search for legal files will be restricted. This is the problem with Digital Rights Management, it keeps people that are trying to do things legally from doing what they want, but does not keep criminals from doing what is illegal.

Third arguement, the moral high ground. China and others are restricting their internet. But right now we have some pressure to say that restricting the internet is wrong. We start allowing the restriction of the internet and we have no arguement.

A couple of thoughts: if they filter out porn, what's to stop them from filtering out religious sites too?

Beyond that, if there is simply a fee to get on the "fast track" I know for sure that the porn industry makes enough money to pay it faster than most other sites on the web. That means when the porn sites outbid everyone else and the ISPs can no longer ignore the payday, we'll have a fast track of porn and a slow track of everything else.

That's dangerous. I say we keep it neutral and let it work the way it is. Find a different way to filter out the porn, namely, educating a better morality into our people.

china is a very good example of filtering gone wrong. i caught a documentary on the subject a couple of months ago, and the example i most strongly remember is what china has done to google. if you visit google from an IP address in china, and type in "tiananmen square", all you'll get is two pictures of the square all prettied up as a lovely tourist spot - which it is, but that's not the point, is it?.

people who want porn can get it very easily without the internet's help, whether through magazines or by going down the street to blockbuster (though most stores no longer have a screened off 'adult' section, the regular drama section has more blatant softcore titles than ever before). porn greatly predates the internet, and mildly restricted accessibility won't prevent folks who want it from getting it.

Over the last 10 years there has been almost no serious action by our government to protect competition and promote an environment where consumers can obtain good service at a fair price. This lack of cultivation by our government has resulted in prices for broadband higher than most of the rest of the world, and lower levels of service. Now that a handful of companies that have been able to muscle and lobby their way to effective monopoly over last mile connections, they want to establish the same monopolies over the sources of content that are delivered to consumers. If the government fails to act on this important issue and uphold network neutrality, you will see the moral, ethical, and (primarily) economic values of these corporate giants insinuated into everything we read, see, hear and play. If you think today's media is a bad influence over our children, just wait until a few corporate titans control what bulletin boards you can reach, what blogs you can read, and what videos you can share. Do you trust them with control over what we speak, read, hear and share with one another? I for one do not.

Sex! Halp! The poor children! Nudity! The sky is falling!

The quote:

"...network management is critical to stop pornographers and pedophiles from having unfettered access to consumers' Internet connections."

Is fear-mongering nonsense. Pornographers don't have "unfettered" access to my internet connection. No pedo comes into my home, plugs in my cable modem, and forces me to watch their filth. Playboy does not hold my eyelids open and hijack my internet connection. No, what's really going on here is that lazy, ignorant parents don't want to take the effort to monitor their children's internet access while the pro-war "moral leader" Gary Bauer wants to look like he's in charge.

A short thought exercise: Who would pay internet companies to assure their traffic gets delivered quickly?

I'll give you a few:

Advertisers
The government
Pornographers

And who won't be able to pay, and get regulated to second-tier speeds?

Everyone else (likely including this site)

As a Christian I am certainly concerned with limiting pornographic material on the internet, especially when it comes to blocking sites for the well-being of children and teenagers. However, I am not sure that opposing net-neutrality is the way to go about doing so. I think the 12 groups would have to explain more comprehensively how the defeat of this bill would make things better than passing it. So far, I simply don't see how this helps fulfill their primary purposes any more than educating parents and providing better internet filters.

On a related note, Christians should be concerned with how sexual activity affects our society. I think David, the first to comment, has missed the boat when he writes, "Hopefully things will change soon and Christians in political groups will focus more on caring for the poor and the weak and less on sex." What he doesn't understand, and I dare say millions more do not as well, is that pornography and a sexually immorality leads to more poverty.

Recent economic studies have shown that the group most susceptible to poverty (and most likely to remain in it) are single female households with children. And it's not hard to connect the rise in this demographic with the popularity of all sorts of pornography in our current culture. Clearly, as our society descends more and more into a pattern of anti-monogamy, we will only continue to see poverty rise. Thus, Christians must address issues of sexual immorality and pornography, two logs that fuel the fire of poverty in families.