This morning, journalists, citizens and supporters called upon the City of St. Paul Minnesota to drop the charges against the journalists arrested at the RNC convention. Our friends at Free Press helped organize the delivery of over 50,000 petition signatures collected online in 2 days to St. Paul City Hall calling on Mayor Chris Coleman and local law enforcement officials to drop all charges against journalists arrested while covering protests outside the Republican National Convention.

The arrest of obvious journalists is a crime against our democracy. It was clear from the videotape and other evidence that the people arrested were members of the press and were not involved in rioting. Their arrest was either an attempt to intimidate the press into not covering protests or it was incompetency on the part of the police force. I am not sure which is worse.

Not only should all charges be dropped, the police chief and the mayor owe these journalists an apology.

Common Cause would like to thank the sponsors of the bipartisan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008" (HR 5353) introduced yesterday by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.). This legislation would protect "Network Neutrality" which is integral to the internet and other new communications technologies being a powerful tool for democracy.

Today, the average person with an internet connection has greater ability to speak their mind and participate in our democracy than ever before. Politicians spread their message and raise money at light-speed; organizations concerned about issues can alert their members to take action in an instant; citizens can learn more about issues than they ever dreamed of, and then they can discuss these issues and ideas with people from all over the globe.

All of this could be harmed if the principle of net neutrality is not protected. As a result of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality principles that have been in place since the inception of the internet were put in jeopardy.  

Net neutrality ensures that internet service and other communication network providers don't censor certain content because they disagree with the message or discriminate against certain content providers.   Already, Network providers have begun to engage in content and user discrimination Last year, AT&T censored an online concert by rock band Pearl Jam when the lead singer criticized President Bush. Comcast has admitted to degrading certain online communications without informing its customers and in the past has been accused of censoring political emails. Verizon prevented text messages from NARAL from going to customers who had requested the messages on the basis that Verizon thought they were "controversial."

Net neutrality means a free and open internet and the freedom to choose what content you read and what applications you use. The internet has always been an arena of democracy where every person could speak up and be heard and Congress can ensure this is protected by supporting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.

Comcast recently released new "terms of service" which clearly spell out their intention to censor free speech.  Anything that a reasonable person would consider indecent has the potential of being blocked. 

The company also stated that their network is not good enough to hold space for all the activity that their customers need, therefore they plan to "delay" access for peer-to-peer applications during the most congested times.

With the Internet out there without protection from the telecoms, these corporations have carved out their spaces and made competition and innovation moot.  Remember, these are the reasons set out there for deregulation in the first place.  Without competition and innovation, there is no reason for the telecoms to improve their networks, even enough to provide their customers with basic access.

Comcast's new terms of service: A recipe for discrimination

Can you freak me out now?

I always thought those ads with the Verizon "network" following around its customers was a bit creepy, and now I know why. It was a bit too much like George Orwell's 1984 and Big Brother, only it wasn't the government always watching you, it is a corporation.

Recently someone at Verizon Wireless took it upon themselves to decide that a text message campaign from NARAL could not go to its customers. Verizon decided that discussing the right of women to choose is too "controversial or unsavory" to allow their customers to participate. Never mind that individual customers signed up for these text messages from NARAL. Verizon will decide for its customers what they should be able to read.

How far will this go? That "can you hear me now?" guy seems to really get around, so I can imagine him checking any message any time. Will his picture come up on your phone screen when you turn it on and say "I'm watching you"?

Verizon operates its network on airwaves that the public owns. It is a privilege that we allow them to have, and in return, they have no right to take away our own decisions about what messages we send or receive. But technically, they do have that right due to the FCC allowing them to put it in their contracts their customers have to sign.

This is wrong. And it needs to stop immediately.

While Verizon backed off after so much public criticism of its action, there is no guarantee they won't do more of this and do it more surreptitiously.

The FCC is supposed to be protecting the communications rights of "we the people" - not "they the corporations."  It's time for Chairman Kevin Martin & his colleagues to do their job and crack down on - or better yet, prohibit -- this behavior.  

This certainly could be a cop-out for the real reason why the military does not want its personnel on the social networking sites. They would like to have full control over the public's perception of the war. By restricting these sites, along with the blogosphere, they are able to keep alive their "rosy picture" on how the war is going.

How well are a Comcast employee's nap, censorship, and Net Neutrality related?

Very closely, it turns out.

Earlier this month, ABC's Nightline did a segment on abuse of consumers by large corporations, featuring a video of a Comcast employee who fell asleep on a customer's couch while he was supposed to be making repairs.  The segment also showed anti-Comcast websites and reported that Comcast hires people to monitor such sites, as Timothy Karr reports on SavetheInternet.com.

However, when the Nightline episode appeared on Comcast's video-on-demand service, the "sleepy technician" video and the remarks critical of Comcast had mysteriously disappeared.

Compare the original Nightline version with Comcast's version.

Are you reading this blog from work right now?

Last month we told you about the arraignment of Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher.  Accused of hiring political supporters for protected state jobs, Fletcher pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges of conspiracy, official misconduct, and political discrimination.

Well, Governor Fletcher has recently reappeared in the news by restricting access to blogs from Kentucky's 34,000 state employees.

Administration officials claim that the move is an effort to curb excessive blog-reading in the workplace, and efficiency experts look favorably on the decision.  In addition to blogs, other categories of websites have been blocked, including humor and sports pages.

But bloggers charge that the censorship is nothing more than a violation of the free speech of those critical of Fletcher's administration.  After Mark Nickolas, owner of the Kentucky-based blog bluegrassreport.org, criticized Fletcher in a New York Times article, 1,000 state employees found that they could no longer access his blog.  A constitutional fight looms ahead:

Undoubtedly, we will continue to hear more in the ongoing debate about the role of blogs in our political landscape.