Rand Paul Defends Internet Freedom


rand-paul-constitution-patriot-actOn Thursday, Senator Rand Paul delivered a speech on internet freedom at the Heritage Foundation. While not claiming to be an expert in technology, he has begun to immerse himself in looking at issues in regards to internet regulation and his opinion is no different from his father’s and that is less regulation is better and look to keep the federal government out of it all together. Sen. Paul also got a huge laugh from the crowd when he added to his comments, “I did not invent the internet.”

Rob Bluey set the stage for the speech in his column,

One of those declarations attracted the support of hundreds of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum. Its broad language won over a diverse mix of supporters that ranged from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Patrick Ruffini on the right to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Eli Pariser on the left.

The other declaration proclaimed to be the free-market vision for Internet freedom. Spearheaded by TechFreedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, it sought to clarify why government shouldn’t interfere with the Internet. It served as a contrast to the more ambiguous declaration that liberals will predictably use to push net neutrality.

Conservatives need clarity on the issue — and a champion of the cause. Four years ago, Sen. John McCain’s campaign couldn’t even find a surrogate to represent the presidential candidate at Wired’s debate on tech policy.

That can’t happen again in 2012. And that’s why Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) plays such an important role. As a freshman lawmaker and tea-party conservative, Paul is stepping up to the plate to lead on the issue. His supporters at the Campaign for Liberty have endorsed the free-market declaration and are rallying libertarian-leaning activists to embrace the issue.

An online document titled Declaration of Internet Freedom provides a quick insight into just what is meant but such a position, so that there is no misunderstanding:

We believe freedom to be an essential condition of human flourishing and technological progress. We see the Internet (and digital services in general) as the vehicle for the greatest expansion of freedom in human history to date. Yet we recognize that the “Internet” of tomorrow may look nothing like the Internet of today. No one can plan the Internet’s evolution. The best policymakers can do is to respect the following core principles of “Internet Freedom”

In that declaration there are eight principle pillars of internet freedom: Humility, Rule of Law, Free Expression, Innovation, Broadband, Openness, Competition, and Privacy. Each of these are clearly defined so that they cannot be contrued as something that they are not.

Senator Paul, in expounding on a few of these pillars, was also joined by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a leading conservative, who will serve as co-chairman of the platform committee at the RNC.

Paul launched right into the issue by pointing out that the biggest issue at stake is privacy, or what the Fourth Amendment refers to as ‘security.’ While I wished Senator Paul had read Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book It’s Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong to respond to naysayers of privacy, he did make a valid point and that was that though the use of the term ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution, neither is the “right to private property.” To be clear though, both are inherently in the document.

But he did follow up very well in stating that the Constitution was to limit the scope and power of the federal government and granted them certain powers and what it didn’t grant them was left to the states. He also pointed out that rights were specific to individuals and that not all rights are contained in the Bill of Rights. These, he said, come from God, our Creator and they “precede the Constitution.” This is what the Ninth Amendment was for:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

He also stood up for those who were intimately involved in inventing the internet and he said by people claiming that government invented the internet is not true and demeans the individuals involved in its creation, which is what should be extolled.

Paul said that government is not “agile,” which is what is needed if they were to construct any type of regulation simply because of the speed in which changes in technology take place.

He said that internet companies and people who work in the internet should be protected from anti-trust lawsuits by government. His illustration was that large companies that might share information in order to stop internet attacks on their sites should not be at risk of a lawsuit by the government and I agree. They shouldn’t be. He also said it should work the other way around. If government computers are getting attacked by “viruses or worms” then they should share that information with private companies on exactly how they are being attacked so that those companies can guard against it.

Senator Paul also said he did not like the way that government employs regulation in the first place. They are not narrow and specific at times and this will translate over into a large federal government writing massive legislation to solve a simply problem, which would open up “Pandora’s box” according to Paul. We saw just this this week when the Senate Democrats tried to sneak in gun control in a cybersecurity bill.

This is only the beginning, and much like his father, I’m sure we’ll be hearing more on this subject and the promotion of freedom and liberty when it comes to the internet from Senator Paul rather than more government regulation, which will only impede the internet and the people.





  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Barney/100000502045724 Victor Barney

    MAY YOU BE BLESSED RAND, BUT “DOOMSDAY” IS THE DYE(DIE) THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN CAST, ALTHOUGH DEFINITELY NOT CAST BY YOU RAND! WATCH, ESPECIALLY STARTING SEPTEMBER 16, 2012 for the two-witnesses of Revelation, chapter 11 to APPEAR because YAHSHUA, meaning in the ONLY inspired language, Hebrew, that “YAHWEH(YHWH) MEANS SALVATION!” AGAIN, WATCH!

  • sean murry

    They want to control people knowledge is power and they want to control the masses is threaten.

  • JR1965

    LEQAVE OUR FREEDOMS ALONE GET YOUR NOSE OUT OF MY BUSINESS AND FIX YOURS. How can I expect a blind politician lead a nation in the right way. Wake up or leave.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    The progs have been relentless in pursuit of total control of everything, but especially the last bastion of total freedom (within civil law, anyhow) of the internet. They already monitor every keystroke, video and cellphone call in a massive tech center out west. If they find an effective ‘off’ button, you can bet Zero or the next prog in the WH will use it, should ‘takeover day’ by the government arrive. Already he’s tried that ‘test’ of total control of the media, has he not?

  • capitalust

    All governments will ALWAYS try to control the availability of information. Powerful, extreme forms of government such as communism will attempt to have total control. There are two reasons for this: 1) knowledge is power; and 2) their ability to control the masses is threatened and undermined by the free flow of information. The Internet is the greatest free flow of information among individuals ever. It is also the source of great economic growth and development. Governments instinctively hate the Internet and want to control it, like they already do the press, education and TV. All previous channels have a small number of people controlling content, which provides easy choke points that allow government control. The Internet is DECENTRALIZED. No one company (or small number of companies) owns it, or controls it. Governments (even China) have had a very hard time finding choke points to control it with. For too long, governments have had the power of mainframes and giant databases to track and monitor our every move and action. Personal computers, connected to the Internet, and easily capable of military grade cryptography, are little freedom machines that restore the balance of power to individuals. No one personal computer is as powerful as their mainframes, but there are millions more personal computers in the hands of individuals. The Internet links them together into something many orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than ALL of their machines and databases, and provides the antidote. They are the Colt 45′s of the information age – the great equalizers. OF COURSE the government wants to control their use, and the networks that control them. Clinton and Gore (via the FBI) tried to control all non-government use of encryption (to insure they would always have a back door key) via the Clipper Chip. Fortunately that assault on freedom and the Internet failed – but we have far more evil and powerful people in charge now. Every individual must learn to keep and bear the arms of the information age – learn how to communicate privately and anonymously using them. The tools are out there for anyone to use. Details are available at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Support Rand in his efforts to prevent the government from obtaining total “information control” along with “gun control”. Once those two are gone, there is no way to recover short of total civil war against the governing class, and THEY will have all the weapons.

    • don

      This president has been trained by communists throughout his whole life, so naturally he would want to eliminate information contrary to his point of total control. Besides the internet, the next control would include conservative talk show hosts and what is left of fox news. Fox lost its greatest source of truth about obama and the communist and radical muslim organizations surrounding him, when Glenn Beck left. O’reilly and greta are so ignorant, partly because of all their p.c. guests and lack of rebuttal information.