Fiorina: Government has to regulate “wild west” Internet
posted at 2:45 pm on October 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s bad enough that the Left wants to regulate the Internet through “net neutrality” interventions. Now we have Republicans talking about regulating the Internet in order to protect “women and children.” Carly Fiorina told an audience in San Francisco that the “duality” would have to end:
She mentioned that politicians should be held accountable just the way that business managers and board members are, and that the U.S. government cannot continue to spend money without dealing with entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Fiorina criticized Boxer for successfully sponsoring only three relatively insignificant bills in her 18 years in the Senate.
“I don’t think that’s good enough,” she said.
Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it. Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.
What protections do women need on the Internet that they have off of it? After all, the Internet can’t mug you, or worse. It’s a forum for free speech and commerce, which makes it no different than the shopping mall in most respects, except that the parking situation doesn’t stink. There is nothing on the Internet from which women need protecting that they don’t access on their own, and no threat different from those facing men on the Internet.
As for children, everyone understands that children’s access to the Internet should be supervised — by parents. That’s just as true for the Internet as it is for the television, or for reading material, or for that matter, the aforementioned shopping mall. We don’t regulate bookstores on the basis that children might enter it and shouldn’t see The Joy of Sex or Valley of the Dolls. Parents should parent their children; governments should not parent anyone.
It’s almost as if Fiorina is equating “women” and “children” in terms of their ability to navigate the world, and especially in terms of potential victimhood. Obviously, I don’t speak for women, but I would not be surprised if women found that kind of construct offensive, especially these days.
We have enough Democrats pushing a nanny state on us, especially in this Congress. The last thing we need is a Republican candidate for the Senate running on the promise to make the Intertubes safe for the wimminfolk.
Update: Should have been, “I would not be surprised …” I fixed it above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Boxer is the far-lefter. Not Dianne.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I definitely need my internet use monitored. I cant trust my fingers, they keep taking me to this weird site called hotair.com. Help me Fiorina, you are my only hope!! :)
deepinthought on October 21, 2009 at 6:38 PM
CALIFORNIA YOU ARE ROYALLY SCREWED BY ELECTING SUCH GLOBALISTS WHO WANT OT CONTROL THE WEB!
BobAnthony on October 21, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Say goodbye, Carly. Not interested in you no more.
drunyan8315 on October 21, 2009 at 6:41 PM
This is the end of Fiorina’s campaign. It’s toast. She was fired from HP for good reason and her incompetent campaign just reminds people why.
Django on October 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM
An outstanding example of how HP was killed.
lsheldon on October 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Most definitely.
I’ve always categorized Dianne as moderate-conservative on security & defense and liberal on social issues.
Plus, she’s always been a pretty reliable supporter of our military.
The Ugly American on October 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM
That “Carlyfornia” thing? heh…not sure if she’s still using it. But she doesn’t seem that sharp, so…
JetBoy on October 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM
And an example of why we needed the term DIABLO to get rid of the “R” in RINO.
I don’t know who to thank for that coinage–Steyn? I got it from HolyCoast
lsheldon on October 21, 2009 at 6:53 PM
She is. Dianne is my “realistic” meets reality vote.
I think she’s good discipline, frankly.
Carly is still losing me as someone with commonsense.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I am not interested in any politician who can’t spit it out at this stage.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM
I’m not that riled up by the internet regulation stuff. (For one thing, it’s curious that the ‘offensive’ bit is paraphrased, not quoted. I wonder if it was misrepresented to some extent.) My interpretation — and understanding — is that there are currently loopholes in laws that cover some forms of communication, like the mail and tv, that don’t cover internet communications. I’m not particularly worried about the government closing loopholes that merely exist because a certain technology was not invented when the laws were written.
I am bothered by this quote, however:
“People give their loyalty to those who give them security and opportunity,” she said.
And bothered that it was made on the heels of her supporting Obama’s “strategy” (putting it generously, imho) in Afghanistan.
Sounds like she is a firm believer in entitlements.
Y-not on October 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM
I don’t understand. Women want equality with men, but need protection from the internet???
Unfortunately today’s “liberated” woman is certainly not a lady. I’ve heard many swear like truck drivers, and evidently they hand it out free now, not even making a guy work for it. In short, many are pigs.
Jeff from WI on October 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Cold dead hands, whore.
HornetSting on October 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Buh Bye Carly….
highninside on October 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM
That’s what we in East Tennessee politely call a load of cow manure. Feinstein is an enemy of the Second Amendment. As far as I am concerned both of them came from under the same slimy rock. At best Feinstein is a mixed bag; at worst she would send the ATF to you door to collect your firearms (she has said as much).
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it.”
Pelayo on October 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I need to state fairly that DF’s statement was about “assault weapons.”
Pelayo on October 21, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Internet succeeds… women and children hardest hit… News at 11…
It’s really sad when they get so predictable that they drag out this dead horse of an argument.
UnderstandingisPower on October 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Carly for dog catcher 2012!
Lisa on October 21, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Thank GOODNESS! (in a witto bitty voice) I jus’ cain’t care fo’ masef no mo’!
Start packin’, Fiorina.
Yellowdog12 on October 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Now she has to remind us that she pre-installed the F-Up 1.0 management software suite at Hewlett-Packard a few years ago.
viking01 on October 21, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Yes that was DiFi’s comment about so called assault weapons, but she like all Statists is an incrementalist too. One thing at a time until they get the whole ball of wax. First a class of firearm, then some ammo, soon the whole Second Amendment is gone.
Cal needs to support Chuck DeVore and get the man some money to fight “Call me Senator” Boxer!
Call for the hook on the New Majority Carly!
InTheBellyoftheBeast on October 21, 2009 at 7:55 PM
So her argument is to replace a slow evil liberal with a fast evil liberal. She’s as appealing as an outsourced mainboard.
Feedie on October 21, 2009 at 7:56 PM
… and playing the part made famous by Cleavon Little in “Blazing Saddles” — your very own president Barrack Hussein Obama Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmm … “Where all the white women at?” I swear, sometimes this whole country seems to be stuck in one long extended Mel Brooks tasteless joke.
WashingtonsWake on October 21, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Duly noted and truly offended as a woman.
If Carly really thinks the government needs to step in and do the parents’ job in the supervision of children, then she might get elected in California. But she wouldn’t in Tennessee.
Webutante on October 21, 2009 at 8:13 PM
You’re perfectly ok with comcast, att, etc. using “tiered bandwidth” to decide what information I can access via the internet?
jdkchem on October 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Oh goodie! Olympia Snowe on the other coast. Oh, yeah… didn’t she work on McCain’s campaign?
CC
CapedConservative on October 21, 2009 at 8:48 PM
What a bizzare thing to say. Maybe we need a little electronic security guard on the screen to protect us, like the Microsoft paperclip?
mbs on October 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM
FU Carly Fiorina! Go to hell!
daesleeper on October 21, 2009 at 8:53 PM
RINO’s Charging! Time to get out the figurative elephant guns and thin the herd of people like Carly.
chicagoray on October 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Aren’t bigger companies already able to use edge caching to speed the delivery of their content to the end user? Should the government prevent network providers from signing service level agreements with content providers that guarantee a certain amount of bandwidth along their backbone?
I agree with overall goals of net neutrality and don’t want to see a small group of companies stifle innovation in the same way Microsoft did to the desktop for about a decade.
The best work the government can do is making sure markets remain competitive. If consumers have choices then the government can stay out of content issues.
dedalus on October 21, 2009 at 9:31 PM
So states the business failure who road her business into the ground with bad decisions, negatively affecting the lives of thousands while living a pampered rock-star life. Clueless is as clueless does, her failure now is believing her buzz.
ray on October 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM
The republicans are doomed, as are we.
Dave R. on October 21, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Another RINO who just doesn’t get it.
Skipper50 on October 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Sounds as if she has very limited knowlege of the internet. Probably hasn’t figured out that one can change web sites or…just shut the computer et al off. sarc/
jeanie on October 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM
chicagoray on October 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM
A 458 should do it. Right?
Yellowdog12 on October 21, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Would one of you big strong men hold my hand and guide me on my surf through the big bad ol’ internet tonight. I’m just a bitsy little gal who will just swooooon. /sarc off.
Good Lord – do these nitwits in gov really think women need protecting on the internet? What a load of bullshite. And Ed is 100% right – its up to PARENTS to monitor their children’s activities – not just the internet, but all their activities.
I haven’t taken time to read the other comments here yet. My opinion about this is – I’m livid. HANDS OFF my internet fools! And anyone, whether they be right or left, should have better sense than to try to “regulate” it. Let’s see this for what it truly is – a thinly veilded attempt to follow the yellow brick road (aka screw capitalism and steal away profit from the entrepreneurs of America).
fullogas on October 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Dave R. on October 21, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Republicans may be doomed, but we are not. It’s time they pay attention and understand the reality of conservatism. Will we pay for it? Probably, but it will be better in the long run. They are trying to be all things for all people. We need another Reagan. “My way or the highway, this is how it’s going to be, this is America and don’t you ever forget it” kind of stuff. We’ll win some.
It starts locally. I’m meeting with the JP candidates, then County Commish, then Mayor. We have a big election in TX next year, hopefully one of them will be a true conservative. We’ll find out soon enough. I’m sending money to conservatives in other states to support their efforts. It will take time but it will be SO worth it in the end.
I attended a policy meeting this past weekend. They urged us to look 10 – 15 years into the future. We must concentrate on that time frame. YES, let’s make changes as we can now, but let’s keep our eyes on the prize and on the future.
The ‘Jacka** in charge’ cannot kill our collective spirit. THAT is what we hang on to.
Yellowdog12 on October 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Uh, yes, parents can monitor kids’ activities on the internet – its called a computer PASSWORD.
fullogas on October 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM
… Gee, when was the last time a Republican candidate or politician advocated violating the Constitution? This afternoon? Maybe as far back as this yesterday morning? True, on average they’re far better than Democrats – especially these days – but the Republican Party definitely needs to clean house. The Hoffman-Scozzafava duel in NY’s Disctrict 23 is clear evidence of that.
JDPerren on October 21, 2009 at 10:44 PM
“Where are all the white women at ?
J_Crater on October 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Disgusting. You would think a woman from the tech industry would know better. She sure the heck doesn’t speak for me or my daughter (or my sons for that matter), we can take care of ourselves, on or off the Internet.
I’m an IT professional specializing in web-based applications and the Internet has never scared me for any reason, except maybe some developer’s bad code.
If you don’t want to see smut on the Internet, buy a content-filter. If you don’t want your children seeing certain things, supervise their surfing. Don’t punish the rest of us with nanny laws because you’re too weak to take of yourself and your own.
Common Sense on October 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Not a spit’s worth of difference between the gun-banning hypocrit and Boxer.
rayra on October 21, 2009 at 11:03 PM
She\’s right! The Internet does need more regulation.Right now anyone can say anything on the Internet. You can buy almost anything on the Internet. Limited only by your ability to find it. (It\’s all there, you just have to know where to look)I mean, stuff like this could lead to people thinking they could carry guns and respecting property rights.It\’s just too dangerous and we need our smart and morally superior government to look out for us.You know, it\’s all fun and games until someone forgets to file the proper form before speaking.
schmuck281 on October 21, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Carly, if you’d kept your mouth shut I might have voted for you.
And Feinstein may have “supported” the military, but since she opposes the causes they fight for (like the Constitution), they she betrays them every day.
Merovign on October 21, 2009 at 11:40 PM
When people in California are talking about a 3rd party,it is the current crop of big money Country Club Republicans, like Fiorina, that are leading that charge.
With Boxer (carpetbagging cap-n-tax enviro whacko) and Feinstein ( I never met a conservative candidate for the supreme court whose wife I could not make cry with my insipid foul mouth ), California is represented by two of the most loathsome senators ever.
I will let other commenters try to pry these two apart.
Freddy on October 21, 2009 at 11:46 PM
This woman is an idiot!
Hobbes on October 21, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Oops. I think she might want to hit the delete button and try that speech again. She just lost quite a bit of support. Californians can be a bit on the nutty side, but I would hazard to guess even the liberals wouldn’t support her on this stance. Now she’s lost any conservative support she may have had…(notice I didn’t say Republican).
I am incredulous many politicians haven’t figured out what the Tea Parties represented…she truly doesn’t or won’t understand the anger these average Americans are feeling. I’m one of these protestors and the message is simple: “Get out of our lives and let us govern ourselves. We don’t NEED you to become our nanny. You serve us, we don’t serve you”. Maybe the elected officials and candidates do know, but they just don’t care. I haven’t decided which it is, ignorance or elitism. Perhaps it’s a combination of both.
manateespirit on October 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ORWELLIAN NUTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on October 22, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Should it not be obvious to all that FREEDOM is where we can make our stand to differentiate ourselves from the Democrats? It’s a simple concept, and most of us want it. Make them argue against it.
Between this and NY 23, I just don’t know what to say.
Nosferightu on October 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM
But But But…we need the government to do it for us. We are too dumb to look at the internet ourselves. We don’t know how to properly supervise our children. Government officials need to teach us in a re-education camp.
nazo311 on October 22, 2009 at 12:45 AM
No wonder she ran HP into the ground. I’m getting really tired of people running as republicans simply because someone is running as a democrat already. Can the GOP make themselves look worse this week?
chicagojedi on October 22, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Her use of the term “wild west” says it all. These fascist twits know that the internet is the final frontier of free speech.
They have to control it…
labrat on October 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Sorry Carly…you just blew it…But thanks for playin’…
ornery_independent on October 22, 2009 at 1:12 AM
People keep talking about “free markets” and how if you dont like your ISP you can just choose another one. Really? Is that what you guys think? Anyone here actually know how many services are available in their area?
Fact of the matter is that local governments have already created local monopolies with regards to ISPs. Now that in itself is understandable as the logistics of having many different companies all lay down the same infrastructure to provide the same service is akin to building 5 roads over each other.
If you are going to create these monopolies, a policy that is obviously not very “free market,” how do you expect to maintain what there would be if there were a free market? The only option is regulation. It sucks, but if you are going to have a non-free market industry it needs to live up to free market standards. If not then you run into the issue of rampant monopolies doing what they want with no option of any competition to bring them down to earth.
Simply: there is no competition. With this type of service competition wont work. Therefore, what we have now is a system where we have created monopolies and strive to keep the market as close to what a free market would be. It sucks, it is very anti free market, but it is the best that we have.
So why does net-neutrality matter? Lets say my local ISP is sponsored by the Huffington Post. In return my local ISP re-routs all political news blogs to the Huffington Post. Bye bye Hot Air. What are my free market options? Switch ISPs? Nope, no freaking competition. Even if I have the option between cable and DSL, they all will have their own little deals, and they are two distinctly different services, each with its own additional (understandable) service charges to set up a new connection.
So what am I to do? Move? The “free market” really dictates that in order to have competition I need to move? That is what you think the free market is?
How about the major conflict of interest these ISPs have now that they wish to not only be ISPs but content providers as well? With net-neutrality you have content choice. Without it you are unable to access HULU because comcast wants to push their own video on demand service.
http://www.comcast.net/tv/on-demand/
This whole thing is a major mess, but it is a mess that we created. If we wont have free market competition, and let me stress that we DO NOT, then it is ridiculous to say that the free market will fix what the free market would have fixed if there was an actual free market.
This whole thing IS a slippery slope, and what I wish would happen would be that the FCC JUST release information so that consumers are aware of what is actually going on as it is their local governments that set up these monopolies and is fully within their sovereign right to regulate their infrastructure and cities and not the right of the Federal government, but that is just wishful thinking.
People dont care about law and government until it actually affects them. So we will have these monopolies that the people unwittingly set up start to change their service in a manner that they do not like, and only then will people actually care to do something. I dont know, maybe that is how it should be. I just wish people cared about it now.
But in the meantime I must go against my ideal for of liberty and governance and support this regulation. I think this is the only way to avoid what will be a very bad period in which service will be cut with no competition or choice to save us. The worst part about this is that I sound exactly like a “the public is stupid and must be controlled” liberal and it sickens me. Talk about a slippery slope…
EconomicPirate on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Just to be clear, the above post has NOTHING to do with Fiorina.
EconomicPirate on October 22, 2009 at 1:20 AM
No wonder Fiorina almost ran H-P into the ground.
She doesn’t know the difference between a bug and feature.
agmartin on October 22, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Now we understand why she was run out of HP.
Fed45 on October 22, 2009 at 4:00 AM
I don’t feel your pain but I share it. Corporate and political elites fear and loathe the free Internet. Who knows what its evil tentacles might dredge up about affirmatively-actioned corporate-slime politician wannabes?
Corporate giantism, with its concentrations of economic power, can be as abusive as Big Government, in its narrow economic specialties. The two feed on each other at our expense. Too often, the goal isn’t to compete, but to stifle competition by lobbying, lawsuits, and dirty tricks. I read about Canada’s problem of a telecom giant throttling the traffic of small ISPs.
One answer to society’s political division is for ordinary citizens of both parties to separate the ideas of capitalism and free markets from oppressive corporatism — with its multiple disconnects of distant decisions, bureaucracy, financially unaccountable elites, support of anti-free market causes, and disparate impacts on individual communities. Leftists use these things to make people hate capitalism while conservatives make corporations a synonym for the “free market.” Very few conservative talkers attempt the subtle argument, but it solved some questions for me about things that don’t pass the smell test. When we regain representative government, limits need to be set along the lines of traditional morals, ethics, and competition.
Corporations do many good things for society, but it’s especially dangerous for conservatives to ignore the shadow side of these things.
Feedie on October 22, 2009 at 4:33 AM
Government hates the internet.
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign would have been impossible without it.
Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 5:45 AM
What she said is a deal killer as far as I´m concerned.
el gordo on October 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM
Ditto for Palin’s influence. Even after she quit, the lady wields a tremendous amount of power. No Facebook, no blogs, etc…she would have faded into semi-obscurity.
The communication enabled by the ‘net is the final hope for a candidate who isn’t a rubber-stamped RINO/DINO. Take that away and peaceful change becomes completely impossible, given how screwed up the USA has become. Not even TV and radio together could replace it’s influence, and that assumes one has the money to get enough face/voice time!
Dark-Star on October 22, 2009 at 7:29 AM
This woman a Republican?? Did Newt endorse her opinion?
No,, it’s not inevitable. What is inevitable is that big government types like this woman will continue to try and expand their controls over every aspect of our lives as much as possible!!
What woman and children need is protection from people like this woman!! Communism and Fascism has killed far more women and children throughout our history than has free speech!!
The internet threatens only those who want to control the message. That is the problem. And it is not inevitable that free speech will be regulated. They hope by repeating this line they will implant the “inevitable” message in people’s minds.
The only inevitable message that needs to be pushed is that the days of power are numbered for people who want to continue to shred the freedoms our constitution protects!
JellyToast on October 22, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Excellent.
For those that think they can change the GOP then you need to become a Precinct Committeeman. Here’s a site with the details. They are the ones that have the real power at the local level. Even if you can’t change the leadership from within it still sends a strong message that people have had enough and that a third party threat is real.
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/
True_King on October 22, 2009 at 8:08 AM
We need to elect people who understand that the people need to regulate the government.
Period.
Saltysam on October 22, 2009 at 8:10 AM
Does anyone know what net neutrality actually is? How will it impact the users of the internet? Is it good or bad for business? Is it good or bad for the average person? How will the government benefit from passage of net neutrality?
kanda on October 22, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Aren’t there any Republicans(Democrats would be too much to hope for)out there who live by Thomas Jefferson’s “The Government that governs least governs best” philosophy? I’m a Libertarian for that reason alone. Don’t these aholes get that they work for us? I have many times liked what Fiorina espoused, but this is just STUPID…
I’ve written on here a number of times that everyone should read Wayne Allen Root’s “Conscience of a Libertarian” based on true conservative Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative”. Wayne’s plan for term limits and higher pay to prevent corruption are right on the mark. I wish his message of conservatism was being promoted by someone.ANYONE….His collaboration with the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation has come up with a REAL conservative vision for America, one the Founding Fathers would be proud of, instead of the reelection game played by both parties now. One can only hope….
adamsmith on October 22, 2009 at 9:05 AM
How to protect children on the Internet = how to protect them from TV. Teach them discernment and good judgment of right and wrong, and turn off the computer if they find something they shouldn’t see.
As for protecting “women”–women are adults, and should know to log off if someone threatens them over the Internet. To my knowledge, a computer monitor has never attacked a woman. People can get into trouble with risky behavior and giving out information to strangers they can’t trust, but is that the fault of the Internet, or of people trusting strangers?
Fiorina doesn’t make sense here. If she was still CEO of Hewlett-Packard, wouldn’t government regulation of the Internet be bad for business?
Steve Z on October 22, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Isn’t this the woman who tapped the HP board’s phone calls?
davod on October 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
What do you expect from a woman that was promoted way beyond her abilities because of affirmative action and her internal plumbing instead of merit.
She left AT&T and Lucent after running the stock price up with questionable numbers and left with her huge golden parachute. She then was hired by HP and went on to run HP into the ground before shareholders demanded she be fired.
HP workers booed her at company meetings. The company electronic bulletin board was shut down after employees used this forum to attack Fiorina.
Maybe this is why she wants the internet regulated.
I urge anyone that thinks she would be a good candidate to read what the insiders at HP and Lucent thought of her. Here are some quotes:
Board chairs Fiorina and Dunn authorized investigations that resulted in criminal activity.Fiorina acted as an ethically neutral leader who gained a reputation for being self-centered. She was perceived as lacking compassion, integrity, and humility.HP had a set of values and principles that allowed it to prosper over six decades of technological change. The company lost the trust of its employees, investors, and the public by setting these ethical standards aside. The story of Carly Fiorina is a cautionary tale, revealing ethical shortcomings
What is the RNC thinking?
She would do the same thing to taxpayers that she did to two fortune 500 companies, loot them of millions while living high on the hog.
ScottyDog on October 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3