From Neal Boortz's website:

KEEPING CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

I've told you in the past about the United Nations' efforts to wrestle control over the Internet away from the United States.  The idea that the UN would be put in charge of the Internet is more than a disaster...it's downright frightening.  But there may be good news.

Yesterday, at something called the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia, delegates at the U.N. meeting agreed to establish a new forum to discuss Internet issues, but it would have no policy-making powers --- for now.  Translation: the U.N. is not taking over the Internet, at least not yet.  Imagine how disastrous it would be for the UN to control the Internet.  For example, would they censor content?  Would you be allowed to criticize Muslims on the new U.N.-controlled Internet?  Remember, the United Nations' own Human Rights Declaration only permits free speech and freedom of the press so long as what is being said or written does not "interfere with the goals and purposes of the United Nations." 

For an anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Democratic institution like the U.N. to be put in charge of really what is the last bastion of pure free speech on Earth would ruin the Internet.  Some in Congress remain skeptical of the U.N.'s latest move, saying this forum is one step closer to them taking over the Internet.  We'll have to keep an eye on that.

Hopefully people are now aware of the issue and won't forget. It also goes without saying that the reason the Internet is prospering is probably because we're in charge of it.

Also ... if you're one of those who believe that this could never happen, that the UN could never get control of the Internet ... just remember the Panama Canal.

http://boortz.com/images/funny/get_off_my_internet.jpg

ALSO:

You do realize that there's a meeting going on right now ... a meeting of world leaders dedicated to the proposition of seizing control of the Internet from the United States. Too many people are asleep at the switch on this one.

More on the attempt by the U.N. to seize control of the Internet. Apparently the effort is being met with cheers from the dictators of the world.

The article makes excellent and valid points.  I don't always agree with Neal, but he's got his information straight on this one.

To say that the UN is anti-US, anti-Isreal, and anti-democracy is a bit off the wall IMHO.  That many nations of the world are opposed to current US policy does not make them anti-US.  To suggest that the fact that many nations are frustrated that Isreal refuses  to comply with UN resolution makes them anti-Isreal, and I can't figure out where the anti-democracy swill comes from.  In fact, one could argue that the US use of its veto on the Security Council, which we have used to block the will of the majority, is the height of anti-democratic behaviour.

In fact, one could argue that the US use of its veto on the Security Council, which we have used to block the will of the majority, is the height of anti-democratic behaviour.


I thought that was set up to protect the right of the minority.  Democrats seemed to talk about that all the time during the filibuster debate.

In fact, one could argue that the US use of its veto on the Security Council, which we have used to block the will of the majority, is the height of anti-democratic behaviour.


I would agree, except for one thing.  The US is not the only nation with veto power.

At this time, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States all have veto power.  In fact, without the granting of this power most of the major signatories would have not joined the UN in the first place.  Both the US and USSR refused to join the UN without this power.  And without them, the UN would simply have been "The Leage Of Nations II", which was totally impotant.  Now, we have an organization which is only 50% impotant.