The “international community”, consisting of commie dictatorships and failed Muslim fiefdoms, Â have been pushing for this for years.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said even the biased mainstream media cannot justify the ultimate gift that President Barack Obama gave to authoritarian regimes and dictators around the world when he relinquished America’s control of the Internet last Friday. (Breitbart)
Palin said that this “is nothing more than a gift to authoritarian regimes who seek to stifle the freedom the internet gives to voices around the world fighting for basic human rights. No amount of Obama/liberal media spin can justify this.”
“Evidently relinquishing America’s control of the internet via our Icann control of domain names was what Obama meant when he led his adoring followers in those strange, kind of creepy chants of “Yes-We-Can.” PalinÂ wroteÂ in a Facebook post.Â “Surrendering our control of theÂ internet is a colossal foreign policy error with long term negative repercussions for freedom.”
Palin linked to anÂ articleÂ by Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak that explained why this is “the worst thing Obama has done in foreign policy by far.”
Â Pamela Geller:
Obama’s next offensive inÂ his war on freedom.
Global governance of the internet. “Global governance?” As in the UN? And who and what drives the UN? The largest world body drives the UN. Bat Ye’or describes the OIC this way, “The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah â€” the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body.”
The Organization of the Islamic Conference will undoubtedlyÂ demand the suppressionÂ of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and they won’t be referring to jihad forums that foment and incites to slaughter.
Atlas readers are well awareÂ of the goals of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The OIC has already gotten passed a proposal in the UN, backed by Muslim nations, urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism. Islam is the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
Websites like mine are the ones that dare speak of the truth of Islam and report on the jihad and the terrible human rights abuses, the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc. persecution, the suppression of women and children, the murder of non-believers, the brutal imposition of shariah law, Islamic supremacism, academic jihad, social jihad, cultural jihad, shariah finance, stealth jihad and the galloping global jihad. The corrupt media are already subdued and self-censor themselves. The net is all there is.
Back in 2009,Â Obama threatened such anti-freedom action; I blogged on this. He backed off after the American people and the Congress protested.
There have been no serious complaints about American
stewardship of the Internet, no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers.
But were we to abdicate this stewardship, a number of difficulties could arise.
Domain names sometimes present political questions. Which side in a civil war should control Pakistan’s Internet domain?Â Should Israel’s .il be suspended as
punishment for its being an “Apartheid state”?Â What about Taiwan’s .tw if China announces an attempt to “reabsorb its wayward province”?
Perhaps most serious, control of Internet names could become a lever to impose restrictions on Internet content. Many governments already attempt to
control speech on the Internet.Â Some years ago, Yahoo! was subject to criminal proceedings in France for allowing Nazi memorabilia to be auctioned on its
website. Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites, managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political oversight. Such blacklists can have unpredictable consequences: Wikipedia was badly degraded to British users for some hours because of a poorly designed censorship system targeting child pornography.
If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and a number of European countries may well go along.
Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards.Â Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here. Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies, they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.
And now Obama has done it. He had no right but the tin pot-head has gone and done it.
America’s Internet Surrender
By unilaterally retreating from online oversight, the White House pleased regimes that want to control the Web.
L. Gordon Crovitz,Â Wall Street Journal
March 18, 2014
The Internet is often described as a miracle of self-regulation, which is almost true.
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/03/obamas-internet-surrender-fate-worse-death-internet.html/#sthash.MjGxw92m.dpuf