Tax Reform ATR believes that all consumed income should be taxed one time, at one low and flat rate. Link
GET INVOLVED
ATR ON TWITTER
FOLLOW US-
Labor Unions Turn Against Obamacare http://t.co/Q6fA9Xnx5r
May 21, 2013 04:16 PM
taxreformer -
Weaponized Audits: If the Fed Does It, Why Wouldn't the States? http://t.co/OztBipx1xw
May 20, 2013 09:31 AM
taxreformer -
How would you fix the federal tax code? @simplertaxes wants to hear: http://t.co/l1VmdjO2mE #RATEreform
May 19, 2013 06:30 PM
taxreformer -
Obamacare Flashback: IRS "determining who to audit and who not to": http://t.co/Y3QQhdVmYX
May 19, 2013 06:00 PM
taxreformer -
The #KeystoneXL Pipeline isn't going to build itself, Sec. Kerry: http://t.co/xWYHWYGxkm
May 19, 2013 05:30 PM
taxreformer -
ATR Urges Virginia Candidates to Support Repeal of Gov. McDonnell's Tax Hike: http://t.co/8ENkqOlelO
May 19, 2013 05:00 PM
taxreformer -
The incompetent IRS is clearly unfit to handle these new #Obamacare tax hikes: http://t.co/lyzThNil3N
May 19, 2013 03:00 PM
taxreformer -
Yes, this town actually banned styrofoam: http://t.co/Upjes6JZ2L
May 19, 2013 02:30 PM
taxreformer -
Nobody likes red tape. Thankfully, @RepGarrett is taking steps to cut it: http://t.co/dAMtRAWokI
May 19, 2013 02:00 PM
taxreformer -
Giving the IRS more authority sounds lovely, doesn't it?: http://t.co/Y3QQhdVmYX
May 19, 2013 01:30 PM
taxreformer
Email
PrintDoes “Net Neutrality” Violate The First Amendment?
Nick Dranias, Director of The Goldwater Institute's Centre For Constitutional Government, poses the question of whether so-called “net-neutrality” (AKA government internet takeover) regulations, as proposed by FCC Chairman Genachowski, violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Dranias notes that:
“In Comcast Cablevision v. Broward County, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks struck down a county ordinance that forced a cable company to give its competitors equal access to its communication infrastructure. Much like advocates of net neutrality argue today, the county government argued that its “open access” ordinance did not offend the First Amendment because it ensured the transmission of more, rather than less, information by more companies. Judge Middlebrooks rejected that argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing owners of communication infrastructure to transmit information against their will. He also held that government has no power to force the distribution—or “circulation”—of information because “[l]iberty of circulating is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, but also to delivery of information by means of fiber optics, microprocessors and cable.”
He concludes by comparing net neutrality to “forcing a printer to publish books, newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets on the government’s terms. And when it comes to government seizing command and control over freedom of the press, the First Amendment is anything but neutral.”
Yet another reason that net neutrality is a very, very bad idea.
