HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Facebook Protection Amend... » Reply #4
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 12:47 AM

4. But what is Walden (R-OR) saying here?

You don't protect the consumer, and there are many of us who after this debate concludes and moves on, would be happy to work with you on legislation because I think this is a real issue that we all share, and that is protecting privacy. This doesn't do that.


What does the bill say to which the Repukes are objecting?

Here's the text of the amendment:
Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy, including requirements in such rule that prohibit licensees or regulated entities from mandating that job applicants or employees disclose confidential passwords to social networking Web sites.


Seems pretty straight forward to me. What's with these Repugnants that they want employers to be able to pry into people's private lives? But of course, we already know that they want to interpose government and employers into women's contraception decisions, so why not this?

God damn it! When is President Obama going to say that enough is enough? After all, this is apparently becoming a very important political issue for the Repugnant party. How can Obama keep his eyes closed to this?

Am I crazy? Or is this something that should just be a done deal?

Help me here, please somebody!

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.