Skip to comments.

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'

Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge

Posted on by wagglebee

China on Sunday imposed new media restrictions designed to limit the news and other information available to Internet users, sharply restricting the scope of content that can be posted on Web sites.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

Hillary Clinton Continued:

"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"

REPORTER: Sounds like you favor regulation.

MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.



TOPICS:

Crime/Corruption

Culture/Society

Extended News

Government

News/Current Events

KEYWORDS:

1998

2014election

2016election

bloggers

censorship

dictatorship

drudge

election2014

election2016

hillaryclinton

hillarytruthfile

impeached42

internet

netneutrality

newmedia

order66

x42

Hitlery, you're just going to have to get used to the fact that you and your minions no longer have control over what news is and isn't made public.



To: wagglebee

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton



To: wagglebee

Somewhere between freedom of the press and freedom of speech (by the way Ms. Clinton, these are covered in the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution--look it up), the right of the people to openly debate current events is undeniable. No matter how Ms. Stalin, I mean, Clinton tries, she'll never be able to get around that one......without appointing 6 or 7 likeminded individuals to the Supreme Court.



by 3 posted onby cincinnati65 (Just up the road a piece.......)

To: Proud_USA_Republican

Hillary gas a platform to run on in 2008...



Elect Hillary and she'll limit free speech!



To: wagglebee



Hitlery wants mind-control of the masses, the aphrodisiac of lefties everywhere. This would make a great campaign ad when she runs....



To: wagglebee

I don't have a clue Well, there is one statement I agree with her on.



To: wagglebee

Here is a pic for you, Sen. B***H!!



My sentiments exactly!



To: wagglebee

The Beast's internet "Rethink" : Get rid of those damn FReepers!



by 8 posted onby varyouga (Reformed Kerry voter (I know, I'm a frickin' idiot))

To: wagglebee

I'm a big pro-balance person Here, let me fix that. I'm a big pro- unbalanced person



To: wagglebee

Imagine UN control of the Internet.



To: wagglebee

Can't flood the Internet with Clintonistas like the talk shows Hillary? The beast must be stopped.



by 11 posted onby ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)

To: wagglebee

"It can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically." The only bad outcomes that comes from the 1st amendment is usually bad for the person or persons in the wrong anyway.



To: wagglebee

"We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" The Truth will set you free Hillary. Or, in your case maybe not. The internet has given us the freedom of the press promised in the Constitution, and even Joe Sixpack seems to be able to "Get It" even if he occasionally reaches for his tinfoil hat.



To: wagglebee

I'm a big pro-balance person. What he hell does that mean? This woman(?) has to many quotes on record to ever run for President!



To: wagglebee

... I don't have a clue. Where's Craig Livingston, Hiltery? Who murdered Vince Foster for you and your hillbilly-marxist soulmate?



To: wagglebee



"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally,

regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue."

"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally,regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue."

To: konaice

The Truth will set you free Hillary. Or, in your case maybe not. The "truth" would probably send the Hildabeast to prison for the rest of her life.



by 17 posted onby wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)

To: wagglebee

because I haven' seen a poll to see what direction the wind is blowing with the voters. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy when they want to have an abortion, protect them against defamation. MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor ofAnd I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully, until I see what is posted on DU, KOS, MoveOn.org and what cindy $heetHann is saying.



by 18 posted onby Arrowhead1952 (Note to the MSM - Don't stay stuck on STUPID!)

To: Larry Lucido

I don't have a clue... That is the only thing we need to take from this article.



To: wagglebee

That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem," PIAPS is either ignorant of what is meant by "checks and balances" or she is so cynical as to blatantly misrepresent it. Either way, this is NOT someone who should hold public office.



by 20 posted onby BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson