I am not a Black Helicopter anti-UN conservative. I limit my criticism of the UN to its anti-American/Pro-Socialist agenda. But This Story about the UN seeking to regulate the Internet causes me to wonder about those Black helicopters!

One of the best quotes from the articles this:

"Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private Internet address regulator set up five years ago."

First off, since when can China and Saudi Arabia be considered "poor" nations?

Second, the Article seems to imply that the battle over UN regulation of the Internet is divided between "poor" and "rich" nations. Could it be that those who wish to have the UN regulate the Internet are trying to stem the tide of pro-democracy and anti-authoritarian information that is flowing into their countries via the Internet? Could these countries be taking part in a concerted effort to protect their despotic, oppressive regimes? (Of course not, everybody knows that the UN fights for Democracy and freedom; add sarcasm here)

Wide ranging access to the Internet has been one of the most democratizing forces in the dissemination of information since the invention of the printing press. International Governmental regulation of this pipeline of information only creates the circumstances for despots to control the public. One can only look to the effect that the Internet has had on the movement towards Democracy in Iran , and you will soon see why those who oppose a free Internet do so.

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr


Update:
Frank J wants the term "United Nations" to be forever banned from the Internet.