Apparently GOA held a position on “net neutrality” based on Larry Pratt’s paranoid delusions, and ended up aligning themselves with a left-wing who’s who. The writer of this article got a clarification from Pratt himself, saying they no longer support net neutrality now that it’s boiled down to Government control of the internets. Well, what else was it going to be? If private companies collude to limit bandwidth of certain services, or give priority to certain content, who else is going to come in to correct it? Jesus?
This is the danger of becoming involved in ancillary issues outside of your core mission. If GOA had held serious and convincing evidence that this was really a core gun rights issue, and aligned themselves with left wing groups who were also on the same side, I would have applauded them. But GOA’s entry into this issue was based on the vague idea that private businesses could or would conspire to limit access to Second Amendment information and communication. Could it happen? Maybe. But then the group they join asks Uncle Sam to step in, and suddenly it’s a horrible idea.
Again, I believe GOA to be a completely unserious organization when it comes to defending the Second Amendment, and this is just more evidence. They never should have involved themselves in this issue, and it seems pretty clear to me their involvement was poorly thought out. If you don’t trust private enterprise to control the Internet, and you don’t trust Uncle Sam to control the Internet, what is your preferred solution?