Bringing sunlight to Professor Lessig's Orwellian Doublespeak lecture to the FCC

Not only was I stunned that the FCC allowed Professor Larry Lessig to lecture for a half an hour at the FCC's en banc hearing at Stanford, I was even more stunned no one challenged his blatant misrepresentation and Orwellian "doublespeak" in support of net neutrality.

• Remember in George Orwell's "1984," how "Big Brother" communicated that: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance  is strength" -- creating an upside-down-world where if an idea is repeated enough times... it somehow becomes true?

Here are three of the Orwellian "doublespeak" gems from Lessig's lecture at the FCC en banc hearing:

1. "Adam Smith" would have favored net neutrality regulation because all companies aspire to be "monopolists."
2. The "burden of proof" is on those who don't want to change the law to mandate net neutrality.
3. Being "conservative" means supporting FCC regulation of the Internet.

First, I literally could not believe my ears when Professor Lessig had the unmitigated gall to blatantly misrepresent in his lecture that if Adam Smith were to talk to the FCC that day, that Adam Smith would find a quote from his laissez-faire, free-market tome "Wealth of Nations" -- to somehow defend Professor Lessig's call for preemptive FCC regulation of the Internet. 

• Adam Smith must be turning over in his grave at the indignity of Professor Lessig's self-serving and Orwellian-twisting of his free-market approach to economics and regulation to somehow favor preemptive Internet regulation.
• Only in Professor Lessig's perverse up-is-down and down-is-up world, would Professor Lessig think no one would call him out as a shyster for arguing that Adam Smith would agree with his master plan of undermining intellectual property rights and effectively socializing the Internet's infrastructure. 
• Does Professor Lessig really believe that everyone is so gullible as to fall for his misdirection, that because Stanford is no left wing Cal-Berkeley, one should completely accept Professor Lessig"s draping himself with Adam Smith's supposed free-market imprimateur?
• Get real Professor Lessig. You are no free marketeer. If Adam Smith was still alive, he would send you back to freshman Economics 101 to learn that Adam Smith was not a leading proponent of politically-motivated preemptive government regulation.       

Second, I was dumbfounded how a law professor of all people could say with a straight face that the burden of proof is on those who DON"T want to change current law or the status quo.

• Only in Professor Lessig's bizarro opposite world, would he say that those who want to change longstanding and bipartisan, free-market Internet policy do not have the burden of proof.
• What!?
• What is the purpose of the Constitution and the rule of law, if the burden of proof is on those seeking to follow the law?
• What fantasy class of legal procedure in LessigLand claims that those who want to change the law don't have the burden of proof on them? 
• Sleight of hand and misdirection aside, we aren't falling for it Professor Lessig. The burden is on you to prove why the FCC and the Government should abandon, law, precedent, policy and consensus and adopt your self-serving, politically-motivated, rewrite of Internet history, constitutional law and free market economics. 

Third, who do you think you are fooling by calling your proposal "conservative."

• No conservative I know would call your proposal to preemptively regulate the Internet and your wholesale assault on the concept of private intellectual property --  "conservative."

Bottomline:  Professor Lessig may think people aren't smart enough to see through his scholarly and lawyerly misdirection, but they are. 

• Professor Lessig's "creative commons" movement and "Free Culture" movement are all about promoting a communalist Information Commons where all Internet infrastructure and content would be public and not private property.