I told you the FCC wanted to censor the Internet. They said it was a joke. Well, Reason kept digging and lookee what they found: Michael Copps, the FCC commissioner who would like to have jurisdiction over the entire Internet, wants to start a “national conversation” about the FCC enforcing either regulations or “voluntary codes” controlling content.

It’s no wonder that even Democrats are scared of the runaway FCC

Quoth Reason:

Copps said that the [indecency] issue concerns him as well, suggesting that a majority of Americans want “something done” about “over the top” “mindless violence” or sexual material, but dodged Smith’s question about whether regulation or “voluntary codes” should be applied to the Internet, saying that “we need to have a national discussion about” applying public interest and decency standards to the Net.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the brave new world of Net Neutrality and Title II Deem and Pass reclassification. And Google is doing what it can to keep the train going. Says National Journal:

Google increased the money it spends on lobbying in the first quarter by 57 percent over the previous year, paying $1.4 million to influence lawmakers and regulators, according to Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group that has been critical of Google’s activities.

….But critics believe the relationship between Google and the Obama White House has gotten a little too cozy. This month, for example, a White House technology adviser hired from Google last year was reprimanded for improperly contacting former colleagues, a violation of Obama administration ethics rules. U.S. Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s former head of global public policy, traded e-mails with “his former employer on topics within the scope of his official duties,” according to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Andrew Breitbart’s sites originally broke the Andrew McLaughlin story, through a Google Buzz security hole. Thank goodness Net Neutrality wasn’t around to deem Breitbart’s sites outside the public interest and therefore banned according to “voluntary” codes, or at least restricted according to a revived “fairness doctrine.”