Molly's regulatory "hair trigger" Rebutting CNET's Molly Wood #6

I asked you why you are supporting legislation that punishes everyone with preemptive regulation for the sins of an extremely limited few (if we accept your latest examples at face value)? Why support legislation that makes no distinction on whether or not a company, industry or technology has had any NN complaints, whether or not the company, industry or technology enjoys any market power or whether or not the company even has any cusomters yet? And why would you support legislation that has no sunset provision, if people eventually had the number of competitive choices you deem enough? Do you believe that competition can succeed or is it impossible warranting no sunset provision?

To bring this back to your situation, would you support legislation mandating that the press always be neutral? What if some member of the press was deemed by "the public or other commentators" to be un-neutral and actually had the audacity to have a differentiated opinion? How is your freedom of the press any different from others right to due process?

Don't you feel the least bit troubled by taking away the freedoms of the innocent, because some people think they are guilty or fear that the will do something bad?

And while you seem to favor regulation, why support legislation that effectively would make it difficult for competition to ever succeed?