U.S. Representative Joe Wilson, who has taken money for his upcoming re-election campaign from the Time Warner Cable PAC, stood up in front of the House of Representatives on Wednesday to deliver a message his donor would have loved to hear. Wilson spoke in opposition to the preservation of net neutrality.

Wilson’s strange speech was as follows: “The Internet has been a profound tool and resource of advanced knowledge to connect families and friends around the world. Internet users and providers have improved upon and utilized a free marketplace. However, there is a real concern that the new proposed ‘net neutrality’ regulations may undermine or stifle innovation. There is a time and a place for government to promote transparency in the pursuit of good business practices. However, the government and bureaucratic agencies should not needlessly impose regulations when the cause for concern is not justified. Before we move forward with new regulations on the Internet, we must weigh the consequences. We need to ensure we do not disrupt the necessary flexibility that has led to a vibrant marketplace, one which continues to foster new technology around the world, helping liberate people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.”

Does net neutrality make us more vulnerable to terrorism and prevent the liberation of oppressed people, as Congressman Wilson’s swerving argument suggests? I can’t understand comprehend how that could be the case. Freedom for small voices to speak equally online is a peaceful way for people to challenge the status quo.

Wilson hints that net neutrality would destroy the free market that has made the Internet so innovative and successful in enabling people to communicate more richly and easily. Net neutrality has been a core part of the structure of the Internet from the beginning, however. It’s already there, not some weird new regulation that could mess everything up. New regulations that have been proposed are merely to provide extra assurances that the free market of the Internet are not interfered with. That’s what net neutrality is all about.

Corporate opponents of net neutrality, such as cable providers, see a lot of opportunity to make big profits by charging new fees to people who operate web sites. Their idea is to create a two-class system of Internet traffic, in which web sites that pay extra money are delivered to visitors at a super high speed, while web sites that refuse to pay are delivered at a slower speed.

Joe Wilson argues that it’s ruining the free market of the Internet that big telecommunications corporations are not able to charge new fees to web sites that don’t want to have traffic to their site put into a slow lane. In many places in the United States, however, companies like Time Warner Cable operate in monopoly conditions. If you want broadband Internet access, you have to go through them. In other places, there is only one broadband alternative. So, while there is a free market in production of Internet media, the marketplace for access to Internet media is severely restricted.

Joe Wilson has it backwards. Giving new power to withhold Internet traffic from sites that don’t have enough money to pay to a small number of corporations will not encourage innovation. It will instead discourage the creation of independent media projects. That may be in the interest of media giants like Time Warner Cable, but it is not in the interest of the American people.