I will never understand how the buffoons that run Red State got the audience that they do because whenever they talk about anything related to the Internet they sound like raving lunatics:

Google and Lessig believe that intellectual property rights should be curtailed and internet providers should be forced to allow anyone and everyone to use their networks.
While Google is pushing net neutrality and blaspheming Christ, Google is also censoring Christians online. As I document here, Google has censored a pro-life group online. Google has also been sued for anti-Christian discrimination in the United Kingdom.
Of course, while Google is happy to censor Christians while denigrating Christ, Google has gone out of its way to censor content that might offend muslims.
Google should have no right to demand open access to your internet while censoring and denigrating Christians on its network. And the Senate should not give Larry Lessig a platform to advocate Google's position while Google behaves in that manner.
Call the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and tell them you find it disgraceful that Google could advocate an open internet while censoring Christians and laughing while Larry Lessig denigrates Christ. The number is 202-224-5115.

Erick Erickson apparently doesn't know the first thing about what the network neutrality debate is even over in the first place. It is about the ability of ISPs and telecoms to throttle the bandwidth that their customers pay for for certain protocols and service providers, such as Google. Network neutrality advocates don't believe that your ISP should be allowed to sell their services as real broadband Internet access while telling companies like Google and Apple that they won't get to access the customers at the speeds that are advertised for the Internet access. How would you like to subscribe to DSL, FiOS or cable, only to find out that your provider was extorting the companies you want to buy from: "pay us for the privilege of accessing our users (who happen to be your customers) or you won't get to send them data at the speeds that they are expecting based on what we claim to be selling them."

That, is what Erickson is conflating with Google's censorship. Now, in all fairness, Google's censorship habits are troubling, but they are not particularly relevant to the issue of network neutrality. In fact, if network neutrality is entirely abandoned, it would be even harder for new popular websites and service providers to get access to broadband Internet users because of the stunts that ISPs and telecoms would be allowed to pull on their users.

And... it gets worse:

Tomorrow, Lawrence Lessig will testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on the future of the internet. Lessig will do Google's bidding and suggest that the net neutrality doctrine should be legislated to force companies that provide the connection to your home to give everyone access for free. It sounds great until you start thinking about all the freeloaders. I too supported net neutrality in principle until realizing just how far left groups like Google want to push it -- eradicating privacy along the way. But, while Google wants open access to your broadband connection, they themselves want to censor pro-lifers and Christians from Google's own network.

Those freeloaders are the customers of broadband ISPs. Why should we get all-we-can-use bandwidth? Do we get that with cell phone minutes? Electricity? Water? Gas? I have a great idea. I am going to start a business where I let you buy a monthly "unlimited gasoline account" and then bill every car company in America because some people consume way more gasoline than I expected to be reasonable under this business model. Damn corporate freeloaders, Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda. Who do they think they are expecting to not have to pay a royalty to me for access to my customers?!

You may also remember Erick from his diseased rantings about how there was a pinko commie conspiracy to deny RedState the support that it wanted for the software it didn't have to pay for.