Of course, it gets better. All of those rogue blogs out there are "killing the American economy, culture, and our values." That's a strech, even for CNN. They then turn to Andrew Keen who postulates that the presence of all these blogs is that there's a certain paranoia about the media. If outlets such as CNN are actively calling for your silence, one might understand if bloggers feel that the mainstream media is not exactly on their team.
Roberts reveals that he and Keen talked about a "gatekeeper" for the internet. However, he acknowledge that there are certain First Amendment Rights concerns with such a policy (that darn Constitution). In addition, not only should there be a gatekeeper, but that gatekeeper should be the mainstream media (i.e. CNN). That's like giving the prisoners the keys to the jail. Blogging maintains a large online presence in response to the ineptitude of the mainstream media, something that Roberts and Phillips don't seem to understand. Phillips (speaking on behalf of the American people) declared that Roberts' policy is in fact "what we all want." She too advocated a legal solution to this supposed problem.
However, Roberts did concede that anonymous blogging has its place in places such as North Korea and Iran. That doesn't even make sense. Apparently, Mr. Roberts missed the fact that those two countries have some of the most oppressive regimes in the world. America shouldn't allow anonymous blogging, but Iran and North Korea should? What does one even say to that?