There's a bit of confusion on Lieberman and net neutrality.  Savetheinternet has Lieberman waffling on net neutrality because there's no public statement out, whereas Josh Marshall says that Lieberman is in favor of net neutrality.  Watch this video clip, though, and tell me that this guy isn't looking to regulate the internet.

Here's the transcript:

We must also note that kids can get access to the most horrific websites imaginable, displaying the worst possible kind of imagery.  I just heard last week about how graphic videos distributed by the terrorists showing terrorists killing American soldiers are now turning up with increasing regularity on the popular video site 'Youtube'.  That's wrong.  

We need to demand more corporate responsibility.  The people who run MySpace and Youtube and all the other big popular websites which are very successful, very profitable, where we know millions of our children are going each and every day.  Those companies need to do more to clean up their sites and help prevent kids from having access to the kind of material that could harm them and make them want to harm others in our society.

Videos from the Iraq war are finding their way onto Youtube, yet rather than see the violence as a problem, Lieberman wants to shoot the messenger.  This isn't the first time he's blamed the internet for problems in Iraq. In his Op-Ed on Abu Ghraib, he suggests that 'internet culture' is possibly to blame for these war crimes.

What caused these heinous acts? Was it just the latest example of the reality history reveals, that some soldiers crack under the stress of war? Was it the human weakness of guards exploiting the temporary power they hold over those in their control? Was it directed, encouraged, facilitated or tolerated by higher-ups in the chain of command? Was it somehow also the cumulative effect on a generation raised in an entertainment and Internet culture that has grown increasingly violent and pornographic?

If Lieberman wins, it looks to me like he's going to try and go after 'internet culture' in some manner or fashion.  You can read his full speech here (the written and spoken versions are a bit different), which describe his mostly silly pandering ideas.  Still, when his plans for more education on privacy don't work, what's he going to do?  He wanted and got labels on music - how's he going to ask for labeling on web sites without altering the architecture of the internet?  Communications policy is subtle, with small changes causing large changes.  Does it strike you that this guy is a going to protect the delicate balance that keeps the internet free and open?  Just watch the video.