Don't Rest Easy Bloggers, or Why On Line Freedom of Speech of Act is Still Needed
By Brad Smith Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Bloggers everywhere were pleased by the Federal Election Commission's relaxed rules towards bloggers issued early this year. The FEC, operating under court order to regulate the internet after Chris Shays and Marty Meehan sued the agency, demanding such regulation (with amicus support from would-be presidents John McCain and Russ Feingold), did the best it could to keep the web largely free from regulation.
The anti-free speech community immediately seized on this as reason not to pass Jeb Hensarling's OnLine Freedom of Speech Act, which would have used legislation to protect the internet from most FEC regulation. "Not needed," they cried. "It's merely an effort to gut campaign finance reform."
But check out this article from the Lakeland Ledger, and note this near the bottom from Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine), who had, with Shays, offered an alternative to the Hensarling bill that would have regulated more internet activity:
Some lawmakers are concerned these sites could become conduits for anonymous soft money that the McCain-Feingold reforms have banned from political parties, which was the issue in the FEC decision.
Rep. Tom Allen, a Maine Democrat, co-sponsored legislation in March that would bring political Web sites under campaign finance rules if they spend $5,000 or more on their operations. He said he would watch how blogs factor into the 2006 races under the FEC rules before deciding whether to press the issue.
We need to understand that these guys are relentlessly hostile to free, unfettered political speech. Every bit of freedom they see as a potential threat, and they are always ready to regulate as soon as they think the have the votes.
Brad,
When we were told that the bill was being put "back in its holster" I was a little bit concerned. Unless there is a law on the books which stops some of these guys, they dont know when to quit.
I know the ealier FEC decision helps, but I also believe that we should (must) pass that bill we were working toward earlier.
If we do not and the dems take control in 2007 - kiss on line freedom of speech good bye.
Some lawmakers are concerned these sites could become conduits for anonymous soft money
The incumbent-loving incumbents are concerned:
- not that millions of illegal immigrants should be rewarded for breaking the law by making them voters
- not by the erosion in public confidence in government
- not by a 75% effective literacy rate
- not by the prospect of Iranian nukes
- and not by dependence on foreign oil, declining morality, a polarized electorate, Social Security insolvency, corruption in Congress, or even global warming.
They're concerned that somewhere, someone might spend $5001 on their website.
Would you provide your email address, I have something i'd like to discuss offline.
The totalitarian impulse runs deep and dark in our species:
Just when I thought I was out . . .
But here's the real question: we know that the Online Freedom of Speech Act only would have shut down the FEC's regulatory process implementing BCRA (or would now eliminate the restrictive parts of the regs now passed w/r/t paid online ads), and would not be a comprehensive No Regulation Of Anything Online Ever fix to the situation.
What would a bill that truly exempted everything look like?