Posted on 03/15/2006 2:46:46 AM PST by Jim Robinson
WHEN DOES free speech become an in-kind political ad, the sort that should be regulated by the federal government?
That's the question Congress is expected to grapple with tomorrow as it considers a bill that will affect how bloggers, the rapidly influential commentators on the Internet, will be able to operate.
In a rare moment of agreement, some of the best- known bloggers from both the right and left of the political spectrum joined together last year in petitioning the Federal Election Commission for greater clarity after a federal judge ruled the FEC couldn't exempt Web sites from campaign-finance laws:
"Under the current rules," the bloggers argued, " 'any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,' is exempt from reporting and coordination requirements. It is not clear, however, that the FEC's 'media exemption' provides sufficient protection for those of us in the online journalism community."
And it's still not clear. With bloggers attracting thousands of visitors and showing they can be a powerful fund-raising force for political parties, it makes sense to wonder if they should play under the same rules as a political-action committee.
At the same time, it's also clear that many bloggers are exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech. This conundrum is one reason this page has historically been skeptical about campaign-finance reform. One man's campaign's contribution is another woman's free speech.
Congress is now entering the fray. The House is expected tomorrow to vote on one bill, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. That bill has been the subject of hearings and floor debate. And while many bloggers are in favor of the bill, some progressive groups complain that it has too many loopholes, allowing corporations and others to use soft money to advertise for their favorite politicians without the usual constraints.
There's an alternative bill that we actually like better. HR 4900 addresses the same concerns as the Online Freedom of Speech Act but creates a "safe habor" level of spending. If bloggers don't spend more than $5,000 a year on online political speech, they can ignore campaign-finance laws.
And still be free to opine away. Just like us.
If our wise legislators decide that unfettered blogging helps their political careers, unfettered blogging it will be. Otherwise, not!
What's the potential impact on FR?
This is supposedly the milder bill. This could affect FR depending on how they define "political speech".
I hope the Supremes throw this entire mess out. The first amendment is pretty clear on free speech.
Honestly, I would vote for Hillary! before I would vote for John McCain.
And, BTW, Russ Fiengold is really covering himself in glory these days, isn't he?
Many have seen the fault with CFR McCain style, but no one has seen the Senator make a move to retract any portion of it.. Why hasnt some iother senator promoted a bil to take away the Unconstitutional parts of the bill?
Yeah, and that would be "honestly" stupid of you. Know I have no love for Mcpainintheass, but would never, EVER vote for the enemy of not only repubs, but the absolute enemy of the idea of America.
One just as well write in "Satan" on one's ballot than vote for his daughter, Hillary.
How can one be a greater enemy of the idea of America than by selling out our right to free speech? If you don't have free speech, you got nuthin.
Say what you will about Hillary!, she has not dismantled any fundamental American freedoms. She would be a disaster on policy, but she has not shown any desire to destroy the foundations of the country, so Hillary! would be my choice over McCain.
Is the comparison of the two bills here: http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/13/204728/291
valid?
If no one is paying for this so called 'political-ad', does it still fall under CFR?
Where or when did we, the people, give Congress the authority to regulate speech?
My copy of the Constitution says they do not possess that power. Where did they get it?
In my opinion, it was the old "fire in the theater" trick. I would love to see the history on that decision, which, as I was taught, came from the Supreme Court, not the legislature. What if the legislature made it against the law to yell "fire" in a theater or, for that matter, any building of assembly? What if there was a real fire? It would be against the law to rapidly notify your compadres of the impending doom? I think not. But most people believe the "sound-bite" or short version. That allowed our congress-critters a nose under the tent, so to speak.
I was angered by the responses to this post...#3 What's the potential impact on FR ? This attitude is precisely why we are losing our country right in front of our eyes. "How will this affect me?"
The proper question is "How will this affect my COUNTRY that my children and grand-children must grow up in?"
But allow me to answer this question as stated (with apologies to Jim Robinson). It will depend on who "they" are. "They" can and will be anybody. If allowed to, "they" will define who can speak and what mediums may do so. Is Jim Robinson's web-site any different than Thomas Paine's press? No, it isn't, but your attitudes are allowing our so called public servants to become the ruling class that our forefathers sacrificed so to free us.
Re: post #9 - Ma Duce...As a last resort only. I for one hope it never comes to that. The people are still powerful as a voting group. We have to ensure our enemy cannot silence our message. There is still hope.
Re: post #12 - EBH...What if someone took Jim Robinson's right away to produce this website, and you couldn't come here for your news? What if "they" determined this site illegal but the DU site OK? Would you then go there for your Information? Where would you go? Would there be a place to go? Could you trust the information you seek?
Who gets to decide what is "proper" speech? Could we always trust them?
This is exactly why our Constitution has the First Amendment with the Second right behind it.
Remember this - no matter who gets elected to positions of authority on any promises they make, they can and probably will change their minds at any time.
If we do not hold these servants accountable now, they will soon be our masters.
(done ranting now, flame away)
Gee, I wonder if the Daily News spent more than $5,000 to distribute the edition of their paper that endorsed John Kerry - in June of 2004.
More hypocrisy from the left - free speech for me but not for thee.
Well, they looked at that lead-in to the First, namely "Congress shall pass no law" - and then decided that Congress COULD pass a law abridging free speech - namely, McCain-Feingold.
But, then again, once you've parsed the Commerce Clause to allow the fedgov to regulate activities that involve neither commerce nor interstate movement, it's just a small step to ignore clear language when such is found inconvenient.
It'd vote for any candidate who told congress to screw themselves and openly violated the ban of political speech before an election, and dared them to arrest him.
Are you totally blind and delusional? She's a criminal of the first degree!! Rose Law Firm, "I don't recall", Billing Records, "I don't recall", Cattle Futures, "I don't recall", Abiding and Abetting Rape, "I don't recall", White Water, "I don't recall", Health Care, "I don't recall", Terrorist Fundraisers, "I don't recall", Underware, "I don't recall", Silverware, "I don't recall",...shall I go on?
Hillary...Evil town is to the left, move on!
She would be my second-from-last choice for President, with the first spot reserved for John McCain. Is that clear enough for you? I know she is reprehensible. I just find McCain more reprehensible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.