Posted on 11/02/2005 8:10:42 AM PST by HastertFan
House Happenings This Week posted by Denny Hastert @ 9:19am (11/2/05) | Section: Speaker’s Posts
"Today we’re taking up the Online Freedom of Speech Act. It’s a good bill. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate are supporting it.
"This bill is about all the folks out in the blogosphere. It’s going to protect what you say. It keeps the hand of the Federal government out of Internet speech.
"Listen, I know that some of you out there may not agree with me on everything. That’s okay. But if you want the freedom to keep blogging and saying whatever you’re saying without government intervention, this is the bill to support.
"One more thing before I go: We’re taking up a bill dealing with eminent domain this week. This is big folks. It’s important stuff. I’m not sure how many of you followed this but in a Supreme Court decision earlier this year, there was a severe blow to the rights of property owners. In this ruling – it’s the Kelo case– the Supreme Court said that local governments can take property for economic development.
"You can see things wrong with this ruling a mile away! This is saying that the city can come in and say ‘hey, we think we have a plan to build and raise tax revenues. Give us your home.’ I’m sorry. I just don’t think property owners shouldn’t be at the whims of the city government when it comes to keeping their homes. There’s something wrong with that. Our legislation will protect the rights of these property owners. It’s the right thing to do and I’m urging all of our House members to support it.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.speaker.gov/journal/051102_househappenings.shtml
(Excerpt) Read more at speaker.gov ...
I bet Hillary will oppose it in Senate.
Why do we need a law for this? Doesn't the Constitution adequately limit the Federal government's power with respect to restricting speech? I am not sure what this law does but it must either a) make some guarantee of free speech or b) limit what the federal government can do.
It was my understanding that a) is granted by God and b) was dealt with in the 1st Amendment. It always worries me when I hear about a law that is going to "protect me".
Having said all that, maybe someone who is more familiar with this law can tell me I am wrong.
Well--knowing about all the laws (infringements) made to keep us from fully exercising our 2nd Amendment rights--It makes me a bit nervous, too. This could be the start of something that turns out to be one of those "unintended consequence" thingees!
I bet Hillary will oppose it in Senate.
-----
Let's hope she does. She and her Marxist thug buddies want to suppress the Internet in the worst way -- along with the MSM.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Most federal laws are specificly designed to produce the opposite outcome of what their titles claim.
Just a sign of how much work we have to do that this even has to be made law. This should be an automatic no brainer
Agreed. Here is the most disturbing part.
But if you want the freedom to keep blogging and saying whatever you’re saying without government intervention, this is the bill to support.
I already have that freedom, Mr. Speaker!!! I don't need your law to give it to me.
Sad to say you are incorrect, pete...
Yeah. That's what I was going to post. Isn't there something fundamentally dangerous about passing laws that don't need to be passed because the Constitution covers it already?
I always recognize that possibility and I am ready to admit it. What am I missing?
"...teh Internet Freedom of Speech Act..."
Wow, I had not idea Hastert was so 1337. :D
What if the Supreme Court finds this new law violates the McLame election finance law? Then we're screwed.
Leave it alone Mr. Speaker. We already have free speech protected by the First amendment.
I agree and I hate their arrogance for 'allowing' something that they have no authority over. I guess the congress has nothing else to occupy its time these days.
The McCain-Feingold assult on free speech and the SC acquiescence to same necessitates legislation protecting political speech from regulation.
The Feds are trying to limit blog activity as part of campaign finance regulation. Some bureaucrats obviously haven't gotten the word that "Congress shall make no law," means what it reads.
I hafd no idea he was going to be such a great speaker when he was elected.
I thnk what he means is that the Constitution does not mean what it says it means, it means only what the Supreme Court says it means. There are elements chomping at the bit to supress free speech on the internet because they are threatened by it, they are held accountable by it. I tend to trust Speaker Hastert and the House Republicans to pass good legislation on something like this. It's the girly boy Senate I worry about a whole lot more.
The House, run by the Republicans, is the least dysfunctional body in the government, IMO.
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.