Posted on 02/12/2015 3:23:22 PM PST by Kaslin
The Federal Election Commission is considering expanding their regulatory power to include political speech online… Yeah, lets regulate the internet. I mean, free speech cant just be expected to run wild or anything, right? The FEC held an open hearing yesterday to determine if they will move forward on clamping down on political content online (such as blogs, YouTube videos, and other free messaging). According to CNS News:
Last October, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel issued a statement in which she complained that the agency was not doing enough to monitor activity on the Internet.
Right… Because I know Im terrified that the feds arent doing enough to regulate peoples ability to speak freely. The Democrat members of the FEC want to expand their regulatory oversight to include content that is not paid political advertising. Currently, some online content is exempt from the bureaucratic oversight of the Orwellian Federal Election Commissions disclosure laws. According to the Washington Examiner:
Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.
So to put it differently: The internet exemption only applies to videos posted for free on sites like YouTube, Facebook, and individual blogs… Yeah, we should totally bring a little government to Facebook, or the Drudge Report. Dontchya think?
Its not as if were talking about posting an ad online, and suddenly having the ability to forget that the FEC is breathing down your neck. The current exemption only applies to online content that is not considered paid advertisements. In other words, internet versions of TV commercials, radio spots, or any other online media that has paid placement (even on other websites, or through an ad agency) must report to the FEC under current law.
So who are we really talking about regulating here? The guy that rants into his computer camera and posts it on YouTube? The casual blogger? I mean, by the very fact that were discussing nonpaid content, Im assuming these are mostly people without the Koch brothers fortune to blow on an election. (And, by the way, those evil Kochs dont even make it into the top 20 list of Americas biggest-spending political donors.)
What part of free speech seems so impossible for our Democrat friends in the FEC to understand? Or are Democrats simply adapting their Second Amendment objections to the First? Its an antiquated amendment, they say. Our founding fathers never could have imagined the technology we have today!… Sure. But in their day, the musket was an assault weapon, and pamphlets were viral communication. And just as pamphleteers objected to King Georges Stamp Act, bloggers, columnists, and online content producers should probably worry about the FECs plan to monitor online political speech.
Disclosure in political spending is a fine goal, but there still has to be such a thing as speech that is unmonitored, unregulated, and intrinsically free. After all, the First Amendment doesnt protect our right to speak under the condition that we obtain prior approval and comply with ongoing regulatory schemes. (Somehow I dont see folks like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or Ben Franklin really getting on board with that kind of government oversight of political discourse.)
Ostensibly, the move is designed to help flush out secretive dark money. Now, let me translate that for all the Liberals who peruse my column (you know who you are): The FEC wants to know who is getting money from the Koch brothers. But, this straw man argument is pretty suspect. The biggest spenders in American politics tend to skew Left… Progressive groups, environmentalists, and Unions. And while the FEC will be busy snooping around on YouTube looking for political speech to squander, the AFL-CIO will continue to funnel its forced union dues into Democrat campaigns with little oversight, transparency, or scrutiny.
The simple phrase monitoring political speech should be a pretty big red flag in a country that prides itself on diversity, tolerance, and individual liberty. Americans might pride themselves on being a land that understands and champions freedom of speech, but they sure have a heavy set of regulations to go along with such enthusiasm.
*And, for the record, the views articulated in this column are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer or any of their affiliates… And no, Harry Reid: The Koch brothers did not ghostwrite this.
“But essentially true.”
Of course it is not true about those men - totally disgusting post that does not belong on Free Republic.
You sent the above to Humblegunner - was there something about regulating blog pimps in the story?????
If you think that, then either you have failed to understand
my point all these years or I've done a poor job articulating it.
And it was only insulting to RiNO's.
Gosh, this is fun, how about it, everybody?
It's not October 2016 yet, not yet time for Circular Firing Squad, so we can just relax and have fun.
EXCELLENT!
“And it was only insulting to RiNO’s”
It was a filthy post beneath the dignity of Free Republic. If you like that language, there are numerous adult sexual websites that specialize in that language. It does not belong on FR.
This isn't Anne's Green Gables.
They hate America as much as homobama. Look. Either they are compromised and now corrupted by the ying/yang of power and blackmail, or else space aliens have taken over their bodies. And I don't see any flying saucers parked out near the reflecting pool. Do you?
True fact, that. Right up there with Oswald Moseley and Vidkun Quisling, our Boston Brahmins.
Truth matters and disgusting post #5 wasn’t true about these men.
FWIW I doubt either of them is gay, although Boehner may be alcoholic; but both of them are RiNO's, which is worse.
But that isn't the point. If our FRiend thinks they are, he has the right to say so.
It's the gay mafia who run around giving people beatdowns and taking their livelihoods. It was the gay mafia who promised that "we will go back and affirmatively punish" everyone who opposed them. (That's a quote, btw, of one of the GLPC big dogs, about 10 years ago.) Those guys get together over at DU, the censorship rallying site.
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.