Posted on 03/24/2006 10:00:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/24/2006 10:20:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Internet's freewheeling days as a place exempt from the heavy hand of federal election laws are about to end.
Late Friday, the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of Internet regulations that have been anticipated for more than a year and represent the government's most extensive foray yet into describing how bloggers and Web sites must abide by election law restrictions.
The rules (click here for PDF) say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.
If the regulations are approved by the FEC at its meeting on Monday, they will represent a substantial change from a far more aggressive version of the regulations seen by CNET News.com last year. An outcry from bloggers and even members of Congress appears to have caused FEC lawyers--who are under court order to regulate the Internet--to rethink the rules and adopt a more laissez-faire approach.
Though not all the implications of the 96-page document were immediately clear, one prominent advocate of Internet free speech said the rules are preferable over what could have happened.
"They've tried to take a light hand, and it looks like they might have succeeded," Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who teaches law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, said in a telephone interview. Smith said, though, that he was not able to review the document in detail.
Also exempted from the sweep of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act--better known as the McCain-Feingold law--are e-mail messages sent to 500 or fewer people, posting a video unless it's a paid advertisement, and online activities done by volunteers even if the actions are undertaken without the knowledge of the campaign...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"They've tried to take a light hand, and it looks like they might have succeeded,"
---
a gentle hand can work wonders if applied properly, (not to mention a good swift kick in the arse) ;-)
Does this mean we can start breathing again? I'm turning kinda purple.
So what does this mean for message boards?
Does the 500 person limit apply only to emails?
Are you logged in?
If so, DON'T TELL ANYONE!!
I'm with ya, Jim. This is a steaming pile. The time is now.
Just the fact that they felt the decision was theirs to make is absolutely unacceptable. Don't let this die down - the FEC and BCRA must be abolished if we are to reclaim our freedom of expression.
Sounds like we all just became Conservative Cause Volunteers
I doubt they have the cojones to do that.
Section 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Section 2. We really mean it!
"Section 2. We really mean it!"
BUMP!!!!
Upon initial reading, this appears to be a satisfactory outcome, if not outright good news.
What I strongly suggest to everyone who's not doing it already is to actually take the time to call every single person who wants your vote and asking them neutral questions about this (and other) issue(s).
For example, I called one fella who was running for mayor here a few years ago and asked, "What is your position on guns?" Not, "What's your position on firearms," as that lets them know what answer I'd hope for. Basically: play dumb. Let them show their hand first.
Then, write the names down and vote how you will.
As an added bonus as a FReeper, post the names and the answers they give here on FR so others who are wondering about these people know what they'll be dealing with. It'd also help if the persons you call decided to try giving differing answers to the same questions. The more eyes on them, the better.
Using our sheer number and our power, we can change this.
marker
This is the camels nose under the tent...
Mark my words...this government will attempt to fully regulate, tax, restrict and control internet content, access and distribution in the coming years.
Given the apathetic nature of the 'ordinary' American citizen...this government will succeed in all of the above.
Trust me...
Smells like it to me, too.
"Sounds like we need a Constitutional amendment that says:"
What is needed to end this is a supreme court ruling that spending money to express a view is a form of speech.
Mark my words...this government will attempt to fully regulate, tax, restrict and control internet content, access and distribution in the coming years.
Given the apathetic nature of the 'ordinary' American citizen...this government will succeed in all of the above.
Trust me...
Unfortunately, I agree with you. The government knows full well that no one is going to do anything because they're afraid they'll get into trouble if they make waves. The other 99% could care less!
This is exactly why there will be a new amnesty next week, even though most Americans don't want it. We have been sold out by a power hungry, greedy government and Judiciary. They will not stop until they have destroyed America, and no one's going to do anything.
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.