Posted on 06/09/2005 1:35:23 PM PDT by kristinn
June 3, 2005
Mr. Brad C. Deutsch
Assistant General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20463
Re: Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications
Dear Mr. Deutsch:
Please accept these comments on the proposed rules for FEC regulations of Internet Communications (11 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 114) pursuant to Notice 2005-10.
Please note that we are requesting to give public testimony at the hearing scheduled June 28-29, 2005.
FreeRepublic.com is an internet based electronic bulletin board owned by Free Republic, LLC, in Fresno, California. James C. Robinson of Fresno is the principal owner of Free Republic, LLC
FreeRepublic.com was founded in 1996 as a forum to discuss and expose the crimes of the Clinton administration and to further conservatism.
FreeRepublic.com’s mission statement is: “Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!”
Since it’s founding, FreeRepublic.com has been a pioneer in online political expression in America. It is one of the most popular and influential sites on the Web. Its Alexa.com rating is the 1366th most popular Website. In contrast, the liberal blog DailyKos.com is ranked 5386th and the liberal forum DemocraticUndeground.com is ranked 4,108th.
The content on FreeRepublic.com consists of postings by registered account holders (over 200,000) and Mr. Robinson. The postings can be news articles, commentaries, personal observations, and calls to First Amendment activities such as demonstrations and e-mails or phone calls. Members post from all over the United States and the world.
There are also repostings of campaign literature, links to 501c3 and 501c4 organizations, 527s and an occasional campaign Website. Those links are provided without cost and at the discretion of Mr. Robinson.
Links to such organizations are done so free of charge. FreeRepublic.com has no paid advertising. Its budget consists solely of donations by members and lurkers. There are no membership fees or dues. The postings (except private messages between members) at FreeRepublic.com are open to all to read without membership. Anyone with access to a computer and a modem can read FreeRepublic.com.
FreeRepublic.com is not a blog. It was founded several years before Blogs came into existence.
FreeRepublic.com has been called a modern day Liberty Tree, where concerned citizens use modern technology to exercise their First Amendment rights. FreeRepublic.com has been credited with helping to cause the impeachment of President Clinton. The phrase “broken glass Republican” was coined by a Freeper on FreeRepublic.com during the 2000 election. FreeRepublic.com was also instrumental in exposing the fake Bush National Guard documents that were used by CBS News in a story last fall that tried to influence the 2004 presidential election.
FreeRepublic.com members also report news. For example, the explosion of the Columbia space shuttle was first reported on FreeRepublic.com.
The Internet has proven to be an invaluable tool for average Americans to get their voices heard by those in power. FreeRepublic.com is read by leaders in all branches of the federal government and political parties. It is used as show prep for talk radio and as a research tool for reporters and authors.
Given that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and petitioning of the government, citizen Websites like FreeRepublic.com should be exempt from FEC regulation. If the FEC grants exemptions for public communications to Blogs, electronic bulletin boards like FreeRepublic.com should be given the same exemptions.
Members who post comments and articles, etc. on FreeRepublic.com are anonymous unless the poster identifies themselves. This anonymity is a central point to freedom of expression on the Internet. Just as whistleblowers like Deep Throat hide in anonymity to protect themselves from retribution from those in power in the government, so do posters at FreeRepublic.com.
Any effort by the government to force the disclosure of posters’ identities to meet some draconian federal regulation would have a chilling effect on free speech, especially if that speech involved advocating for or against political candidates.
FreeRepublic.com has an internal private message system similar to e-mail that can be used to communicate privately between members. Such a system should not be regulated by the FEC, as it is a free service.
The free dissemination and reposting of campaign material on the Internet should be exempt, including links to campaign and party Websites should be exempt from regulation.
Mr. Robinson, and the posters at FreeRepublic.com are very concerned that after this first step by the government to rein in free speech on the Internet, more attempts will follow. We strongly urge the commission to respect the First Amendment rights of Americans.
Very truly yours,
Kristinn Taylor
Spokesman, FreeRepublic.com
Any such ruling would be unconstitutional as the FEC was not granted the power to do so.
The CONGRESS *could* do so (and has) in certain cases (such as slander).
To be honest, I would NOT object to haveing the common sense restrictions of speech apply to the internet. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world where common sense is used! Thus, any federal restrictions of speech, whether on the internet or elsewhere are probably not a good idea.
We all do what we can, whenever possible. Speaking for Myself, I am just thankful that you are able to assist us at all with the particular area of (*cough*) expertise you are capable of, as I hope I would be ready to if the time came for Me to do so where I were most capable of...
Thank you for your contributions.
Just the thought of that makes me cringe.
Fight for freedom of expression, it's a pretty good cause.
:)
Thanks for the ping, WT.
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
Bump, well worded, and thanks for the ping.
: )
I'm honored!
Bump-a-rooney!
Bump for great justice.
All our base are belong to us.
Dear Mr. Commissioner:
Despite the attempt in McConnell v. FEC to redefine "no law" as "well, sometimes", "no law" is still "no law", and Marbury v. Madison has not been overturned:
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
. . .
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
George Smiley
Excellent! You put the legal teeth into my exact sentiments.
This is just too good:
"It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual."
Mind if I quote you on that?
Like FReepers from the Mongolian Empire - just a little joke at your screenname LOL!
I see your from India - great country - all four Beatles can't be wrong!!
We have one thing in common (probably among a few more).
Did you notice....our flags have the same tri-colour.
Those FEC Meatheads should Just. Butt. Out.
Ya, I noticed that - a few more: we are both republics, and we were once ruled by the British (but we like the Brits); oh ya, one more, a piece of disputed territory northwards!!!LOL
It was excellent. No need for apologies.
Hoorah. Well said. Alot of us feel this way. We are like a pot ready to boil over and our leaders either don't know...or don't care.
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.