Free Republic's Comments on the FEC's Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications

Federal Election Commission ^ | Friday, June 3, 2005 | Kristinn

[NonValueAdded]

Whoa, I hadn't caught that possible distinction between blogs getting an exemption and FR getting caught up in more McLame-Feingold trashing of the First Amendment. Please keep us posted on anything we can do to help.

[LonePalm]

The phrase “broken glass Republican” was coined by a Freeper on FreeRepublic.com during the 2000 election.

Thanks for the mention. It was a nice turn of phrase that came to me in a fit of anger at the Clintoon administration over the USS Cole.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez á tyrannie un pouce!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Jim Robinson]

"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"

"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."

"How will those statements be reconciled to the inevitable question that people get banned for particular political views around here? The right of Free Speech on this message board belongs solely the owner of the website. Everything else is under his grace."

The first amendment protects our right to free speech, free assembly, etc., but it does not prohibit owners the right to control the use and content of their own web sites or the direction of their organizations.

For example, FR is rallying in support of our president and the war effort. Free Republic chapters in scores of cities all around the country joined us in this effort and held rallies in support of our common causes. The first amendment does not require that we allow our opponents equal access to our rallies or our forums. Persons or groups who oppose the war or our president and or any other cause we are supporting are not guaranteed the right to heckle, disrupt, or even state their opinions on our web site. They can and do have their own sites to state their opinions or promote their causes per the first amendment.

The same holds true in supporting or opposing other issues or candidates. The government simply does not have the constitutional authority to control or disrupt our political activities or to make demands of disclosure of private information.

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you Congressman Billybob! Praying you stay well.

[Rebelbase]

I think I've got it now. The internet is the "old town" news board and FR and other sites are what is tacked up on the board. You control the content of what you tack up. If someone doesn't like it they have the right to hang their opinion beside yours but not tamper with it.

[KarlInOhio]

There was one good ruling. In 1995 US v Lopez on the abominable gun free school zone act of 1990, the Supreme Court said that possessing a gun near a school had nothing to do with interstate commerce. Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy were on the right side.

I guess that the difference between that ruling and the recent one on medicinal pot is that intrastate possession of an item isn't interstate commerce, while on the other hand intrastate commerce is interstate commerce. Or at lease Scalia and Kennedy were convinced of that torturous logic.

[NicknamedBob]

" The government simply does not have the constitutional authority to control or disrupt our political activities or to make demands of disclosure of private information."

Well said, Jim. The Constitution lists many rights of human beings, but lists only those things that governments are allowed to do.

[wagglebee]

Great job Kristinn!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No need to apologize, you've done a fine job!

Free expression is the government's worst nightmare.

McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, Buckley v. Valeo, etc., etc...

These are all ways of stifling our right to dissent.

Anyone who wants to articulate a point of view that runs afoul of the power-brokers is going to be subject to prosecution

I think you've presented a great brief for the defense, Kristinn.

Keep up the good work!

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

[skinkinthegrass]

THANKS.. :)

[rabidralph]

personal observations,

That's putting it nicely.

[skinkinthegrass]

Sens. McCain, Feingold; Reps. Shays, Meehan propose regulating Internet http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419849/posts

A Kentucky Ping, Please...and a BUMP

[GVnana]

Well done.

[GOPJ]

bump

[NormsRevenge]

FR 'Green Dragon Tavern' of the Internet BUMP

Good job!

[Gengis Khan]

"Would this, if it were to happen, include foreign FReepers?"

I am curious.

[Salamander]

The whole thing makes my blood run cold.

The next Dem president [may God forbid that a million times] will shut places like this down by whatever means necessary.

Just imagine the uber-grudge kerry is holding......

[Utilizer]

Never give up, mate. And let Claire Wolfe (My favourite temptress) know how the battle wages on. We all pray fervently for the best possible outcome, and so hearing about every opportunity that comes about to allow us to exercise whenever possible our freedoms and liberties are occasions for rejoicing indeed, LOL!

[Utilizer]

Speaking as a fellow heart-assistance patient, I am so glad that you are feeling better and once again posting on FR. May you find the feedback to your comments worthy of response, and your life in general;
irreverant inspiration in continuing the Good Fight.

[Utilizer]

Perfect, mate. You've got it.