Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kate Nash: Beware of agencies seeking order in cyberspace
Albuquergue Tribune ^ | July 4, 2005 | By Kate Nash

Posted on 07/04/2005 5:25:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

SANTA FE - So it has come to this: The Federal Election Commission wants to slap new rules on the Internet.

Sounds scary for the libertarians, free thinkers and online writers of the world.

But the proposal - or at least parts of the 12-page lesson in bureaucrat-speak - has noble intentions.

The commission, which enforces federal election law, is considering requiring online political ads to wear disclaimers stating who paid for them.

Not a bad concept. Just like on television, on the radio and in newspapers, voters have a right to know who is saying whatever they are saying about a candidate. (Of course, those disclaimers aren't always as clear as they could be, but that's another topic.)

If there aren't supposed to be anonymous attack ads on television, why allow them on the Internet? Isn't a computer monitor just a TV screen with a different frequency?

Another part of the proposal would require bloggers to disclose whether they are paid by a candidate or a campaign.

Also not a bad thought: If the blogger is really a campaign staffer trying to pass off a viewpoint as news or even commentary, that should be clear. Newspaper pieces with opinions should be labeled as opinion pieces, just as video news releases from the White House should be labeled as such.

Local bloggers are skeptical of regulating such ideas, although they mostly agreed with what seem to be the FEC's goals.

"The FEC may mean well, but they should take a look at the blatant abuses instead of just sending down regulations," said Joe Monahan, a longtime political junkie who runs a site at www.joemonahan.com

"They have to be careful about how they do it, so it doesn't impede anyone from writing anything."

(Excerpt) Read more at abqtrib.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bloggers; cfr; fec; internet; weblogs
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
1 posted on 07/04/2005 5:25:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Whatever happened to the Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to freedom of speech, etc?


2 posted on 07/04/2005 5:27:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

The FEC's definiton of "online political ads" needs to ascertained.


3 posted on 07/04/2005 5:28:42 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Lord help the democrats if it becomes mandated that the Internet be presented in "butterfly" form.


4 posted on 07/04/2005 5:30:35 PM PDT by SaveTheChief (There are 10 types of people -- those who understand binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I think I'll ask Mr. Smith of the FEC his opinion, he is good at responding to e-mails.


5 posted on 07/04/2005 5:31:10 PM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
What we have here is an FEC that probably doesn't want to regulate the Internet ~ the staffers and members of the commission itself tend not to be total idiots after all.

On the other hand, a federal judge was forced by left-wing extremists to enforce a section of the fascistic McCain-Feingold anti First Amendment Act that mentions regulating the Internet.

There are several enemies on the list ~ McCain, Feingold, the members of the House and Senate who voted for this POS, and the President of the United States, "W", who ought to know better ~ or did he really think the POTUS was going to rule this nonsense unconstitutional?

We also have the left-wing extremists and their running dog lackeys involved, and the only way to get rid of any one of them is to eradicate the entire political class ~ which ain't a bad idea in and of itself and without the Internet to think about.

So, where do you really want to start?

To my way of thinking the FEC ain't at the top of the list although any human being who would degrade himself to the depths represented by the FEC probably shouldn't be allowed near a cash register. Again, who do we start with?

6 posted on 07/04/2005 5:38:46 PM PDT by muawiyah (/sarcasm and invective)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Whatever happened to "Congress shall make no law . . . "
Ah, yes . . . those were the days . . .

7 posted on 07/04/2005 6:50:23 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Whatever happened to "Congress shall make no law . . . "

Congress created federal agencies..
They in turn "regulate" you to death..

8 posted on 07/04/2005 7:11:44 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
But the proposal - or at least parts of the 12-page lesson in bureaucrat-speak - has noble intentions.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions - if the correlation fits...

9 posted on 07/04/2005 7:18:11 PM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson