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 ...
Whatever happened to the Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to freedom of speech, etc?
The FEC's definiton of "online political ads" needs to ascertained.
Lord help the democrats if it becomes mandated that the Internet be presented in "butterfly" form.
I think I'll ask Mr. Smith of the FEC his opinion, he is good at responding to e-mails.
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?
Ah, yes . . . those were the days . . .
Congress created federal agencies..
They in turn "regulate" you to death..
And the road to hell is paved with good intentions - if the correlation fits...
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.