Online Freedom of Speech Fails in House

Powerline ^ | 11/02/2005 | John Hinderaker

[tsmith130]

Apparently the Online Freedom of Speech Act failed to pass in the House of Representatives tonight. I infer this from a statement we got a few minutes ago from Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy, a leading proponent of free speech, including free speech on the web. Mark writes:

I'm horribly disappointed that this important measure failed to pass. This bill was designed to protect the free speech rights of Americans whose only alleged crime is wanting to use the Internet to express their opinions.

I disagree with the mainstream media elites who seem to think that an unregulated media is dangerous, unless it is them who are being regulated. What is disturbing and dangerous to me, and to the constituents I represent, is the ease with which so many advocate government regulation of speech.

Bloggers are everyday citizens. They are our neighbors, friends, and coworkers who want to be able to share their ideas without asking permission from a gatekeeper in the mainstream media and certainly not from a government official. They are the historical descendants of Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and other pamphleteers who contributed enormously to our democracy.

We are trying to spread a message of hope, opportunity, and freedom around the world. I supported this legislation so that we don't lose the ability to have that message shared among the American people, and I am frankly disappointed that a majority of Members don't see it that way.

Mark Kennedy is staking out a position as one of the leading advocates of free speech in America today. What is happening here is that certain people--the editorial board of the New York Times, the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission--are trying to put sites like this one out of business. Frankly, I haven't followed the progress of the Online Freedom of Speech Act closely because I thought the idea that the FEC would try to shut down political discussion on the web was ridiculous. It appears that we have to take the threat to our First Amendment rights more seriously.

[devolve]

 mp3   FROM  RUSSIA  WITH  LOVE   midi 

[Borax Queen]

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to move our venues OUT of America to be able to speak freely.

BTTT

[Borax Queen]

And you know damn well if there is a law being passed to curb internet speech the left has already arranged their loopholes with the legislature.

Very sad and no doubt true.

[bitt]

you mean, we couldn't post THIS? /s

[Zacs Mom]

Maybe it's time our elected officials were reminded of the 1945 Associated Press v. U.S. case where the Supreme Court wrote that:

...the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.

[defenderSD]

I'm thinking this bill went under the under the no debate, no amendment rule because a lot of the Yes voters actually want this bill to fail, so they used that rule to allow them to vote Yes while the bill still fails. This stinks, although I don't think the FEC regs would apply to unpaid bloggers like us. But it still stinks, as does the entire McVain-Feingold mess.

[Iconoclast2]

I am self-employed.

[The Westerner]

"Bloggers are everyday citizens. They are our neighbors, friends, and coworkers who want to be able to share their ideas without asking permission from a gatekeeper in the mainstream media and certainly not from a government official. They are the historical descendants of Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and other pamphleteers who contributed enormously to our democracy."

Hooray for this man.

[The Westerner]

Do you have a clue why some of the Repubs didn't vote for this?

[Protagoras]

But then again I'm still confused about how the McCain-Feingold denial of free speech law got passed.

I'll end the confusion for you. Those in power, both parties, do not value it. Nor does the President, who signed it. Nor does the SCOTUS who upheld it.

There is no free speech, nor property rights, nor forth amendment rights, nor fifth amendment rights. All in the last few years. All while the Republicans either were mute or supportive of the repeal of them.

[excop]

Does the fact that the democraps voted enblock against this bill say anything to anyone? They are AFRAID of free speech; AFRAID of Americans having individual rights that they can't usurp; AFRAID of Americans having guns; AFRAID of the Fourth Amendment. Actually, they are afraid of educated Americans they can't BS every damned 4 years! Hence ... guvmint (mind control) schools. Graduate morons unable to think and they win their fight.

[potlatch]

They're going to come and get you for posting that graphic!

[Tribune7]

Curt Weldon voted against freedom of speech. Guess he is a RINO after all.

[Born Conservative]

I believe that in the past, his reputation was that of a RINO. Not surprising (although in the context of his outspokeness with Able Danger, it is surprising).

[Born Conservative]

I find it amazing that the article doesn't include the bill number. More censorship.

I have seen NUMEROUS threads and articles on this today, and none of them mention the bill number.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[GOPJ]

Does the fact that the democraps voted enblock against this bill say anything to anyone? They are AFRAID of free speech; AFRAID of Americans having individual rights that they can't usurp; AFRAID of Americans having guns; AFRAID of the Fourth Amendment. Actually, they are afraid of educated Americans they can't BS every damned 4 years!

Yes, it tells they are, as you say, afraid -- afraid of everyday people having freedom...

[ntnychik]

You're a marked man, bitt. Someone just opened up a file on you.

[abigailsmybaby]

Capitol Hill needs a high colonic.