[Watery Tart]

The rules... say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads...

No more banner ads, eh? Well I'd better post 'em before they come for me...

---

Now, about this "paid web advertising" angle.... does it pay much to do this?

[afnamvet]

The CFR still stands and still is an outright attack on our right to free speech.

[HHKrepublican_2]

IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESNT WORK, TRY THE SECOND!

[Watery Tart]

---

Shamelessly stolen from another FReeper

[af_vet_rr]

Normally I'm not one to agree with the Slashdot crowd, but I found these two comments on this story to be dead-on:

Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

But by "giving" us the right, they reserve their right to take it away in the future, if the right is "abused". So they have set a precident that may come in handy in the future, as long as those nasty courts don't interfere.

[DoughtyOne]

Any government regulations of my thoughts and the free expression of them are unacceptable to me. McCain, Feingold, you and those who have signed on to what you have done here, are not fit to hold public office.

[4woodenboats]

From the article;

The FEC's internal deliberations are taking place against an unusual backdrop of congressional action. Bloggers of all political stripes, many politicians and even FEC Chairman Michael Toner have thrown their support behind a proposal in Congress that would amend current law and largely immunize the Internet from election law.

So if the chairman of the SEC doesn't want the internet to have the CFR stuff up our bums, who then?

An effort to do just that was defeated by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives last November. In a second attempt to enact the same proposal, a House panel this month approved the bill again, but the release of the FEC rules could delay it indefinitely. (A similar measure is pending in the Senate.)

Whaddaya know, congressional Democrats, what a surprise!

The three Republican commissioners--including Smith, who's now a law professor--had wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get even one of the three Democrats to go along with them and give them a majority, that didn't happen and the FEC began the current proceeding.

And FEC democrats block their Republican counterparts from appealing, in stark contrast to the FEC Chairman's wishes! Who woulda thunk....?

Critics of a broad exemption--including the New York Times editorial board--say that excluding all Internet communications is a recipe for corruption, giving candidates the green light to coordinate unfettered soft-money online spending with corporations, labor unions and wealthy donors

Ah, The New York Times, champion of free speech as long as it's their's and their's alone, and you have to pay a subscription to read it. Cute how they included unions in there in an attempt to appear balaced, everyone in a union knows the only way to find out how the union bosses want you to vote is on the internet, right? And those union blogs, so concerned with which party their members want their dues money spent on...

How ironic, or coincidental, really, that such starkly partisan Democrat and MSM favored regs are being pushed by a Rino who came very close to running for VP on a Democrat ticket on the most recent contest.

[Amerigomag]

"I would have liked to see one kind of regulation that's not here, which is disclosure that a blogger has been paid for by a candidate or committee to take a position in an election,"

So would I.

[Brytani]

I'm still not liking this too much. If McCain manages to get a bill passes making internet communication prior to elections "illegal" won't the FCC have to follow that law?

At least until the USSC slaps his WAY to big of head around?

[tet68]

Even a light hand, wielding a whip, is not to be born
by free men.

[xzins]

Emails to 500 or fewer people

That's ridiculous.

There are a huge number of churches, clubs, fraternities, service organizations, etc. with member lists bigger than that.

This is a clear violation of free speech.

1. The gov't tells me to whom I'm allowd to communicate.
2. The gov't tells me what I'm allowed to communicate.
3. The gov't tells me when I'm allowed to communicate.

[michigander]

THE DEATH OF FREE SPEECH

[Redbob]

Get rid of McCain

Get rid of Feingold


Get rid of McCain-Feingold!

[crushelits]

Somebody should file a lawsuit against this 96 piece of crap so called "Internet regulation" and send it all the way to
the Supremes where Chief Justice Roberts will tell congress that the law is unconstitutional.

PERIOD.
After the lawsuit we'll need to denounce McCain as persona Non Grata in the Republican Party and oppose, combat and resist the nomination of John McCain for President.

[exhaustedmomma]

Censorship is the use of state power or public body or individual to control freedom of expression. Censorship 'criminalizes' some actions or the communication (and suggested communications) of actions. In a modern sense censorship consists of any attempt to suppress information, points of view, or method of expression such as art, or profanity. The purpose of censorship is to maintain the status quo, to control the development of a society, or to stifle dissent among a subject people.
propaganda techniques

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Government took a light hand when it first introduced the income tax. It took a light hand when it first started limiting smoking. As long as McCain-Feingold (aka Soupy Sales, Jr.) is the law of the land--thanks to politbureau members like these two senators and the majority of wimpy members of congress who voted for the unconstitutional act, and a wimpy president who signed it, and a majority of the supreme court who found it legitimate--it's just a matter of time before political websites like this one will be shut down prior to elections.