FEC Won't Regulate Internet Politics

BreitBart.com ^ | March 27, 2006 | David Pace

[Calpernia]

I'm playing with wordings in my head. I think as long as it is on the books, we didn't win.

This is going to piggy back onto the move NJ is pushing for ID verification for message boards, blogs and forums.

[roaddog727]

Woo Hoo Hoo!

Bumperoo!

[marsh_of_mists]

Good news, but we shouldn't even have had to worry about this. That fact that, with this law, was worry over this is itself pretty scary.

[Spiff]

I agree, with prefect 20/20 hindsight, he should have vetoed it.

He swore an oath. He KNEW the bill was unconstitutional. How hard is it to just say "No, I will not sign a law that violates the Constitution of the United States which I swore to uphold." He did not require hindsight in order to know what was the right thing to do. It was as plain as it could be the day he signed the bill into law.

[Calpernia]

Hey you online?

I'm going to out myself here :)

I made a donation to you for you to write a blog on my website

(VERY nice job!)

Is that a paid ad?

[clawrence3]

Well, the FEC is talking about federal elections I think.

[Calpernia]

States and locals would run with this in a second.

[clawrence3]

We disagree. You do know there are also some reasonable limits to Free Speech, right? Defamation or falsely yelling "Fire!" is a crowded theatre?

[polymuser]

Yes, indeed. Only a hard fight will stop this garbage for real. Censuring McCain would be a nice opener.

[Fudd Fan]

COOL!

[Better luck next time, McCain - NOT!]

[topher]

Looks like you need to start focusing on 2nd Quarter fundraising - and not have to worry about this!

Good News!!!!!!

[Maceman]

To be fair, I think the President was counting on the SCOTUS to strike down the most egregious portions of the law.

He should have cited his own Constitutional oath and vetoed it. He definitely passed the buck, to the detriment of our nation, and that was just cowardly and wrong.

[Reagan Man]

Good news.

Now if somehow, the Senate can just go along with HR 4437, it'll make for a good week all around.

[GretchenM]

Us:

McCainFeingold and Minions:

[mware]

My concern is that some of us post campaign commericals that we have found on tv and other sites here at FRee Republic. Does that exclude us from the ruling????

[clawrence3]

We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[clawrence3]

Would you consider an exemption to HR 4437 for church workers?

[RandallFlagg]

We disagree. You do know there are also some reasonable limits to Free Speech, right? Defamation or falsely yelling "Fire!" is a crowded theatre?

Actually, I believe you are free to do these things. And you're free to pay the consequences for it. When Clinton was in Denver dancing on the graves of the Columbine victims on national TV, he said, "There are restrictions on American's rights. For example, you can't yell, "Fire," in a crowded theater.
I asked myself, "Well, what if there IS a fire?!"

[Calpernia]

I don't think so. That is the problem.

And what about campaign activists that are registered? I think this is going to roll right into ID verify.

It still qualifies as paid ads IMO.

[Spiff]

We disagree. You do know there are also some reasonable limits to Free Speech, right? Defamation or falsely yelling "Fire!" is a crowded theatre?

So, if the FEC deemed politically oriented blogs and forums to be controlled by McCain/Feingold and the blog continued against the FEC regulations to engage in "political" speech inside the prohibition timeframes within the regulation, then in your mind that would be equivalent to "defamation" or "falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater"?! How many egregious prohibitions or threats of prohibitions of your speech are you going to accept until you demand, "No More!"