Posted on 02/12/2015 3:23:22 PM PST by Kaslin
The Federal Election Commission is considering expanding their regulatory power to include political speech online… Yeah, let’s regulate the internet. I mean, free speech can’t just be expected to run wild or anything, right? The FEC held an open hearing yesterday to determine if they will move forward on clamping down on political content online (such as blogs, YouTube videos, and other “free” messaging). According to CNS News:
Last October, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel issued a statement in which she complained that the agency was not doing enough to monitor activity on the Internet.
Right… Because I know I’m terrified that the feds aren’t doing enough to regulate people’s ability to speak freely. The Democrat members of the FEC want to expand their regulatory oversight to include content that is not paid political advertising. Currently, some online content is exempt from the bureaucratic oversight of the Orwellian Federal Election Commission’s disclosure laws. According to the Washington Examiner:
Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.
So to put it differently: The “internet exemption” only applies to videos posted for free on sites like YouTube, Facebook, and individual blogs… Yeah, we should totally bring a little government to Facebook, or the Drudge Report. Dontchya think?
It’s not as if we’re talking about posting an ad online, and suddenly having the ability to forget that the FEC is breathing down your neck. The current exemption only applies to online content that is not considered paid advertisements. In other words, internet versions of TV commercials, radio spots, or any other online media that has paid placement (even on other websites, or through an ad agency) must report to the FEC under current law.
So who are we really talking about regulating here? The guy that rants into his computer camera and posts it on YouTube? The casual blogger? I mean, by the very fact that we’re discussing nonpaid content, I’m assuming these are mostly people without the Koch brother’s fortune to blow on an election. (And, by the way, those evil Kochs don’t even make it into the top 20 list of America’s biggest-spending political donors.)
What part of “free” speech seems so impossible for our Democrat friends in the FEC to understand? Or are Democrats simply adapting their Second Amendment objections to the First? “It’s an antiquated amendment,” they say. “Our founding fathers never could have imagined the technology we have today!”… Sure. But in their day, the musket was an assault weapon, and pamphlets were viral communication. And just as pamphleteers objected to King George’s “Stamp Act”, bloggers, columnists, and online content producers should probably worry about the FEC’s plan to monitor online political speech.
Disclosure in political spending is a fine goal, but there still has to be such a thing as speech that is unmonitored, unregulated, and intrinsically “free”. After all, the First Amendment doesn’t protect our right to speak under the condition that we obtain prior approval and comply with ongoing regulatory schemes. (Somehow I don’t see folks like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or Ben Franklin really getting on board with that kind of government oversight of political discourse.)
Ostensibly, the move is designed to help flush out secretive “dark money”. Now, let me translate that for all the Liberals who peruse my column (you know who you are): The FEC wants to know who is getting money from the Koch brothers. But, this straw man argument is pretty suspect. The biggest spenders in American politics tend to skew Left… Progressive groups, environmentalists, and Unions. And while the FEC will be busy snooping around on YouTube looking for political speech to squander, the AFL-CIO will continue to funnel it’s forced union dues into Democrat campaigns with little oversight, transparency, or scrutiny.
The simple phrase “monitoring political speech” should be a pretty big “red flag” in a country that prides itself on diversity, tolerance, and individual liberty. Americans might pride themselves on being a land that understands and champions freedom of speech, but they sure have a heavy set of regulations to go along with such enthusiasm.
*And, for the record, the views articulated in this column are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer or any of their affiliates… And no, Harry Reid: The Koch brothers did not ghostwrite this.
Your wish come true!! LOL
Bookmarked.
regulating political speech, now I read something about that awhile back. What was it.
McConnell and Boehner could shut the FCC down yesterday via funding. But since they’re both fags, and the kind that likes to dress up in snappy Nazi era uniforms when they’re humping little boys out at Bohemian Grove, don’t look for them to do anything except nod in approval while they wax their riding crops.
Of course. They want everyone to think in an approved manner.
1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984
1984
GEORGE ORWELL WARNED US!
He sure did
Bear in mind that federal elections laws are all screwed up anyway because the Founding States had never intended for senators and presidents to be elected by the general voters.
Otherwise, note there are no constitutional provisions for any federal entity to arbitrarily expand its regulatory powers.
In fact, the Founding States made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, to clarify that all federal legislative / regulatory powers expressly delegated by the states to the feds are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in constitutionally undefined “independent federal regulatory agencies” like the FEC. So the elected members of Congess have a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether they want it or not.
And by delegating federal legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats like those running the FEC, corrupt Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 referenced above.
So rogue federal agencies like FEC (EPA, etc.) have no constitutional basis to exist imo.
I guess that would make it illegal for me to call obammy a half breed poser fraud then?
Facts are facts
Political free speech is the most protected there is. It’s the primary reason for the 1st.
Lee, Your post #5 is disgusting.
Well before they accomplish this let me just say that Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka little bathhouse barry bastard boy, aka L4B is the perfect verminous liar to be the democrat president.
But essentially true. Maybe you should report him the FCC
We didn’t forsee this at all..../s
<img src=”https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited.jpg"; height=200
The Democrat/RINO-controlled FEC wants to know who is contributing money for Tea Party candidates, so other government agencies like the IRS can destroy them.
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.
![https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited.jpg"](https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited.jpg"){kind=link}