Posted on 03/04/2005 12:10:40 AM PST by ajolympian2004
CNET reporter Declan McCullagh has an important piece warning of the "coming crackdown on blogging."
Joshua Claybourn of In the Agora analyzes the campaign finance law absurdities and First Amendment infringements on bloggers here.
Winfield Myers is on the same wavelength. He writes:
The possibilities that [FEC commissioner Bradley] Smith lays out are chilling and, if enacted, could spell the end of blogging as we know it. Indeed, it could turn much of what is published on the Net into a samizdat-style activity.
Sound alarmist? Read on. It all stems, of course, from McCain-Feingold, the absurd and (pace the Supreme Court) unconstitutional curtailment of political speech in violation of the First Amendment. Both Senators, and the Democratic members of the Commission, favor regulating political speech on the Internet, lest bloggers and electronic publications enjoy an advantage over print publications. This is a huge power grab by elements of the federal bureaucracy who are threatened by New Media, and a first step by those forces to shut down political speech they don't like.
This is something bloggers of all political stripes should unite against. Instapundit has more links.
I think McCullagh and FEC commissioner Brad Smith have done a real service sounding the alarm as the panel moves forward on extending McCain-Feingold to the Internet. Here's the last paragraph from the CNET interview, but make sure to read it in its entirety:
Smith: This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.
Update: Lots of buzz about this:
- Steven Bainbridge: "Thank You Senators McCain and Feingold ... you [plural expletive deleted]"
- Pajama Hadin: "The Coming Crackdown on Blogging"
- Rightwing Nuthouse: "BLOGOSPHERE… WE HAVE A PROBLEM"
- Say Anything: "Political Blogging To Be Outlawed?"
- Baronger's Scribblings: "Political Prisoners coming to the United States?"
- Mike Krempasky: "FEC regulating Blogging?"
- Susanna Cornett, "Will blogging be restricted by the government?"
- Hennessy's View: "McCain-Feingold Outlaws Blogging?"
- The Anchoress, "You knew this was coming, and right on time..."
- The invaluable Captain Ed, who has long assailed the back-door First Amendment violations of the McCain-Feingold Act, writes:
Bigger blogs will come under closer scrutiny, which means that any expression of support on CQ with a referential hyperlink may well get valued at more than the $2,000 maximum hard-cash contribution.
In order for me to operate under those conditions, I will need to hire a lawyer and an accountant to guide me through the election laws and calculate my in-kind donations on almost an hourly basis. How many bloggers will put up with that kind of hassle just to speak their minds about candidates and issues?
-More round-up from Red State, including reaction from the left side of the blogosphere. MyDD, for example, writes:
I swear to the gods, how idiotic can people be? If the 3 Democratic-appointed judges on the FEC panel manage to extend the 2002 campaign finance law to regulate political speech over the internet, we Democrats can say hello to the wilderness for sure.
RS's Mike Krempasky is right about this:
Make no mistake - Democrats and Republicans together got us into this mess, including President Bush - who in the most glaring example of political cowardice of his administration signed McCain-Feingold.
But now that it's becoming clear what sort of disaster we're heading for as this law evolves and expands - the Democrats own this one. The Republican members of the FEC have seen the edge of the cliff and are trying to back away, only to be frustrated by the three Democratic appointees on the Commission. So I hope that our friends on the left side of the blogosphere will join us in urging those Democrats to stop this before it's too late.
Consider it the first opportunity for the left-of-center bloggers to have their very own Sister Souljah moment.
Here's hoping. In the meantime, here's contact info for the FEC:
Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530
The commissioners' pages are here.
Brad Smith's home page quotation is particularly fitting as this battle of the Blogs Vs. Big Government looms:
“I want to note that the growth of regulation generally, or more precisely, the growth of the administrative state, is itself smothering democracy in America, not only in its particulars, but in its general, ubiquitous presence.”
--Bradley A. Smith, speech delivered at the Catholic University Law Review’s Election Law Symposium on September 23, 2000.
Just so no one forgets, here's how each member of the Senate voted on McCain-Feingold back in '01. And here's how members of the House voted on the House companion bill known as Shays-Meehan.
Update II: Letters, we've got letters. There's Captain Ed's letter to Senators. And Mark Coffey's open letter to Sen. McCain.
Via the Anchoress, here's contact info for the entire Congress.
Meanwhile, LGF has a post on the blogger crackdown overseas.
Ping. I'm thinking again, about who-all was at the WEF, JJ. There would have to be spiders and crawlers creeping through the internet to determine whether one's private email or blog or website was "politically oriented".
And to hear the left gnash its teeth over, say, the Patriot Act. To hear them screech about the "vast right wing conspiracy".
No doubts, there are other parts of McCain-Feingold -- yet to be releashed. Let's see, McCain says he wants to see local TV/Radio stations be FORCED to air (at their own cost) "chump change" candidates. So, in this case, does this mean that the Stations has to give the appearance of "supporting" the candidate? And therefore pay a charge?
Will those bloggers and emailer who are supporting a "chump change" candidate be FREED from this newer-proposed fees via McCain-Feingold?
And mine. I suspect the Pubbies know better than to shoot the ones who sent them to the dance.
Not gonna happen. The right, left, center, and extremists on all sides will not tolerate it.
Damn that reprehensible supreme supremist court for upholding MFCFR! It's 100% blatently unconstitutional, based on 5 little words... "Congress shall make no law." What part of that doesn't the supremist court understand, when "applying the Constitution to laws?"
It's amazing how the supremist court is able to find all sorts of rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution (and I agree 100% with the 9th and 10th Amendments, don't get me wrong here), but when a right is specifically enumerated, they say, "Nahhhh... That's not really important, and it doesn't really mean what it spells out..." That's one of the reasons I'm scared to death of the supremist court getting a hold of the Second Amendment...
The supremist court is like a rogue elephant, running rampant across the fields of our government, supplanting the Republic style of government with their own decrees.!
Mark
That wasn't evident during the campaign, when they unleashed McCain for his vitriol against the Swift Vets and POWs. That wasn't evident when they started talking 'domestic partners' weeks before voters in eleven states voted against 'gay marriage'. If that was all at the leading of 'boy genius', Karl 'amnesty' Rove, why would anything be different, now, particularly as Pres. Bush is NOT running again? Remember, it was Ann C., on a 'blog' in a way, who coined this term for Rove - 'boy genius'. Rove probably wishes PLB and LGF and the rest would just - go away.
I don't think he gets it any more than those Dem that want to extend such legislation to get only the conservative bloggers. Could I be wrong about the guy, on this? I sure do hope so.
Time for a little historical review, on just WHAT this guy did and didn't do during the war. And it's time to have a second look at this poser's record in Congress. He's an embarrassment to the GOP, no question.
Good point. Thanks.
Is there a better expression than "we got" here? Ed Asner used those words in talking about Rush Limbaugh's drug problem. I'd prefer to say that we helped expose the bias and deceipt practiced by Rather and Jordan. They got themselves. Any other suggestions?
No joke - and a small voice in the back of my head says that was the idea all along.
I'm calling my representitive and both Senators today! I urge all of you to do the same. Someone needs to reign in the FEC, and this McCain-Feingold nonsense bill needs to go the way of the dinosaur!
First amendment ping
Did we achieve EVERYTHING we'd hoped to achieve? Nope, not even close . . . but it's easier to change the minds of like-minded individuals than it is to change the minds of no-brains Liberals. We just have to slowly but surely keep reeling in the Republican "mavericks" . . . but we can't toss out the entire Cherry Pie just because a few of them aren't yet ripe.
We Conservatives have fought for my entire life to become the Majority Party. Sadly, we've had to make some sacrifices to achieve our goal . . . but we're there now.
Now we can start fine-tuning our political machine to "sterilize" those political prostitutes who would sell their souls to be reelected. But we have the numbers to do it now. We can pick off the RINOs one at a time and not suffer a major blow. When we pick off enough of them, eventually, the others will get the message.
We pick the most egregious ones first . . . but even then we shouldn't pick any ONE offense to be our rallying cry . . . like the abortion debate. For example, Let's say Senator A is Pro-Choice but he toes the line on the other Conservative Causes. Senator B is Pro-Life but he's anti-military, favors Big Government, and believes in gun control.
Abortion seems to ALWAYS be the hot button for us conservatives . . . and I'm as devoutly Pro-Life as anyone else . . . but I suggest this. Senator B's "over-all" failings are far, far worse than Senator A's . . . and could even, in the long run, cost more lives. Our enemies know not to challenge us because we have the world's greatest Armed Forces. If we allowed this to slide, Americans could become sitting ducks.
So, while I agree with the tenor of your comments, I humbly suggest, yes, they need to be corrected . . . but they need to be corrected with an over-all strategy in mind and not just pick one single Hot-Button as the catalyst.
I've waited fifty-one years for us to become the Majority Party . . . surely we can show a bit of patience with the 5-10% of the Republican Politicos who don't "toe-the-line" of our Conservative Agenda. Patient does not mean complacent, however, and that's very important. We've got them in our sights . . . let's just pick them off one at a time while in the meantime we still get 80-90% of our agenda approved.
bump
I like my friend Phibian's idea.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/03/vampire-vampire-vampire-coming.html
When do we march. Captain Ed can gather the Pajama clad VRRC, can Kos can get the Moonbats.
We just need a date. Once a ruling is made? May 1st?
More important, where do we meet for drinks before and after the march?
bump / ping!
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.