Hugh Hewitt
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Lions, and tigers and bears, oh my!
Many correspondents ask why I haven't rushed to join in the condemnation of the FEC's move to shut down the blogs. Answer: I have been teaching the First Amendment for a decade, and it isn't going to happen because it would be patently and obviously unconstitutional to classify the content of a political blog --which is essentially a cyber-newspaper-- as within the purview of the FEC. If I direct someone to Mark Kennedy's website and suggest a contribution to Mark Kennedy (give early and often!), there is no difference than if I had done so in a column in a newspaper or in a private letter. It is beyond the reach of the government, period. See Beldar for additional exposition. Then see my WorldMagazine column from this week, which holds up Mark Kennedy as a welcome candidate in the hunt for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. Is the FEC going to regulate World as well. And ABC's The Note? And all of OpinionJournal.com, or just those parts that don't appear in print? Or would the rule be you can hint at the candidate you like but cannot expressly say so?
I think the conversation was useful, but not nearly as important as some think. Commissioner Smith's a very smart guy, and he got what he probably set out to get: An early warning to the FEC staff that it is silly beyond words to attempt such a thing. And blatantly unconstitutional.
"beyond the reach of the government"
NOTHING is beyond the reach of the govt.
The real issue is - are we going to sit here and let them ruin the internet like they have ruined most everything else.