Protect the Blogosphere!
By CCP Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from diaries...Krempasky
Yesterday Representative Jeb Hensarling introduced the “Blogger Protection Act of 2008.”
This bill would statutorily secure the free speech rights of bloggers from pernicious campaign finance laws.
Currently, bloggers’ rights are only secured through regulations promulgated through the Federal Election Commission (FEC).The FEC regulations can change without congressional action, so there is no telling what a future FEC might decide to do.
Cnet.com recalls that just a few years ago FEC staff drafted regulations that proposed that “political web sites be regulated unless they were password-protected and read by fewer than 500 people in a 30-day period. Many of those Web sites would have been required to post government-mandated notices or risk violating campaign finance laws.”
Fortunately, after an uproar from the blogosphere, the FEC rejected the staff’s drafted rules and protected bloggers. But a future Commission is able to change the current regulations. The Blogger Protection Act of 2008 prevents such an outcome from ever happening by protecting bloggers in law.
Please let Congress know that you support protecting the speech rights of bloggers. Contact your Representative or sign on to the letter (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20080403_BloggerAct3.pdf) of support drafted by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP). To sign onto CCP’s letter simply email mschrimpf@campaignfreedom.org and let them know you support bloggers’ rights.
This legislation does not represent a victory of any sort, but a capitualtion. It agrees that we do not have free speech but asks for such to be granted to a special class of people.
We turn from a society where that which is not explicitly prohibited is allowed into a society where that which is not explicitly allowed is prohibited.
That way madness lies.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Unfortunately. And progress is incremental - or haven't you noticed how successful we were in getting rid of the Depts. of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc and so forth.
Eventually folks will read the Declaration of Independence and say "what a bunch of irrational men who refused to understand the world they lived in, surely fewer would have died if our forefathers took the route that Canada did."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Funny you should say that. I think those ideas, if not the exact words, can be found within the pages of Peyton Place.
It's time for some civil disobedience. A rich, very rich, Conservative needs to violate the restrictions of the CFR law that clearly violate the First Amendment. I say clearly, because it couldn't be stated more clearly than
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....
The point needs to be driven home that restricting the publication of political ads of any kind at any time exactly fits the definition of "abridging the freedom of speech," and it abridges exactly the kind of speech that the Amendment was written to protect. (Pornographers need not pretend that it applies to them.)
The following is from Cornell Law:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.
I find it ironic that the USSC has "interpreted (the amendment)... as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress" while it has decreed that it doesn't apply to ordinary citizens during an election.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
It's causing the middle colum to be pushed into weird places.
However, in today's political climate, it is. Yes, the 1st amendment should take care of this; however, it should have taken care of campaign finance reform.
I'll take the First Amendment. If we need some kind of protection from the FEC and campaign finance laws, we need to CHANGE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, not add a little island of protection for 'bloggers'. Dumb.
No wonder we end up with ridiculous, overlapping, impossible to understand laws. This is a waste of time and a capitulation and admission that campaign finance is constitutional.