Slashdot Mirror

Why are you calling a "Draft Advisory Opinion" by a commission a "ruling"?

Perhaps because the FEC voted yesterday to adopt the draft advisory opinion. I believe the vote was 5 to 0. Details at http://redstate.org./
It was a reasonable question.

Actually yelling Fire! is the classic counter-example.
It is free speech to yell Fire!
The expression comes from a 1919 case, schenk v united states http://laws.findlaw.com/us/249/47.html
in which some guys were put in jail for passing out leaflets opposing the war and suggesting that the draft was involuntary servitude and thus unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment.
The case is taught not because it was right, but because it was wrong, to show how the modern view of the first amendment has evolved. It was brave wobblies (www.iwww.org) who took up the fight for free speech in the 1910s on the west coast, and gradually judges came to agree.

There are a number of reasons one might want to yell Fire in a crowded theater. It might be a line in a play, or the theater might be on fire.

Otherwise, I largely agree with parent poster.

For people interested in free speech and the FEC and blogging, here are a few resources:
http://www.electionlawblog.org/
http://redstate.org/
http://instapundit/
http://volokh.com/
http://electionline.org/
http://votelaw.org/
http://jamesmadisoncenter.org./
The supreme court currently has two cases about campaign finance. In one of them, wisconsin right to life v FEC, there are some signals the court will start to grant a series of narrow exceptions to McCain-Feingold as upheld in McConnell.
Assuming Alito gets confirmed by then, he might be a 5th vote for free speech, so this will be a case worth watching, as a signal for where things might be headed.
Meanwhile there's a lot of work to do in congress to pass the internet-exception-to-McCain bill,
we need to keep watching the FEC as it drafts new rules on blogging regulation-or-not, and in state courts under state constitutions to protect internet speech from state election authorities which continue to try to impose censorship.
Nobody reads my election law blog, http://ballots.blogspot.com./
Meanwhile, Fire!

The original post about this is wrong. It is the FEC that is wanting to impose campaign finance on the Internet -- not Congress. Instead, The Online Freedom of Speech Act is designed to "not include communications over the Internet" as applicable to the Campaing Finance Reform Act. Please see the complete text of the bill at the following URL.

H. R. 1606
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi ?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=h1606ih.txt&dire ctory=/diskb/wais/data/109_cong_bills

Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/4/13/164333/833

The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

For more info, see this blog post.

Thanks for getting this out - hope the gods of mod dont mod you down because they dont like the links ;)

I want to add a few fun ones to your list:

http://acepilots.com/mt/
http://www.redstate.org/
http://www.vodkapundit.com/