FEC Hears: "Hands Off the Net!"

The New York Times (free reg. req.) is reporting that the Federal Election Commission has heard a clear message from the internet community regarding regulation of political websites. That message: Don't! It seems likely that no new regulations will be passed at least before this year's election. Some thoughtful material urging the hands-off approach is at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Comments

G.W. Bush Parody Site

[FalconRed]

The NY Times article doesn't bring it up, but today's Wired News does. The issue around the gwbush.com site is whether or not an individual should be constricted by the same rules as corporations, or whether they are protected under freedom of the press, or whether there is some new legal standing for individuals on the internet. Bush may help us find an answer soon if he chooses to press ahead with his lawsuit.

Personally I think common sense should come in to play here: an individual is usually nither the press nor a corporation, and should not have the same protections/restrictions. And the internet shouldn't be allowed to become some political advertising free-for-all, lest we all be spammed with banner ads proclaiming "Vote Gore!" or pop-up windows advising us, "Get tough on Internet Porn with CyberCop and George W. Bush!". Oh, the humanity!

Far from over yet

[jaed]

You notice, though, that they don't say they're *not* going to regulate political speech on the net - only that the regulatory process will be slow and they probably won't do anything until after the election.

Notice also that "campaign finance reform" is a hot issue in this upcoming Presidential election, and the form it usually takes is either forbidding campaign contributions or severely limiting them. If political advocacy is taken as a "contribution" when it takes place on the net - and the FEC doesn't seem to have ruled out this possibility, just said it won't decide that now - then presumably it would be illegal to advocate for or post in support of a candidate or issue, or be legal only if your expenditures were calculated at below the limit.

There are some obvious first amendment problems with limiting campaign contributions by private parties, and this really brings them into sharp focus. "Post 'Vote for So-and-So', go to jail". A close eye still needs to be kept on this, and hopefully brought up during discussion of the broader issue of campaign finance reform.