Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech

InklingBooks writes "Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet. It would have been a 'regulatory minefield for bloggers' and may yet return." CNet has a view of this earlier language as well. It's important to note that the regulation has changed much since the initial draft. The FEC began consideration of more developed regulation language on Thursday. From the article: "So, the original attempt to regulate started with the premise that everything was to be regulated except that with limited distribution or on password-protected sites."

Comments

Interesting ediorial from WSJ

[Cutie Pi]

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about this topic on Wednesday:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110006458

I'm surprised that /.ers are just now hearing about it.

The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

There are plenty of very good reasons they're tackling the issue and if you bother to read the related documents, it is quite clear they are attempting to draft rules that impact only coordinated, primarily directly paid, activity--and even then, they're simply requiring the campaign connections to be disclosed and, when appropriate, reported as contributions.

Rule suggested. Rule shot down.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the March 10 document, political Web sites would be regulated by default 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.

The explanation for the dramatic changes during the last two weeks, according to one FEC official familiar with the events, is the unusual public outcry that followed a public alarm that Commissioner Bradley Smith sounded about a pending government crackdown on bloggers. After Smith's warning, an army of bloggers mobilized to oppose intrusive regulations and prominent members of Congress warned the commission not to be overly aggressive.

The regulatory approach was necessary because of "the increased use of the Internet by federal candidates, political committees, and others to communicate with the general public to influence federal elections," according to the March 10 draft.

"If the March 10 draft had gone into effect, it would have been bloggers with pitchforks and torches storming the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street," said Mike Krempasky, a contributor to conservative Web site RedState.org and co-creator of an online petition on behalf of bloggers.

Krempasky said that Democratic activists and even fellow commissioners unfairly criticized Smith as overreacting to the threat of regulation. The March 10 draft would have forced bloggers "to comply with the entirety of the regulations that apply to paid political advertising on television, radio and broadcast. It gives no substantive exception and even goes so far as to regulate in some circumstances a free blog on a free blog host."

Many Web sites that endorse or attack political candidates would have been required, for instance, to sport a permanent disclaimer.

The March 10 rule did exempt "any Web site, blog, or third-party content appearing on another person's Web site, so long as the aggregate disbursements for the Web site, blog, or other Web site content do not exceed $250 per calendar year." A long list of expenses would have counted toward the $250 trigger, including hosting fees, Web design software, domain name registration, fees paid to PayPal, and any "other payments" related to the site.

The first amendment would override

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1st Amendment is very clear.

And as it was designed primarily around political speech, I can't imagine this holding up in any court for longer than, say...30 seconds.

Re:The first amendment would override

[brianber]

I believe the court already ruled the McCain-Feingold act constitutional in a suit.

You sir, are correct. The SCOTUS did indeed rule that the Incumbant Protection Act's restrictions on paid political advertising are indeed NOT in violation of "Congress shall make no law..."It had to be the only time in history that the ACLU, NRA, and Unions were on the same side. As a result of that ruling, I would be very surprised if bloggers can keep their right to free speech.

Blogs are just entertainment, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar ticles/000/000/005/350fnrnt.asp

In (Former )Soviet union , Journalism ..

[FidelCatsro]

Just a small look at how political comment in journalism is handeld in the ukraine , It does not sound as bad over there yet , but the fact they consider control of any form over matters such as this is worrying .
http://www.ukrweekly.com.nyud.net:8090/Archive/200 2/410220.shtml ''

On September 23, on the eve of a major anti-presidential rally in Kyiv, opposition leaders occupied the UT-1 television headquarters in a futile attempt to present their position to Ukrainian viewers. Official media outlets subsequently portrayed this desperate effort by the opposition to gain an opportunity to speak freely as "political extremism" and a "criminal action by political outsiders."<BR><BR>

On October 1 journalists of the independent news agency UNIAN accused its new executive director, Vasyl Yurychko, of censoring their work and refusing to run any reports that could be construed as unfavorably portraying President Leonid Kuchma. The conflict was settled when Mr. Yurychko and the disobedient journalists signed a declaration in which the supervisor promised not to interfere with their work.<BR><BR>

On October 3 the journalists' growing resistance to the official media policy resulted in a "Manifesto of Ukrainian Journalists Against Political Censorship" [see text on page 3]. The manifesto, which is open for signing by any journalist in Ukraine, was prepared by some 60 representatives of various media outlets.<BR><BR>

The signatories of the manifesto say they "welcome the tendency whereby, under circumstances of the growing political censorship in Ukraine, journalists are switching from individual protests to collective actions of solidarity." The manifesto declares the readiness of Ukrainian journalists to organize a countrywide strike and to stand for the rights of colleagues who were fired from their jobs for political reasons.<BR><BR>

The significance of this document can hardly be overestimated. For the first time in Ukraine's modern history the vicious circle of narrow corporate interests of journalists belonging to different media groups has been broken.

Use DownsizeDC.org to notify your representatives

[Mike]

Sign a petition and send a letter to your representatives easily using DownsizeDC.org.

Re:Er did i miss the point or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

and few more:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2000

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Unenforcable

[Anonymous Coward]

Congresss, FEC, Supreme Court, et. al. are not interested in your freedom of speech. The only reason why they will not try to crack down on internet speech is that this is totally and wholly unenforcable.

Blogs would pop up by the hundreds of thousands if this happened, just to counter the government. What about international blogs? How exactly would the FEC try to regulate an anonymous American citizen posting on a blog hosted somewhere in Europe or Asia? The whole attempt would be an embarrasing failure and there would be massive political fallout.

People may not give a damn about not being able to air commercials before an election, but tinker with their right to give their 2 cents and there will be holy hell.

Re:Judicial System????

[TheKidWho]

Im just going to quote the post right above me by mac deggar

"I think you'd do well to read the actual legislation being proposed (or at least a better edited version): the bill is supposed to take care of paid-for blogging (ie the recent case of a blogger getting money from the gov'ment to spread propaganda for their new healthcare [or was it education?] plan) and the like. It's not meant to 'regulate the internet', as the /.-headline makes you want to believe."

I pressed Virginia 18 months ago on issue

[michaelmalak]

From my blog entry Virginia blogs barred from mentioning local candidates:

In response to the following question:

Now that the Fairfax County Supervisor candidates are announced, if I provide an opinion on my blog that is negative or positive about what an incumbant Supervisor has done, would that require me to file a disclosure report pursuant to 24.2-910?

I received the following response:

If the total aggregate of the independent expenditure is in excess of $200 and the expenditure is made to influence the outcome of an election for public office and if any material is published to the public referring to a candidate by name, description, or other reference, advocating the election or defeat, setting forth his position on any public issue, voting record, or other official acts, or otherwise designed to influence individuals to cast their votes for or against a candidate.

You must file a Statement of Organization and disclose the independent expenditure on a contributions and expenditures disclosure report.

The "Paid for by" and "Authorized by or Not Authorized by" Statements would apply as well.

Rise' Miller
State Board of Elections
Campaign Finance Division

Re:So you're not free unless...

[Jason Ford]

Which ideology calls for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"? Communism? I believe that you are referring to Russia after the October Revolution. This is not a general tenet of Communism.

It would be a tragedy to dismiss any ideology based on an inaccurate understanding of it.