Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act

not so anonymous writes "The Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FEC rules." From the article: "In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules. The vote tally in the House of Representatives, 225 to 182, was not enough to send the Online Freedom of Speech Act to the Senate. Under the rules that House leaders adopted to accelerate the process, a two-thirds supermajority was required."

Comments

FEC....not the FCC

[cdrudge]

The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FCC rules.

FCC - Federal Communications Commission
FEC - Federal Election Commission

FCC tells you what you can say on the airwaves. FEC tells you what a politician can say (during elections).

Learn the difference.

The Relevant Information

[byteCoder]

Here is the past Slashdot discussion at the bill's introduction. The bill text for HR 1606 can be found here. The bill simply says:

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 the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

The law being modified can be found on page 11 (PDF page 25) of this (warning: large PDF) document, which simply defines "public communication" as:

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

More detailed information

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Daily Kos has an article on this with a bit more information. This one actually goes into reasons why the Dems voted againt it. Daily Kos disagrees with the Dem's reasons, and was in favor of extending the free nature of blogs.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/112540 /088

Note that the act can still be brought up for a vote under normal rules and passed. The defeat was under special rules intended to speed the process.

Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT

[ROU Nuisance Value]

And Daily KOS supported the bill's passage. The actual story is *slightly* more complicated than the /. headline would suggest.

READ THE DAMN ARTICLE

[RingDev]

This is not an encrouchment on your right to free speech. This just applies existing election campaign laws to internet communication.

You can still post your political party bashing blog. Now you just can't get paid insane amounts of money to do so with out the backing party acknowledging it.

Nothing to do with your rights. Everything to do with campaign finances.

-Rick

Re:Lovely Omission

[CaptCovert]

I know that it's still a cottage industry in many ways, but I'm surprised that web hosting companies in the US aren't up in arms about this. To eliminate Free Speech on the web would be enforcable against US companies, and could possibly send some out of business (SpeakEasy comes to mind).

Re:Lovely Omission

[timeOday]

Well, the Democrats did defeat the bill. About the best the editors could have done is put the title of the bill in scare-quotes.

This is how it always works. It's called a poison pill, and both sides do it. You put together a basically good-sounding bill with some riders which are either pork or serve special interest groups. Then if it doesn't pass, you say "Look! The other side is against national security / eductation / freedom of speech / whatever."

Besides, the fact is the campaign finance law does regulate speech. It limits parties' freedom to "speak" (e.g. buy advertising) for a candiate. Now, I happen to be in favor of this particular restriction of speech because I think it serves a greater good in preserving democracy (including free speech) in the long run... but you have to realize a lot of people are against the campaign finance laws and see them as an unwarranted limitation on free speech.

Re:mirror world?

[Enry]

and the PMRC was a pet project of Tipper Gore

from TFWA:

They included Tipper Gore (wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore); Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; and Nancy Thurmond, wife of Senator Strom Thurmond.

So 1 democrat + 2 republicans = democratic project?

Re:Lovely Omission

[goodmanj]

In Slashdot, always read TFA, not just the comments on it. In politics, always read TFB (The F'ing Bill). What it says, and what people *say* it says, are often two different things.

The bill doesn't say "bloggers can post what they like." It says "all Internet communications are immune from federal election rules." That includes not just bloggers, but major media corporations and advertisers.

The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?

TFB needs to be more precise. But amendments weren't allowed, so it was voted down.

Re:Lovely Omission

[danheskett]

I've got to call BS on your comments:

Slavery and a lack of rights for women and minorities was against the Consitution.

This is just patently false.

1. Article IV Section II establishes slavery as a legal institution:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. "

2. Article I Section II establishes the disparate value of free whites and "all other persons":

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The original Constitution emphatically does not provide for the equal rights of all citizens: it differienates between free and non free, recognizes forced labor and the ownership of forced laborers and generally does not do anything which you claim!

Free speech should be exactly what the Constitution says it is, and that we need additional regulations to protect it means that the Consitution is being shit on, and that makes me sad.
I wish I could just blindly say I agree, but the Constitution is intentionally vague. Does reporting on your financing abridge your right to a free press? How about forcing food manufactuers to print a lable and put that on their product? How about requiring porn makers to label their stuff with a legal notice? Are these all equal abridgements of the 1st amendment?

If it really were so black and white I think you'd be sorry.

Re:Lovely Omission

[john82]

I've come to expect dupes, glaring ommissions, and outright falsehoods from Slashdot, but up until now it had resisted posting blatantly partisan rhetoric.

You've got to be kidding. Slashdot has been blatantly partisan for years. Because it was leaning in a direction you agree with you obviously either missed it or ignored it.

So when a similar light-on-the-facts, misleading headline article appears to say something equally heinous about Republicans, that's okay. But if it happens to Democrats that constitutes a conspiracy?

Staying more on topic, I'd like to know why ANYONE in Congress is allowed to attach a rider that doesn't have a thing to do with the original bill. Congress would have to change their rules to prevent it, but both major parties apparently are addicted to this sort of nonsense.