Slashdot Mirror
FEC Rules Bloggers Are Journalists
Dotnaught writes "The Federal Election Commission today issued an advisory opinion that finds the Fired Up network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exemption' to federal campaign finance laws. The press exemption, as defined by Congress, is meant to assure 'the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.' The full ruling is available at the FEC site. A noteworthy passage: '...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"
Too bad it wasn't the FCC and was the FEC.
-Grant
|grant.henninger.name|
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
It wasn't pulled off the air by government regulators, it was a backlash from viewers and advertisers if I recall. Ultimately the market prevails :).
www.lonseidman.com
Since when does campaign finance reform==freedom of speech?
I think it was about the time when they started considering public speech supporting a candidate a form of "campaign contribution". Why do you think the bloggers needed an exemption in the first place?
The airwaves are (artificially, by government fiat) limited resource, and as such, restrictions on how much someone can monopolize them to stump for a particular candidate might be justifiable. But the fact that someone has more time/energy/money/passion/wind to promote a particular candidate, party, position, point of view, or brand of toothpaste is completely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. If you think that the wording of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" needs to be amended to prevent abuses, you are welcome to initiate and pass a new amendment. I don't think so, myself, so be prepared to face at least one person's worth of opposition.
Regardless, until the Constitution is amended, "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law" -- and that includes campaign finance reform laws.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Where to begin with this...
At least on Fox they have two sides for arguments...
Yeah. It's either wacko righty + even more wacko righty OR wacko righty + diluted inarticulate liberal (ie, Alan Colmes or Bob Beckel). Having straw man liberals to take crap from unfair questions is not showing two sides for the argument. It is not at all about getting to the truth of an issue, but creating the appearance of fairness in order to promote your agenda.
People that use this tend to think that there's nothing wrong with the government funded left-biased NPR, yet get all up in arms about Limbaugh starts shooting his fat mouth off.
You really want to talk about unfair government interference in public broadcasting? You can start by explaining why Rush Limbaugh is on Armed Forces Radio but liberals critical of this administration get pulled.
In fact, free speech doesn't really apply to journalists. I'm speaking as someone who has worked in journalism for the past ten years. Let's say I hate Microsoft. As a journalist, if I wrote something like "Microsoft is crap and I'm not just saying that because Bill Gates likes to sleep with young boys and small furry animals" I would be in a load of trouble. Sure, it's an obvious joke, but Gates would have me dragged into court in less time than it took Windows98 to flash a BSOD. Now I could argue satire, but unless I got lucky and had a jury full of Mac addicts, I would probably lose.
The example doesn't even need to be that extreme. News organizations have been sued for defamatory stories about corporations, even though everything in their story was accurate. Once upon a time, journalists could rely on the truth as their defense. This is not always the case anymore. You can be sued for defamation even if the facts are on your side, and you will lose if the jury sides against you.
The only so-called journalists who come close to getting away with things like that are tabloids, and they're being sued left and right. They're losing, too.
Add to that the fact that most bloggers aren't affiliated with big corporations or other entities with loads of cash. Most of them are regular people, who couldn't afford to defend themselves in court even if they were 100% accurate with everything they wrote.
Of course, I haven't talked about political speech, which IS what this ruling is all about. However, if the government really starts treating blogs like other journalistic media, it will have to apply the same standards to all of them. At the very least, blogs could eventually be vulnerable to the same legal actions as traditional media.
I guess what worries me the most is this: As a journalist, I am not at all free to say whatever it is I want to say--nor should I be. Some stories are so heavily "lawyered" to avoid lawsuits, they read like a Microsoft EULA. Most of us couldn't afford to have a legal team on retainer to protect ourselves. Even if we could, what kind of "freedom" is that?
Why are you calling a "Draft Advisory Opinion" by a commission a "ruling"?
They understood the pull of corruption in this environment (underpinned by basic group psychology trends) and specifically planned these papers and eventually the constitution based upon that understanding. To challenge otherwise is to misunderstand the entire raison d'etre of America.
"Oh wait, it's only "right-wing" views that have to be balanced."
If that's true, it's because only "right-wing" views exist. The old rule was that all polictical and controversial opinions had to be balanced. Now that the rule is gone, there only seems to be one view.
24 hour a day political harrangues do not constitute the presentation of political views anyway, it is propaganda, pure and simple. In other words, opposing views are censored.
One must wonder exactly who employs and scripts these carbon copy talk shows and their respective hosts.
Please see: http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html for some references to historical censorship in the United States.
Michael