Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs

CNet is reporting that the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of internet regulations last Friday. From the article: "The rules [PDF] say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

Comments

How nice of them.

[rebeka thomas]

They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

Re:How nice of them.

[Pharmboy]

Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

But by "giving" us the right, they reserve their right to take it away in the future, if the right is "abused". So they have set a precident that may come in handy in the future, as long as those nasty courts don't interfere.

Fortunately for them, by the time a court interferes, the election would likely be over, rendering the point moot for that election season, and giving them the opportunity to create a differently worded "right of speach". Rinse, repeat.

Re:How nice of them.

[stealth.c]

And yet your description of our freedom of speech betrays your unconscious acceptance of a subtler level of totalitarianism.

Constitutionally protected? If that is the case your freedom comes from the gracious allowance of that document. My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me. The only trouble is that I live under a government and in a society that will do things I do not desire if I say or do certain things; I modify my behavior accordingly.

We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

In essence, our precious bill of rights has doomed us to totalitarianism. The Constitution may have slowed the process, but that's where we're headed anyway.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you. It's ridiculous for anyone to say they "allowed" anyone to say anything on the Internet. I could just as easily say that I allow the sun to rise.

Re:How nice of them.

[spiritraveller]

We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."

Re:How nice of them.

[sorak]

We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."

Yep. And that's why anytime a judge rules on the basis of "privacy" or "fair use" or anything that the founding fathers may have intended, but have not directly spelled out, he is denounced as an activist judge.

Re:Their First Banner Ad

[AnonymousPrick]

I would have said less flamebait and more funny :-)

I thought it was funny and the little bit of an edge added to the sarcasm. Some of the folks who get their mod points take themselves waaayyy too seriously. What's the point in modding someone down? They'll just get lost in the noise if nobody mods them up. And in the meantime, there's one less mod point for folks who say something really interesting or insightful who do get lost in the noise because some mod had to use their points to mod someone down that they disagreed with. I very rarely see someone modderated as "Flamebait" or "Troll" who really deserve it. And most of the time, folks who start their posts with "You're stupid..", "You're an idiot.." or something that I considered to be rude and "Flamebait" get modded insightful.

Re:Not quite free speech

[aztec rain god]

We always have the choice to not storm their headquarters and throw them out of the top floor, too. Forget courts. Tall buildings, much more convincing.

checks and balances

[jheath314]

How the hell did this get modded insightful?

The SCOTUS isn't there to punish unconstitutional policy, just block it. Accountability should come only through elections. If we equated getting overruled by the courts with treason, that would destroy the system of checks and balances by elevating the courts to a position similar to the Iranian "Council of Guardians." There's simply no way such a system wouldn't be abused: imagine what a court stuffed with Republican appointees would do to a Democrat president, or vice versa.

Ironic how your post about respecting the Constitution reveals a very basic incomprehension about how the system created by that Constitution actually works.