From The Washington Post via Lucianne.com March 11
Rarely do I read Howard Kurtz column but F…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, …

“…Only if the blog is instituted for the specific purpose of advocating the election or defeat of a candidate AND the blog is coordinated with a federal campaign committee…”

My sojourn on this sod has taught me to beware of words like “only if” when used in the context of abridging someone’s legal rights. It immediately begs the question of WHO decides when “only if” applies.

Thank you for the link to the BCRA…I was especially interested in the appendix, “Cases Concerning the Internet.” While grateful to note that all the legal advisors specifically caution the FEC to “…tread very lightly when regulating in the the area of the internet…” This isn’t what I’d call an emphatic “Don’t do it!”; it’s simply legalese and bureaucratese for “Be sure you can get away with it when you try to do it.” The FEC signals that it received the message loud and clear in the next paragraph, when it “…indicated this subject would require a considerable amount of addtional work and research before rules can be promulgated. Accordingly, it concluded that FOR THE TIME BEING, IT WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE UNTIL SUFFICIENT RESOURCES BECAME AVAILABLE.”

I take from this that the FEC believes it should regulate internet speech, recognizes that there’ll be a lot of resistance, and initially intends to attempt to regulate only those portions they can easily win. Once they’ve built precedent, they’ll extend their regulating power to other areas determined by those with “only if” decisionmaking power.

This is NOT a “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” question. This is a trial balloon being floated to see just where the red lines are with the internet community. You can be sure…the government very much wants to regulate the blogosphere, especially the political arena. Political blogs shine the harsh light of public scrutiny into the dark corners that ALL politicians (Dem and Rep) would prefer to keep dark.

I encourage the internet community to keep bellowing until the FEC and their political masters tuck tails and slink away. Toning down the screaming is the surest way to tell the FEC where one of the red lines is. It’s consituent screams (measured in decibel level) that gives otherwise spineless politicians the political courage to oppose something.

And don’t listen to those who say “it’s only a few words” uttered by a single commissioner. The First Amendment is only a few words long, but it’s all that stands between you and a “Workers Paradise.” Read it closely…I challenge you to find one area in it that the federal government hasn’t tried to abridge or limit in the past 30 years.

Hektor

Monika Brooks