Fat Steve's Blatherings

Friday, March 11, 2005

Senator Feingold Lies Again

I posted the following over MyDD.com, when I found out from Capt. Ed
that Feingold was posting on MyDD.

You lying scumbag (none / 0)

"So while I generally agree with the recent decision from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly requiring the FEC to redo its rules relating to political communication on the Internet,"
So, you want to regulate speech over the Internet.

"I am also concerned that the FEC will again create unnecessary concern and confusion. Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision was not a result of problems with BCRA. It was a result of poorly drafted FEC regulations that were challenged in court."

This is a lie. The FEC flatly exempted the Internet from regulation. There was nothing poorly drafted about it. The court challenge was because you disagreed with the policy of letting people communicate without government control.

"The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet. Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so. For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists."

Take a look at that. The Senator wants the U.S. government to decide who is an what is not a legitimate journalist.

"Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn't include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the "media exemption" rule."

Again, the government will be deciding who is "legitimate" and who isn't. They'll be deciding who is and isn't the "media" too.

"The definitions and rules relating "to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity. Certainly linking to campaign websites, quoting from or republishing campaign materials and even providing a link for donations to a candidate, if done without compensation, should not cause a blogger to be deemed to have made a contribution to a campaign or trigger reporting requirements."

So, where is the bill you're introducing to write these ideas into law? And why weren't they in the original bill?

And does "compensation" include paid ads on a site? How about hiring a political consulting firm? Say Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga's firm? Does he have to shut up when hired, or shut down his business?

"Also, the FEC should generally exempt independent, unpaid political activity by bloggers on the Internet."

Oh, we should "generally exempt" them. Which means that you want to specifically regulate some of them. But of course, no one in government will ever, EVER, use that power to shut up people those in power don't like.

Want to buy a bridge?

"We must let this town square, which has added a significant dimension to our political process, continue to flourish."

It will sure flourish once people are spending their time worrying they aren't violating government regulations and thereby incuring large fines.

"When the FEC issues a proposal on this issue later this month, rest assured that I will be reviewing it carefully and offering detailed comments."

Of course, you could be writing legislation, but why stand up and take responsibility when you can pass the buck to the FEC, then sue them if you don't like what they do?

"At a time in the country when we need free and open discourse, when the Senate is rubber stamping a bankruptcy bill which hurts those who have no power, when the country is involved in a war with no timetable for an exit strategy, we must be able to speak our minds without fear of recrimination from the government."

And you, you lying SOB, are doing what you can to regulate speech so that only those likely to say things you like can communicate.

Go to Hell, you hypocrite.



Post a Comment

<< Home