THE OLD MEDIA SPEAKS OUT ON BEHALF OF THE NEW
The potential regulation of political speech on the internet by the FEC under the auspices of the odious McCain-Feingold campaign finance ” reform” law, has begun to alarm the well-established old media.
From The Omaha World Herald, newspaper where the highly regarded blogger, Geitner Simmons, is an editor:
“Free speech has deep roots in America’s political life. In the 1770s and ’80s, Americans used the printing press to express their political views. The Federalist Papers themselves, first published in newspapers, were an exercise in vigorous political argument.
In the 21st century, new technologies are opening new vehicles for political speech. The Internet, among others.
During the 2004 election campaign, the Democratic and Republican Parties both used online outreach as a major new way to raise contributions. The Internet is also home to an ever-growing assortment of weblogs – do-it-yourself commentary sites that individual citizens are creating and then using with gusto to express their personal political passions.
These “blogs” range widely in quality. Some consist of little more than ranting. Others offer serious analysis. One thing they all share, however, is that they epitomize American free speech in action in a high-tech, 21st-century environment.
A concern has arisen in recent weeks over whether the McCain-Feingold election law requires federal regulators to restrict Internet speech. (McCain-Feingold, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled constitutional by using dubious logic, tramples on First Amendment rights by stigmatizing certain types of political speech by special-interest groups as out of bounds and worthy of prohibition by the Federal Election Commission.)
Concern that the FEC would extend McCain-Feingold restrictions to Internet speech arose after a federal judge ruled that political advertising on the Internet may well be subject to that law. A majority of FEC commissioners chose not to appeal the Internet-related portion of the ruling.
Bradley Smith, an FEC commissioner, stated that the ruling could well require federal regulators to examine whether to clamp down on weblogs. Smith told an interviewer the judge’s ruling might apply to “any decision by an individual to put a link on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.”
Such connections could be interpreted as the type of campaign-friendly “coordinated activity” that McCain-Feingold prohibits. In such a situation, regulators would classify weblog content – in particular, links to campaign Web sites – as an in-kind political contribution.
Edward Morrissey, a conservative political blogger, wrote a letter to U.S. senators in which he explained what an absurd situation such topsy-turvy regulations would encourage.
If the FEC began regulating weblog content, he wrote, it would cause him “less legal heartache to convert my site to a porn blog and do nothing but post hard-core pictures all day long.” As a result, he added, “in the twisted environment of the McCain-Feingold Act, that kind of Web site would enjoy greater First Amendment protection than my political speech.”
Morrissey points out another potential problem. Morrissey is a staunch supporter of President Bush, but during the 2004 campaign season, Morrissey’s weblog actually linked more frequently (for purposes of criticism) to the campaign site of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page