Not Over Yet….
I thought the internet rules issue for the House of Representatives might be dying down when Rep. Capuano issued a heated denial of intending to censor or restrict access to social media. Unfortunately, that denial contrasts 180 degrees with what Rep. Culberson claimed was said by Capuano at a meeting on the subject:
“Cong Capuano confirmed to me today that rule will limit Member video posts to approved sites w approved content w disclaimer & He said text/blogs/Twitter social media sites next. My analysis correct: we could only post approved content on approved sites w disclaimer Twitter would be prohibited to Congressmen because We the People are free to post political comments recommending who to vote for or against”
We are now down to the point where one congressman or the other can only be a liar. It should be evident as to whom within a few days.
If you are inclined to believe, as am I, that the Democratic Party leadership fears that their longterm electoral and legislative success depends upon restoring at least some semblance of the liberal dominance over public debate that prevailed in the pre-internet, pre-talk radio, pre-cable TV days by rejiggering the rules of the game, reviving the “fairness doctrine” and initiating regulations on political speech online – then you might wish to check out Let Our Congress Tweet.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I’m inclined to believe that Culberson is grandstanding. Again.
Seeing as how Capuano’s published comments agree completely with the initial letter that Culberson took such false umbrage with, how can Culberson NOT be lying?
July 11th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Hi Jeremy,
.
Culberson asked the House Administration committee ( Rep. Brady, Chair) today to amend the rules regarding the use of social media like twitter & qik to be treated like op-eds or other written pieces by Congressmen which are already ok. If it is the case that there is no intent to block such activity, as Capuano heatedly claimed, this should be a simple enough matter to grant.
.
How the committee responds will be a good test if there is grandstanding or a hidden agenda here.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Incredibly, Matt Stoller has fallen for this too.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hi Jeremy,
.
Thanks for that link. I must continue to demur, I fear.
.
The req. that sites be free ( or "as free as possible") from commercial or political advertising kills off the eligibility of most blogs, bulletin boards etc. to receive "official" status. A nonsensical rule as there is no problem for Congressmen to go on network or cable TV or radio or talk to newspaper reporters , sometimes live from their federally funded offices,which accept and run commercial and political ads. Or on hyperpartisan programs like Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olobermann or Bill O’Reilly.
.
Old and new media should be treated evenhandedly. Moreover, the whole concept of the USG designating "official" external websites is a terrible precedent that will come back someday and bite us in the rear. Capuano has his assumptions backward – that net activity has to be policed a priori to prevent problems – instead of writing a rule set that is simple and clear and designed to sanction obvious infractions when they happen to arise.
.
I may have been a bit hyperbolic in my original post but at root both left and right have an interest here in rules allowing free-flow of communication and information
July 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
It’s still a step in the right direction, as Capuano himself put it, because Capuano is liberalizing the rules, not making them stricter. Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion.
BTW, I don’t think you were unreasonably hyperbolic in your original post. You ran with the scoop you had. If a Democratic Congressman sent me an e-mail about some kind of secret rules change on internet issues that no one else seemed to be covering, I’d do exactly what you did — jump at it, and trumpet it as loudly as I could. I’m mad at Culberson, not at you.