FEC Proposal Part VI. My Take.
The previous blogs on the FEC proposal were pretty much dry reporting (an early blog had some opinion in it) on what the proposal states to do.
The entire text of the document suggests they are being careful not to restrict Joe Sixpacks using the Internet to make political speech.
But this does little to allay my concerns on the BCRA in Internet-land in particular and everywhere else in general.
As long as you are acting individually you do not typically fall under the scope of the rules. But when you act in concert with others then you do. We have a saying for this "divide and conquer". Also I fear of having to go through a checklist prior to sending out communications, are speech checklists compatible with the First Amendment? They certainly are not First Amendment friendly and when it comes to political speech (what the First Amendment is primarily about) they are not at all First Amendment friendly.
While the commission is working to protect individual independent communications it is still troubling. They go through many many words to define this that and the other thing. I can easily see an individual running afoul of even the more benign proposals. Regulation such as this makes it harder and harder to know what is okay and what isn't. What's a person to do? If they have the money and will hire a lawyer to figure it all out. Even if a person does not hire a lawyer these regulations increase the cost of speech. All speech has a cost to it.
I have to invest time and effort (I hear it now, "Marcus your musky-guide like writing involves little time or effort!") in order to write well and clear. Now I have to invest time and effort to determine if I am running afoul of the law?
In the end the rules will be promulgated and a judge is going to decide if they are adequate and all it takes is one speech offended politician and their lawyer to have a judge further restrict our rights to speech.
The sad part is there WILL regulations on internet communications. Thanks to Senators Feingold and McCain, the House, the Senate, President Bush, and the Supreme Court.
The entire text of the document suggests they are being careful not to restrict Joe Sixpacks using the Internet to make political speech.
But this does little to allay my concerns on the BCRA in Internet-land in particular and everywhere else in general.
As long as you are acting individually you do not typically fall under the scope of the rules. But when you act in concert with others then you do. We have a saying for this "divide and conquer". Also I fear of having to go through a checklist prior to sending out communications, are speech checklists compatible with the First Amendment? They certainly are not First Amendment friendly and when it comes to political speech (what the First Amendment is primarily about) they are not at all First Amendment friendly.
While the commission is working to protect individual independent communications it is still troubling. They go through many many words to define this that and the other thing. I can easily see an individual running afoul of even the more benign proposals. Regulation such as this makes it harder and harder to know what is okay and what isn't. What's a person to do? If they have the money and will hire a lawyer to figure it all out. Even if a person does not hire a lawyer these regulations increase the cost of speech. All speech has a cost to it.
I have to invest time and effort (I hear it now, "Marcus your musky-guide like writing involves little time or effort!") in order to write well and clear. Now I have to invest time and effort to determine if I am running afoul of the law?
In the end the rules will be promulgated and a judge is going to decide if they are adequate and all it takes is one speech offended politician and their lawyer to have a judge further restrict our rights to speech.
The sad part is there WILL regulations on internet communications. Thanks to Senators Feingold and McCain, the House, the Senate, President Bush, and the Supreme Court.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 8:43 AM
<< Home