Today, in a historic vote the Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives. It actually had majority support by a margin of 225 to 182, but because it was entered as a 'Motion to Suspend Rules and Pass' it needed a 2/3 majority to win. The act would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to guarantee that restrictions on political endorsements in the media would not apply to private individuals expressing political opinions or preferences on the web. In other words, it guaranteed freedom of speech to bloggers who might have it taken away by partisan bureaucrats during an election using the campaign finance reform rules.
Here's the entire text of the act:
- Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."
Pretty simple and straightforward. If you voted for it, you want bloggers to have free speech. If you voted against it you want to muzzle free exchange of ideas on the web. Nothing ambiguous or open to interpretation in the one-sentence bill.
Lest you're one of those who continues to labor under the impression that the Democratic Party is the party which supports freedom and civil rights, the bill was defeated on overwhelming opposition by Democrat representatives and was strongly supported by Republicans. 179 Republicans voted 'yea' and only 38 voted 'nay'. 143 Democrats voted 'nay' and only 38 voted 'yea'. The numbers don't lie. There was clearly an organized effort by Democrats to kill this bill. If even half of the Democrats had voted in favor of free speech on the internet the bill would have passed.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bhw
Not to be picky, but the bill clearly refers to communications over the Internet, and you've characterized it as a specific endorsement of bloggers (or the vote against it as an attack on bloggers).
Marty Meehan's name isn't on the McCain-Feingold bill, but he was deeply involved in getting it passed. He's my district's represenative, and his role in it was big news in the local papers at the time. So it doesn't surprise me that he voted against this bill.
My guess is that at least some of the people who voted against it did so because they believed it to be too broad. It was apparently exempting ALL communications on the Internet by EVERYONE -- including PACs, etc. -- from the McCain-Feingold restrictions. Clearly, Meehan and other McCain-Feingold proponents don't want that.
The key question becomes: would they have supported a bill that specifically exempted private citizens from having their Internet communications regulated?
I don't agree with the McCain-Feingold bill in the first place, but surely it's possible that those who do might have voted differently today if the bill had specifically referenced, and was limited to, individual citizens.
2 - Dave Nalle
True, BHW. It would also shut down non-blog issue oriented sites, as well as email campaigns and the like. I'm not sure that makes it any better.
Dave
3 - Dave Nalle
Oh, and the problem you bring up with the language being too broad is not a problem with the amendment, but with the regulations themselves, which are ridiculously vague and open to all sorts of questionable interpretations.
The whole issue of campaign finance reform is a disaster. It's just pure restriction of free speech and there's no justification for it in the first place.
dave
4 - Jon Sobel
it certainly shows us where the two parties stand on the issue of free speech.
No, it shows us where they stood on the issue of speech in this particular case. In the case of news coverage of US soldiers coming home in body bags, it's the Republican administration stifling free speech and the Democrats pushing for it. On both sides, it's more a matter of political expedience than principle.
5 - bhw
Oh, and the problem you bring up with the language being too broad is not a problem with the amendment, but with the regulations themselves, which are ridiculously vague and open to all sorts of questionable interpretations.
I agree. Good laws are specific and limited. But the amendment was also broad and might have had a chance of passing if it had specified that individual citizens would not be affected by the law instead of trying to make an entire medium exempt. Why should the Internet be exempt if TV and radio aren't? That's the rationale behind some of tnose No votes, I'm willing to bet. They No-ers can always hide behind that. They would have had a much harder time voting No on an amendment that specifically addressed the rights of individuals to speak freely over the Internet [and everywhere else].
Again, I agree that the McCain-Feingold law is crap, so I'm not arguing in favor of what anyone did yesterday.
And I agree with Jon Sobel, too. It's not like the Republicans are the protectors of free speech ALL the time, as with Democrats, when it suits their political goals.
6 - Dave Nalle
Showing the coffins isn't exactly a free speech issue. Pretty sure the coffins aren't saying anything to anyone. It's a matter of access for the press and privacy rights. Once the coffins are given to their families those families could certainly take them somewhere and hold a press conference if they were that crass.
Dave
7 - bhw
It's a matter of access for the press and privacy rights.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. According to conservatives, there is no such thing as a right to privacy.
The coffin photos are absolutely a first amendment issue. It's called freedom of the press. And when the press is trying to photograph the results of a taxpayer funded war, restricting their access to the coffins absolutely amounts to abridging the freedom of the press.
8 - zingzing
what was attached to this bill? hmm? politicians are always doing that kind of crap. it's sick:
so... what's going on with this one?
9 - Dave Nalle
>>Sorry, you can't have it both ways. According to conservatives, there is no such thing as a right to privacy.<<
According only to a small number of extremist conservatives. And even they only want to interfere with privacy rights in a couple of very limited areas of interest.
>>The coffin photos are absolutely a first amendment issue. It's called freedom of the press. And when the press is trying to photograph the results of a taxpayer funded war, restricting their access to the coffins absolutely amounts to abridging the freedom of the press.<<
Government property remains the equivalent of private property and the government has the right to restrict access to it. I agree that they probably shouldn't have done so, but it's not the same thing as limiting freedom of speech by a huge stretch.
dave
10 - Jon Sobel
Maybe the coffin photos wasn't the best example, it's just the first one that sprang to my mind, although it is an issue that is at least closely related to "free speech" per se for the reason bhw mentions. My point, though, was that your statement (Dave) about "where the two parties stand" on free speech was gratuitously partisan when you know as well as I do - and I'm pretty sure you've said as much in other places - that political expedience is often behind partisan positions on both sides.
11 - Mark Saleski
the coffin photo gambit is a fine example of a free speech issue.
also, a fine example of dave's rationalization of behavior for the conservative side.
12 - Dave Nalle
Political expedience may be a big element, but again and again we see the Democrats trying to limit free speech to their own advantage. The Republicans have other questionable techniques for advancing their agenda, and they're no friends of free speech when it comes to things like pornography, but they do at least respect freedom of personal expression. Remember, it's largely the Democrats who brought us this outrageous 'campaign reform' bill in the first place and they're behind this draconian Truth in Broadcasting Act as well.
Dave
13 - gonzo marx
again and again we see Mr Nalle spout the GOP line and stretch any Info to suit his desire to bash the Dems at all costs...
howabout the rest of the Bill? what other neat things were tucked away that Mr Nalle faisl to point out?
howabout those wonderful "productions of a Blogburst" that we have seen come from the GOP side as semni-pro's like Gannon/Guckert, Armstrong et al, take money from the side and then spout the talking points while trying to pass themselves off as independant pundits and journalists?
could that last be part of the Reason?
why yes..a good portion of it was the totality of the Bill, and the fact that certain of it's provisions woudl have allowed unlimited funds to pour through the "laundry" of the Net and escape campaign laws
and that is why GOP types are screaming...they had wanted this new way to "wash" the cash
we will see how the final works out, i am betting that any private citizen will be able to do as they like...but professional shills and websites will fall under the campaign finance laws
you want to solve all the campaign finance problems?..simplicity itself..it also squashes those pesky lobbyists on both sides
make it so only registered Voters can contribute to political campaigns and Parties
no more corporate/PAC/lobbyist money....no, i am not proposing curtailiing their "speech" they can run all the advocacy ads and shit they want...on both sides....they just can't give a penny to a campaign...and so no elected official will "owe" anyone but voters anything...
just a Thought
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
14 - Dave Nalle
>>again and again we see Mr Nalle spout the GOP line and stretch any Info to suit his desire to bash the Dems at all costs...<<
Gonzo, I wouldn't know the GOP line if it bit me in the ass. I just reported the facts here. The Demos voted this bill down. It was all them.
>>howabout the rest of the Bill? what other neat things were tucked away that Mr Nalle faisl to point out?<<
Read more carefully, Gonzo. I quoted the ENTIRE text of the bill in the article. It's 2 lines long.
>>howabout those wonderful "productions of a Blogburst" that we have seen come from the GOP side as semni-pro's like Gannon/Guckert, Armstrong et al, take money from the side and then spout the talking points while trying to pass themselves off as independant pundits and journalists?<<
There are just as mnay of these folks on the left - in fact, they started this whole trend in the first place. Everyone has equal access to the web. Why can't the left do just as much with it as the right does?
>>could that last be part of the Reason?<<
As was discussed earlier the reason is probably that the campaign finance reform bill it amends is so totally screwed up, but that doesn't justify this action. They should actually fix that bill, but the demos would never go for it.
>>why yes..a good portion of it was the totality of the Bill, and the fact that certain of it's provisions woudl have allowed unlimited funds to pour through the "laundry" of the Net and escape campaign laws
and that is why GOP types are screaming...they had wanted this new way to "wash" the cash<<
Do explain how the net can be used to launder campaign money, because I just don't see it.
>>we will see how the final works out, i am betting that any private citizen will be able to do as they like...but professional shills and websites will fall under the campaign finance laws
you want to solve all the campaign finance problems?..simplicity itself..it also squashes those pesky lobbyists on both sides
make it so only registered Voters can contribute to political campaigns and Parties<<
Sounds good to me, with no limits, of course. So I can donate 10 million dollars to a campaign if I want to and go around to all my friends to raise it, right?
Dave
15 - bhw
but they do at least respect freedom of personal expression.
No they do not.
**They have voted to prevent clinics that receive federal funding from discussing abortion as an option when a pregnant woman comes in looking for help.
**Their current leader, president Bush, didn't support free speech enough to veto the McCain-Feingold bill.
**They want to amend the constitution to make flag burning illegal.
**They pushed dissenters into "free speech zones" far away from the action and media during the last campaign and the RNC.
So let's not pretend that the Republicans don't want to censor speech they don't like.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>**They have voted to prevent clinics that receive federal funding from discussing abortion as an option when a pregnant woman comes in looking for help. <<
I'll give you that one.
>>**Their current leader, president Bush, didn't support free speech enough to veto the McCain-Feingold bill.<<
I never said Bush was a conservative. Plenty of others in the GOP opposed the bill.
>>**They want to amend the constitution to make flag burning illegal.<<
Some do. So do an awful lot of Democrats. No question it's a retarded position to take. But the argument here is that flag burning isn't really free speech, which I don't accept, but which has a lot of adherents.
>>**They pushed dissenters into "free speech zones" far away from the action and media during the last campaign and the RNC. <<
This practice was picked up on by Ashcroft, but it originated on democrat-dominated university campuses which began doing this during the early 90s.
>>So let's not pretend that the Republicans don't want to censor speech they don't like.<<
As I said, particularly pornography. But they don't really try to limit political speech or to limit speech to silence their opposition.
Dave
17 - ryan
Wheres the ACLU on this one?
Oh yeah, ruling that filing false police reports is part of the first amendment.
18 - Anthony Grande
Ryan, I really enjoy your articles. I think you should right one about the ACLU and the filing false police reports. I am pretty mad about it also. I would do it, but I am not a blogger.
19 - ryan
I'm doing it as we speak.
20 - ryan
Dave--
I hope you don't mind, but I wrote an article/entry and I quoted you in it:
Free Speech for Frauds
21 - Dave Nalle
Quote me all you like, Ryan. I do wonder about the Door/Window thing, though. Will go back and read the article in more detail tonight.
Dave
22 - Mike
The FEC rulemaking requires it to consider the question of who is a journalist. That question matters very much because journalists - even if they are paid by corporations or unions - are exempt from otherwise-applicable spending limits.
Generally speaking, individuals are allowed to spend as much money as they want supporting or opposing candidates for federal office, though those spending significant sums must file certain reports with the FEC and include information on funding sources on the face of certain campaign literature. In contrast, corporations and labor unions cannot spend any of their treasury funds on certain election-related activities, and must fund these activities through separate political action committees, or PACs.
So what effect will creating a blanket exemption for Internet communications have? Have we now allowed unions and corporations a loophole under McCain-Feingold by proxy?
This bill was just a kneejerk reaction to political pressure, and this article was a deliberate simplification of the facts to support the Republicans. Even if everything you said about the bill was the whole truth, the Patriot Act is 100s of times worse. Both parties voted for that one.
23 - Dave Nalle
I agree the Patriot Act is worse than this, but the Patriot Act is an entirely different issue. What harm would protecting free speech on the internet do to anyone? Our represenatives purpose in legislating should not be to dictate how people should live and think, but to do the least we can to interfere with their rights.
Dave
24 - Mike
Did you even read what I said? A blanket exemption for Internet communication isn't protecting free speech, its a loophole under McCain-Feingold. It has exactly NOTHING to do with blogging.
Normally I'm not a big fan of most Democrats, but I'm proud of them for this.
25 - Dave Nalle
You're entirely missing the point, Mike. McCain=Feingold ought to be scrapped alltogether. But at least exempting the internet is a start. Plus, it certainly DOES have a hell of a lot to do with blogging because blogs are one of the largest areas of online activity which would be impacted by the restrictions. So while you may prefer to think that it targets partisan organizations on the web, the fact is that the broad brush hits all of us and that's not right.
Dave