Why I filed the FEC complaint against the DailyKos.
Today I filed an Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against Kos Media, LLC., better known as DailyKos.com. I allege that they operate as a political committee and are therefore subject to FEC rules.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - swan
Hey, fine by me if he can shut down DailyKos with this argument - cuz then I can get Faux News shut down with the same argument :).
77 - Dave Nalle
Well, now we know where leftist kool-aid drinkers come from. They're a product of the fine remedial literacy program that is the University of Houston, where most of the curriculum is consumed with teaching basics which their students failed to learn in public school. No time for any training in rhetoric, logic or political theory.
Dave
78 - Dave Nalle
Speaking of literacy, why don't you look up the proper form for the Democratic Party (i.e. Democratic vs. Democrat), when used as an adjective -- the results may surprise you!
I'll do that right after you look up the difference between a noun and an adjective.
'democrat groups' is a noun or noun phrase, therefore 'democrat' is not an adjective in that context, but part of the noun.
Don't leap to conclusions based on your own prejudices and ignorance. I normally use 'democratic' as an adjective when referring to the quasi left leaning party in this country.
Dave
79 - Mike
This is just a plain bad idea. Please find another way to crush those who hold a different opinion than you.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson*
80 - Leslie Bohn
No, Dave, the "democrat" part of "democrat groups" is an adjective modifying "groups" and should take the adjectival form, "democratic."
A "noun phrase" just means the noun plus all the words directly modifying it, including adjectives, any adjectival phrases, and articles. Those words being part of a noun phrase don't make them nouns.
81 - Dave Nalle
No leslie, it's groups of democrats, not groups which are democratic in character. It's like saying 'history books' instead of 'historic books'.
The usage in the sentence is clearly not the same as the normal adjectival use of the word, and the dumbass who raised the issue did leap to a biased conclusion.
Dave
82 - lonesomerobot
seems like a typical kneejerk response by today's brand of republicans -- instead of analyzing your own failure and trying to improve, you're looking at someone else's success and saying 'we have to get the government (which we hate, of course) to STOP IT.'
what kind of conservative asks the government to step in and fix your problems (like the fact that republicans have the equivalent of electoral cooties all over them right now)?
aren't conservatives supposed to be for free markets, competition and less governmental regulation?
oh, that's right, conservatives don't actually *believe* that stuff - when given the chance, they're all too happy to manipulate the government to their own advantage.
this is just sour grapes, and all part of a larger right-wing campaign to attack liberal blogs (especially kos). you may as well admit it; it's clear that the memo has gone around. this is just too concerted an effort to be a bunch of coincidental and independent acts.
it's too bad for conservatives: with these actions you are conceding that you've lost the internet and your only recourse is to attempt to prohibit this kind of speech and initiate a smear campaign that equates liberal bloggers with skinheads and klansmen. probably because it's the most egalitarian method of speech we have left in this country. equality has just never been a priority for the republican party.
btw, the idea that liberals are the only ones that say hateful things on the internet is absurd on it's face.
83 - Leslie Bohn
Wrong, Dave. Adjectives modify nouns. The adjectival form of "democrat" is "democratic."
A group of democrats is a democratic group. If you find that unclear, maybe you could say "group of democrats."
84 - Clavos
"The thoroughness of the research supporting this complaint is apparent in the second sentence, in which Bamabanek misspells the name of the principal person associated with the respondent."
...While you misspell Bambenek...
85 - Nancy
I don't see what the fuss is about. John filed a complaint. He's entitled to do that, for any reason he wants. It's not engraved in stone, & as pointed out many times above, it will surely be ditched in record time. Cool all the heartburn, people.
Les (#34 & 41) has it right: both parties, both sides are just tools for the ultra-rich & corporate pigs who really control & rule the US. One thing he didn't mention was that 'divide & conquer' is an old, old tactic, but very successful when it gets all of us peons fighting among ourselves instead of uniting against them, the common (& real) enemy.
86 - Benjy
What??????????????????What ever happened to free speech? I disagree with everything on Kos but believe in the right to free speech.
87 - John G
More political stunts... *sigh* Ya know, this is really the kind of thing that neither side should want.
Can't we all just talk without someone trying to silence us or punish us because they don't agree with the opinion we profess?
I'd say this is a right wing tactic, but unfortunately for you John, there are many right wingers who are more rational than yourself. So really, it's a moron/boob/unAmerican fool/disrupt the system tactic.
With you being said moron/boob/unAmerican in this case.
88 - Omus
"it's too bad for conservatives: with these actions you are conceding that you've lost the internet"
That's exactly what's going on. Sites like Kos are bottom up places where the community regulates itself. Redstate and others have a top-down style that makes for a less "democratic" feel. Also, compare the front pages of Kos and Redstate. Kos will have a single diary with more comments than all 15 front-page diaries on Redstate.
When this complaint is tossed out in record time, will John Bambenek come back and feast on a large plate of crow?
89 - Rational Objectivist
After reading this thread carefully, I quite agree that there is significant risk in this course of action, but also agree that the best way to fight a bad law often is to enforce it rigorously. The anti-liberty crowd has already rammed through a truly horrendous anti-free-speech law (McCain-Feingold), and they (notice I'm not naming names here) routinely file baseless complaints against (usually) Republican commentators.
I like the idea of fighting the entire idea of harassment with baseless complaints, with in turn complaints that, by contrast, actually hold merit under the law as it is stated. It's justice. I've looked for the relevant page on filing a similar complaint.
It appears to require nothing more than writing and mailing a simple, notarised first-class letter. Notarisation is free hereabouts at the County Clerk's Office, and is available for a couple of dollars in many other places (banks, for instance).
Mr. Bambenek, is there any bar to posting a link to your actual complaint? Do you have a postable copy? It would help with wording and formatting.
90 - Dave Nalle
Leslie, my usage is more precise than yours. 'Democratic groups' suggests groups which are democratic and is much broader in definition. Saying 'democrat groups' is more precise, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Dave
91 - Dave Nalle
RO hints at the real answer to all this in his comment. The problem is not that JB filed a complaint, it's that we have election laws which try to restrict free speech in the first place, regardless of on what basis.
Dave
92 - Hesiod
I'm looking at the recommended diary list over there now, and I'm seeing diaries about health care, congress, economics, Michael Moore (who is not running for election by the way), etc.
So if the Daily Kos's only purpose is getting Democrats elected, then why are all those other topics posted?
That's easy. Because, as everyone knows, discussing important issues and socio-economic problems that the voters care about hurts Republicans and help Democrats get elected.
/snark.
93 - Clavos
Actually, "democratic groups" means groups which ARE democratic (the groups themselves) in their nature (i.e., hoe they conduct themselves), while "democrat groups" means groups OF democrats.
And, obviously a group of democrats is not necessarily democratic.
94 - Hesiod
I have been a daily and avid reader of the political blogs for a few years.
I think it is plainly obvious that several blogs, if not on the payroll directly, are being coordinated by "the Party".
Many readers just see DailyKos as tool firmly in the grip of the Party. Its nothing but PR and guerilla marketing and fundraising.
I doubt that is true. I mean, that many readers see it as the marketing arm of the Democratic party. I think you are taking your understanding of Fox News and rightwing talk radio and applying it to Daily Kos. Since Fox News and rightwing talk radio (particularly Limbaugh and Hannity) are exactly as you described, you assume that Kos is as well.
Well, Markos and some of the other editors may have been co-opted somewhat by the Democratic party, but Daily Kos is not one person or even a small group of people. It is a community of thousands of people who have their own individual opinions and regularly express them. There are diaries highly critical of the Democratic party and its politicians there every single day. There are even diaries highly critical of Markos! In some cases, they criticize him for being TOO in bed with the Democratic party establishment! If it was truly a party organ, it would not run those diaries. Ever.
In fact, the level of criticism of the Democratic establishment on Daily Kos far outstrips the level of criticism levelled by Fox News of the GOP establishment. It's not even close.
So, by that standard, John's whole argument is ridiculous.
95 - The Man WIth No Name
One word:
YearlyKOS
LOTS of democratic only speakers/candidates speaking this year. That is 'new ground'
96 - Brian
Ahahahaha,
Some people never, ever change. I got a good laugh seeing this, having not seen the name bambenek since the good 'ol days of the uiuc.general newsgroup.
Brian
97 - Archangel M
"#31 " July 24, 2007 @ 05:43AM " Michelle K.
It's bad enough that conservative talk show hosts are under attack from the politicians on Capitol Hill, but for a WRITER to file a complaint against the Daily Kos regarding a FREE SPEECH issue seems to me to be absurd.
Don't worry so much -- if the Dems get their way we won't have to worry about the 1st Amendment anymore as NO-ONE will have a voice -- except maybe those that tow the government line (no matter who is in power).
Why in the world would you want to introduce government control over the blogosphere/internet? While I totally dislike what they preach at DailyKos (it downright makes me ill frankly), I would never dream of trying to take them down this way... Their socialist(/communist) ideology will eventually do that by itself.
Oh, and if by some evil miracle Hillary does get elected you won't have to worry about political speech on the internet because she has a plan for that -- to allow government censorship of all of it! (And I might add, a stunt like this will get the Dems even more riled up about the Anti-Free Speech Fairness Doctrine)
Way to go, sir... PLEASE leave DailyKos alone, and please consider withdrawing your complaint -- for the good of ALL of us! You have to know this will come back to bite conservatives as well if you go through with it."
Okay, I've read a bit down the list of comments and I have come to two conclusions:
1.) The guy filing the FEC complaint against DailyKos is wasting his time, and taxpayer dollars. It seems that this has already been addressed and settled. If Bambenek is really set to humiliate himself in a futile cause, more power to him. But let us not hear him complain after his petition is dismissed on the grounds cited.
2.) Those who criticize the Fairness Doctrine have no idea what is was, and no idea what re-enacting it would mean. Nor do they understand that there is no "liberal media" dominating the airwaves. Since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, conservative media entities have taken over the radio waves and have come to dominate the mainstream television airwaves. There are more conservative points of view promoted on networks such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News (and all their affiliates) than there are liberal -- and this is especially true of Fox, which has no real liberal points of view. Nor is Fox prevented from promoting deceptions as facts, under the current policy. What the Fairness Doctrine would do, if it were to be restored to its 1987 status, is require radio and television news outlets to give equal time to opposing points of view. What critics fails to realize is that allowing equal time for liberal points of view would not prevent right-wingers from presenting their opinions -- but seeing as how the truth destroys right-wing talking points every time, I can understand why conservatives would not want to give equal time to liberals on the air; they know we would kick their asses six ways to Sunday in on-air debates. Lastly, critics of the Fairness Doctrine forget that allowing equal time for opposing points of view works both ways; liberal networks (real or perceived) would also be required to give equal time to conservatives. So do me a favor, okay? Stop lying about the Fairness Doctrine. You're so panicky about the other side being allowed an equal voice in the mainstream, corporate media that you're not thinking about what equal time really means.
98 - Hesiod
Actually, "democratic groups" means groups which ARE democratic (the groups themselves) in their nature (i.e., hoe they conduct themselves), while "democrat groups" means groups OF democrats.
And, obviously a group of democrats is not necessarily democratic.
Ummm, nope.
"Democratic" groups [capitalized "C"] means groups affiliated with the Democratic party.
"democratic" groups [small "c"] means groups whose internal decision making process is characterized as some form of "democracy," meaning popular vote.
There is no such adjective as "Democrat," or "democrat."
There is, however, a "Democrat," or "democrat," noun.
Your use of "democrat," as an adjective is incorrect English. It is the Democratic party, or the party of Democrats. It is not the "Democrat party."
Hope that clears things up.
99 - Hesiod
Actually, I oppose the "Fairness Doctrine" too. I think if that rule was reinstated, and somehow survived a Court challenge, it would actually hurt liberals and Democrats more than help us.
You would see all of these token "liberals," or "democrats" being hired by the likes of Fox news to ostensibly present "opposing viewpoints," when noting in the doctrine says that the viewpoints have to be effectively communicated by a competent and credible messenger. Thgus, you'd get an even amer version of Alan Colmes, who just gets steamrolled by his conservative foil all the time. Or the guests invited on will be crazy wackos, or inarticulate yahoos.
Or, alternatively, you can start out a comment by listing all of the opposing viewpoints in bullet points, and then "rebutting" each of them. So, technically, you can have Bill O'reilly attacking straw men, etc.
We are already winning the war, slowly but surely, for public opinion without the fairness doctrine. We have basically taken over the internet as the base for our counterattack, and are far better at using it tahn the conservatives movement. This not only includes blogs, but youtube as well.
The last thing I want is a mandate that Dunbcan Black, for example, has to have some crazy wingnut present an "opposing viewpoit" every ytime he posts a comment on his blog. That's just stupid.
Or, for that matter, forcing Keith Olbermann to do it.
I say let well enough alone. We are styarting to make inroads, and are changing the debate. The GOP is on the run. Why in the world would we want to undermine that?
100 - Hesiod
One word:
YearlyKOS
LOTS of democratic only speakers/candidates speaking this year. That is 'new ground'
Which is being totally oraganized on a volunteer basis by Daily Kos members, and not by Markos or the Daily Kos business.
It might be better to think of Daily Kos are more like a community such as a city rather than as a corporation. If people who live in the city want to organize a large townhall even for its citizens and invite a bunch of politicians to come to the convention, there's nothing preventing them form diong so, or requiring them to register with the FEC.
101 - Hesiod
RO hints at the real answer to all this in his comment. The problem is not that JB filed a complaint, it's that we have election laws which try to restrict free speech in the first place, regardless of on what basis.
Which elections laws restrict your freedome to express your opinion?
The only election laws I am aware of restrict how much money you can spend in order to express your opinion. Which, of course, is an attempt to promote the competition of ideas in the marketplace, not restrict them.
If wealthy people get to spend a lot more money promoting tehir ideas than the average citizen does, who's speech is going to get heard, and who's isn't?
102 - Dumbass
I agree with Mr. Bambenek and whatever he says, because he hates Democrats, and is willing to make stuff up to persuade people like me. Thanks, Mr. Bambenek. Mega dittoes!
103 - Nancy
A propos of nothing, I resent that these bastards think that my vote is for sale, or that I'm not going to look at what they've done as well as what they've said, & vote accordingly. I don't care who has the most money. If anything, that counts against them. I don't like endless propaganda being shoved down my throat, anymore than I tolerate advertising - which I don't. The more I'm marketed to, the more I resist. Maybe I'm just contrary, but I don't like being a target of anybody, for any reason, whether it's saving my soul or picking my pocket.
104 - Christian in NYC
Sucks to have your intellectual head handed to you in front of an audience of thousands, eh, John B?
I for one can't wait for your "grumble grumble stupid FEC didn't hear my idiotic complaint grumble grumble" post.
105 - Dude
The purpose is listed in the Daily Kos FAQ: "It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory."
106 - Gabriel Sutherland
How does Daily Kos get a "media exemption" if the site explains in their mission that the whole purpose of Daily Kos is to "elect Democrats"?
This would be like political parties operating their own media operation and anything they do the FEC would have no oversight powers to review.
107 - gonzo marx
ok...it appears some folks have missed the real Point here
if no campaign money is coming into the organization, and the organization gives no money to any campaign or political Party...
then if falls under freedom of speech/the press and as such is free from governmental regulation/restriction
pretty simple, eh?
now if they collect one thin dime from a candidate/Party, they are now in a different category...same if they(as an organization) give to a political Party/candidate
all decisions cited so far revolve around that simple criteria
Excelsior?
108 - Jim C
How uneducated can you be on this issue?
InstaPundit: "this is a terrible idea".
NRO's The Corner: "an outrage against the First Amendment that every conservative should fight vigorously."
RedState: "Let's be clear, not only is Bambanek woefully uninformed about the law (didn't we go over this for a whole freaking YEAR?) and its application on the internet, he's even less capable of grasping the concept (and frankly, value) of free speech on the web.... This complaint is a sorry attempt to use government institutions to silence opponents. I'm almost grateful Bambanek apparently slept from March 2005 through the Summer of 2006, because the stunt has zero chance of success."
109 - Innocent Bystander
LOTS of democratic only speakers/candidates speaking this year. That is 'new ground'
Like any Republican (well, maybe Ron Paul) would even consider showing up to that event? C'mon, the posters at dKos (I'm not a member) would absolutely love to have a Q&A dialogue with the Republican candidates. But Republicans seem to want their events choreographed and insulated....why's that?
Also, I see a lot of people singing the blues about McCain-Feingold. I'd love to see a $10.00 max donation to campaigns. Get corporate money out of our politics....then we'd have people elected who answer to all of the people, not just rich fatcats and corporate special interests. But that'd really put a crimp in Republican fundraising, wouldn't it? Your base is the "haves and have mores" as the Commander Guy so eloquently explained it. Bet McCain and his Straight Talk Express is having second thoughts on that legislation, too.
110 - Dana Curtis Kincaid
John,
You are mixing apples and oranges and metaphors and laws all up in a big puddle of goo here. Why don't you get off the high horse, chill for a bit, and actually think instead of reacting.
You are WRONG, John. So, as you seem so fond of saying, "Move along".
111 - T Mcgill
Amazing how many e-lawyers are in the house.
All I see here is fear. If Markos asked his members for contributions and ended up in some "Swift boat" like group, he could have it.
In short, your arguments are pointless and you made a bold attempt to be academic, yet failed.
Kinda funny how "The Right" bitches and moans about the government until they want it to do something for them.
112 - Dana Curtis Kincaid
"While I totally dislike what they preach at DailyKos (it downright makes me ill frankly), I would never dream of trying to take them down this way... Their socialist(/communist) ideology will eventually do that by itself." - Archangel M
Archangel, you are proceeding under the mistaken assumption that everyone on Kos thinks, acts and writes exactly the same things. I used to vote Republican, and occasionally independent. Why have I done a 180? Why do I blog on DK? Because the Republicans have turned into a lot of useless bloody loonies, at least the higher up muckety-mucks have, with amazing breadth of arrogance and incompetence.
When the Republicans dump all remnants of DeLay/Bush/Rove/Cheney and all their policies, when they stop trying to build their base thru hatred (see GLBT issues and immigration), and when they stop kowtowing to televangelists - who are certainly the scum of the planet next to politicians, I'll consider voting Republican again.
Thanks!
Dana Kincaid
Ad Astra per Aspera
113 - Gabriel Sutherland
Dana Curtis Kincaid: How is John wrong? You say he is, yet you offer no explanation or rebuttal to buttress your opinion.
114 - Adam B.
Gabriel asks: How does Daily Kos get a "media exemption" if the site explains in their mission that the whole purpose of Daily Kos is to "elect Democrats"? This would be like political parties operating their own media operation and anything they do the FEC would have no oversight powers to review.
The media exception itself covers this -- if you're "owned or controlled" by a candidate, party or PAC, you don't get the exemption. But beyond that, the FEC isn't going to look at the content of your speech to see if you're "too partisan". Take a look at the FiredUp inquiry -- that's exactly how it goes.
115 - JWS
I disagree with the premise of this filing because I don't believe the government should be limiting political speech. However, I can't believe there are some who think DailyKos is not a financial funnel for Democrat dollars.
Take a look through the DKos FAQ and you'll find their stated purpose for the site:
"This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable"
Their goal is to elect Democrats. Period. The fact that they share ideologies through diaries is secondary.
116 - Gabriel Sutherland
Adam B.: OK. Thanks for the response.
But is Daily Kos "owned or controlled" by a candidate, party or PAC? The evidence suggests it's pretty darn close to ownership.
1) Incumbants, prospective candidates, and actual candidates post commentaries on Daily Kos. They ask for financial support. They ask for volunteers. They ask for readers to lobby their elected officials.
2) Daily Kos ENDORSES candidates in Democrat primaries and in general elections.
3) Daily Kos raises money for candidates for political office.
4) Daily Kos sells ad space to candidates for political office.
5) Daily Kos can be hired by candidates for political office.
I think MMZ is a pretty smart guy. He's tip toeing the edge at the moment. He's put a lot of work into creating the image that Daily Kos is independent of political control, but the more you scrutinize the activities of Daily Kos the more obvious it becomes that it's not just a blog or a group blog or a media outlet.
117 - Deadeye
The behavior of Kos loyalists who have descended on this article en masse and proceded to rant at the author and everyone else reflects very poorly on Kos and the quality of intellect which it attracts. It's a partisan snakepit, but it does have an absolute right to be heard.
118 - Adam B.
Gabriel: the site is owned by Kos Media, LLC, not a candidate, party or PAC. The Democratic Party no more "owns" DailyKos than the Republican Party "owns" Fox News or the New York Post.
None of your #1-4 have anything to do with ownership; it's no different that what a newspaper's opinion page or talk radio allows. Heck, Sean Hannity both solicited funds for and gave funds to a Senate candidate during a 2005 radio show; it happens all the time. Remember, too, that on the fundraising, the money goes directly to the candidates; the site never touches the funds.
#5 is false.
119 - colleen
John,
Thank you for your efforts. It's my hope that eventually the owner and admins at Daily Kos will be forced to admit that it's a site for and run by 'centrist' democratic operatives and corporate lawyers.
120 - jdp
Dave, how in the world did you reach the conclusion about the University of Houston? Was enjoying the bantering until that sudden turn.
121 - gonzo marx
can that come about 20 minutes after Fox news and all the AM talk show folks admit they are shills?
and it just doesn't matter as it pertains to the applicable Laws involved
for the Record, i've never even logged onto the Kos site
Excelsior?
122 - Gabriel Sutherland
Adam B.: Howard Dean hired MMZ and Jerome Armstrong to work for his political campaign.
Newspapers do not raise money for candidates for political office. If they do, enlighten me.
123 - lonesomerobot
JWS-
"Their goal is to elect Democrats. Period. The fact that they share ideologies through diaries is secondary."
having a stated purpose of partisan electoral victory isn't against the law, nor does it require one to register as a political action committee.
the problem with your argument is that you can go to dailykos and see that the site is dominated by stories and diaries that have nothing to do with electoral politics.
if my website said DEDICATED TO ELECTING DEMOCRATS at the top it still wouldn't be grounds for the fec to fine me or demand that i register as a political action committee. it would have to be proven that i am directly involved with fundraising or the receipt of funds from democratic candidates (which i'm not).
furthermore, anyone who has followed dailykos for any amount of time has to know that the site doesn't take its cues from the democratic party. if anything, it's the opposite: democrats have reluctantly begun to pay attention to dailykos, which has been far ahead of the party in terms of public opinion.
let's not forget that before the last election, it was democratic "mainstream" pundits that were among those saying the netroots hadn't produced a single electoral winner (and doubting that they ever would).
124 - Tal
As a journalist, may I please point out the difference between blogs and broadcast?
The reason the Fairness Doctrine was introduced was because broadcast channels are both powerful and--this is key--limited. At the time, the only broadcast media in existence were a handful of TV networks and radio stations. They essentially had a captive audience to which they could deliver political messsages. Requiring a counterpoint view for these limited channels helped keep the networks from becoming Pravda.
Even now, with hundreds of cable channels, there are still only a handful of networks that discuss political issues, and the public has little to no access to producing its own content for these channels. This means that the Fairness Doctrine is still needed for broadcast. When there is only one truly liberal commenter on all three cable news networks, the Doctrine is clearly needed. It's true that there are pitfalls to this--Fox gets inarticulate, pathetic token liberals all the time--but something needs to be done.
NONE of this applies to the Internet. Anyone with a Net connection (which one can get at most public libraries) and some concept of how to write can start up his or her own blog or site to spout whatever he or she feels like spouting. It takes all of five minutes to set up a free LiveJournal or MySpace account that one can then use for any political purpose one wants.
There's no need for the Doctrine or any other election restrictions to apply to independent online commentary because as long as there is net neutrality, everyone has equal access to these electronic soapboxes.
Additionally, I would like to ensure that everyone here understands what "freedom of speech" really means.
The First Amendment and all its protections applies ONLY to government control. Private entitites are well within their rights to modify speech as they see fit. If BlogCritics wants to pull a given post, it can. If a message board administrator wants to ban someone, he or she can.
Just as owners of private homes or business establishments can toss out someone who is being disruptive or even someone who is just saying something they don't like, owners of private spaces on the Net can do so as well.
And again, the difference between the limited space of and access to broadcast and the unlimited space of and access to the Net applies. Just as the government can regulate time and manner of speech in a public square so as to not deprive the rest of the public of its rights in favor of a single other person, it can regulate the speech on broadcast for the same reasons (hence FCC regulations about adult language and content.)
125 - Adam B.
That was in 2003-04, Gabriel, fully disclosed at the time (Armstrong actually quit blogging), and hasn't happened in the years since then.
Re fundraising, my favorite example is the December 5, 2003, Charles Krauthammer WaPo column in which he encouraged readers to send donations “not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple)” to the Republican National Committee in order to oppose Gov. Howard Dean’s presidential bid.
Also, see FEC Advisory Opinion 1980-109 ("The Ruff Times"), which explicitly authorizes fundraising by media entities.