I posted on this awhile back…and then I read this story. It seems to me that even 5-10 years ago, people would have been appalled at any attempt by the govt to regulate speech and yet today…noone seems alarmed. Where’s the ACLU on this one?
“Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.”
Again…I assert this is not a democrat/repub issue. This is a basic issue of rights we’ve come to expect as Americans and which are slowly being chipped away. This is an issue for everyone. If you value free-speech (esp. the speech that you find unacceptable and wrong-headed), then it seems stories like these ought to be of great concern.
The problem, it seems, is that Ravel and her cohorts want to regulate internet ads that are freely posted. TV ads are paid for. The slippery slope, it seems, is that such regulations would have a chilling effect on internet bloggers and the free expression of individuals online. In other words, the lone voice that can only be expressed through the free medium of the internet effectively gets cut out.
It’s worth looking in to, but I always fall on the side of those who believe in freedom of expression. If I post a homemade video deploring a particular political candidate, I should not necessarily be subject to invasive regulatory burden from the government.
What gets me is that people immediately get partisan on an issue like this. They some how think this is a right-wing issue and they fall into their respective sides like so many sheep. Is it not clear that this is a concern for ANY person who values the right to speak their mind? I don’t see how ANYONE gains when speech is regulated. ?
But in the case of Drudge, the problem is the spin he gives the news. The more inflammatory the title, the better, even if the content or the original article or source is more mundane.
well if speech is regulated, then who do you trust to sort out the difference between opinion and whatever else it is that you think should be regulated?
I concluded a long time ago that there are different levels of spin, but the issue for me is if they are accurate, in past discussions it was clear that outfits like FOX news does spin the news like many others, but the difference is that on several cases they show a complete disregard of the evidence to get the “news” across.
Now the thing is that for Drudge Politifact has 2 entries, both are “Pants on Fire” lies.
Now what is the case here? It is clear that this is referring to political campaign advertisement, this is directed then to partisan ads not made by Drudge, and not the opinion pieces coming from him either, so I will go ahead and call it also a big “Pants on fire” lie from Drudge.
Are you honestly suggesting that there should be no oversight to free speech whatsoever?
That I should be able to lie outright and say that my political opponent rapes babies, I’ve personally seen him deal heroin to teenagers and beat his wife into a coma?
Don’t twist what I said. The point was made–for which you have provided no reliable rebuttal–that the FEC wants the same rules for the internet as for radio and TV. Can you point to any genuine censorship of the individuals I named or others? Your claim that they want more control is without any substance or evidence. Provide genuine evidence that you are not behaving with hysterical paranoia and I will consider your position.
The very fact that he’s an anti-statist Libertarian is prima facie proof that he’s not behaving with hysterical paranoia. Anti-statist libertarianism is pure Age of Reason wisdom, by definition. If you look up “Age of Reason” in the dictionary, there’s a picture of anti-statist libertarianism right next to the entry.