"Online Freedom of Speech" Bill Defeated in House Vote

[cKGunslinger]

News.com

Democrats on Wednesday managed to defeat a bill aimed at amending U.S. election laws to immunize bloggers from hundreds of pages of federal regulations.

In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules.

The vote tally in the House of Representatives, 225 to 182, was not enough to send the Online Freedom of Speech Act to the Senate. Under the rules that House leaders adopted to accelerate the process, a two-thirds supermajority was required.

"I'm horribly disappointed that this important measure failed to pass," said Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn. "This bill was designed to protect the free-speech rights of Americans whose only alleged crime is wanting to use the Internet to express their opinions."

The Federal Election Commission is under court order to finalize rules extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet. Unless Congress acts, the final regulations are expected to be announced by the end of the year. (They could cover everything from regulating hyperlinks to politicians' Web sites to forcing disclosure of affiliations with campaigns.)

Opponents of the reform plan mounted a last-minute effort to derail the bill before the vote on Wednesday evening. Liberal advocacy groups circulated letters warning the measure was too broad and would invite "corrupt" activities online, and The New York Times wrote in an editorial this week that "the Internet would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending."

I'm not quite sure I understand the party-line vote on this issue. Do Democrats somehow have "more to lose" if online bloggers are exempt from campaign regulations? Are they that scared of Drudge's craptastic site?


Edit: Link to the Bill in question.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I don't think it was a "Freedom of Speech" issue, but I don't think it was a very well written bill.

Did it open up the door for illegal campaign contributions? Don't know.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't think it was a "Freedom of Speech" issue, but I don't think it was a very well written bill.

Did it open up the door for illegal campaign contributions? Don't know.

Well, we all know that the names of bills do not always match their true intent (see: Patriot Act.)

I think the fear here is that, if this bill was passed, it would allow "bloggers" to be paid money for polical advertisements and endorsements - "astroturfing," as it's often called (fake "grass-roots" campaigning) - and that money would not have to be disclosed under campaign finance regulations.

Daily Kos has an aticle on the bill's failure and their disappointment.

 

[Pabster]

So much for the Democrats being the party of freedoms.

 

[Tab]

Not sure if I agree with their ruling, interesting I've never heard of this until now.

I wonder why the democrats voted agaisnt this specifically...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster
So much for the Democrats being the party of freedoms.

I try not to resort to insults, but you are a complete idiot. I think that there is a "Democrats are bad" car that you should be chasing. Oh, right, that talking point hasn't come out yet so you aren't parroting it.

Do you have a clue as to the law that this is addressing? Do you have a clue as to the potential for abuse of that law if changed by this Orwellian-named piece of sh*t...I mean piece of legislation?

This is an attempt to be able to use the internet for campaigning with no oversight whatsoever. It is an attempt to be able to take in soft money and spend it without a single disclaimer as to who is putting out the ad and will also allow it to candidates to subvert the "Stand by your ad" requirements that you hear on TV and radio.

So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

 

[Turkey22]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't think it was a "Freedom of Speech" issue, but I don't think it was a very well written bill.

Did it open up the door for illegal campaign contributions? Don't know.

Well, we all know that the names of bills do not always match their true intent (see: Patriot Act.)

I think the fear here is that, if this bill was passed, it would allow "bloggers" to be paid money for polical advertisements and endorsements - "astroturfing," as it's often called (fake "grass-roots" campaigning) - and that money would not have to be disclosed under campaign finance regulations.

Daily Kos has an aticle on the bill's failure and their disappointment.

That is exactly why it was shot down. Unregulated campaign finance. If they hadn't tacked that little gem onto the bill it would have passed as a protection of free speech.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
This is an attempt to be able to use the internet for campaigning with no oversight whatsoever. It is an attempt to be able to take in soft money and spend it without a single disclaimer as to who is putting out the ad and will also allow it to candidates to subvert the "Stand by your ad" requirements that you hear on TV and radio.

Oh, like Howard Dean and John Kerry did so well in 2004?

So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

Oh, right, it is all those nasty Republicans fault again

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

RightIsWrong, you should know by now that "Pabster" and "clue" don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
This is an attempt to be able to use the internet for campaigning with no oversight whatsoever. It is an attempt to be able to take in soft money and spend it without a single disclaimer as to who is putting out the ad and will also allow it to candidates to subvert the "Stand by your ad" requirements that you hear on TV and radio.

Oh, like Howard Dean and John Kerry did so well in 2004?

So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

Oh, right, it is all those nasty Republicans fault again

Kinda like Kerry and Dean did, yes. But with even less recourse for false, misleading or completely made up crap....like the SBVFT ads.

And considering the bill was brought up by a Repub and the majority of sponsers were Repubs......yeah, it's the Repub's fault again. What a tool you are!

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Turkey22

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't think it was a "Freedom of Speech" issue, but I don't think it was a very well written bill.

Did it open up the door for illegal campaign contributions? Don't know.

Well, we all know that the names of bills do not always match their true intent (see: Patriot Act.)

I think the fear here is that, if this bill was passed, it would allow "bloggers" to be paid money for polical advertisements and endorsements - "astroturfing," as it's often called (fake "grass-roots" campaigning) - and that money would not have to be disclosed under campaign finance regulations.

Daily Kos has an aticle on the bill's failure and their disappointment.

That is exactly why it was shot down. Unregulated campaign finance. If they hadn't tacked that little gem onto the bill it would have passed as a protection of free speech.

That part was already covered in other parts of the Campaign finance law and wouldn't be changed by this law. It would be considered the same as their own campaign sites as far as regulation goes. Just like the kos kidz got mixed up in last year, disclosure of political payments is key.

Both parties should be ashamed of their members who didn't support this legislation.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The bill would have opened a loophole around the funding process for candidates.
Corporations could funnel money through the web-blogs to their candidates, even though it is illegal to do so under present law.
Another way around McCain Feingold restrictions.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster
So much for the Democrats being the party of freedoms.

I try not to resort to insults, but you are a complete idiot. I think that there is a "Democrats are bad" car that you should be chasing. Oh, right, that talking point hasn't come out yet so you aren't parroting it.

Do you have a clue as to the law that this is addressing? Do you have a clue as to the potential for abuse of that law if changed by this Orwellian-named piece of sh*t...I mean piece of legislation?

This is an attempt to be able to use the internet for campaigning with no oversight whatsoever. It is an attempt to be able to take in soft money and spend it without a single disclaimer as to who is putting out the ad and will also allow it to candidates to subvert the "Stand by your ad" requirements that you hear on TV and radio.

So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

As one-sided as Pabster may have been with his post, yours is just as bad. You've assumed the sole intent of this bill is to allow campaign finance laws to be completely skirted by unscupulous politicians advertising on the internet, and while that may very well be true, you seem just as eager to throw away the true "free speech" aspects of the bill to prevent that from happening.

Despite the intents and interests of those that support this bill, it is an interesting challenge. The line between free speech and paid political speech is a fine one. Some believe we should err on the side of protecting free speech, some on the side of preventing undisclosed finianced speech. It's obviously a delicate issue, not a cut-n-dried case as your grandiose indignation would try to convince us to believe.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The bill would have opened a loophole around the funding process for candidates.
Corporations could funnel money through the web-blogs to their candidates, even though it is illegal to do so under present law.
Another way around McCain Feingold restrictions.

And just how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The bill would have opened a loophole around the funding process for candidates.
Corporations could funnel money through the web-blogs to their candidates, even though it is illegal to do so under present law.
Another way around McCain Feingold restrictions.

And just how did you come to that conclusion?

There was a long article about it in one of the papers I read here in Texas - on Monday.
I decided NOT to post the article, because of all the 'Designated Nay-Sayers' that would attack the context of the story.

Was I wrong ?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Oh, right, it is all those nasty Republicans fault again

Kinda like Kerry and Dean did, yes. But with even less recourse for false, misleading or completely made up crap....like the SBVFT ads.

And considering the bill was brought up by a Repub and the majority of sponsers were Repubs......yeah, it's the Repub's fault again. What a tool you are!

Democrat Senate Leader, Harry Reid was a co-sponsor of this bill.

Your own ignorance of the matter has you hanging on a nail in a shed, so I'd be careful of the "tool" accusations, if I were you.

"Freedom of Speech" and protecting citizens' "rights" pretty much run orthagonal to both major political parties. The Dems are certainly no saints, what with the DMCA, The Sonny Bono Act, and Tipper's little PMRC project.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

RightIsWrong, you should know by now that "Pabster" and "clue" don't belong in the same sentence.

LMAO!

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The bill would have opened a loophole around the funding process for candidates.
Corporations could funnel money through the web-blogs to their candidates, even though it is illegal to do so under present law.
Another way around McCain Feingold restrictions.

And just how did you come to that conclusion?

There was a long article about it in one of the papers I read here in Texas - on Monday.
I decided NOT to post the article, because of all the 'Designated Nay-Sayers' that would attack the context of the story.

Was I wrong ?

There are a couple groups that are spreading some disinformation about this bill. Democracy21 is one of them. Was that who that article talked about?

 

[piasabird]

It is redicuous. All you have to do is put your blog on a foreign owned server and they can not touch you. The Internet is too International. It is all a joke. Who is going to control the Internet?

I cant wait for some Federally Mandated I-Cops to bust down my door. . . .

Put down the mouse and step away from your blog!

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: piasabird


Put down the mouse and step away from your blog!

hahaha. LOL

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The bill would have opened a loophole around the funding process for candidates.
Corporations could funnel money through the web-blogs to their candidates, even though it is illegal to do so under present law.
Another way around McCain Feingold restrictions.

And just how did you come to that conclusion?

There was a long article about it in one of the papers I read here in Texas - on Monday.
I decided NOT to post the article, because of all the 'Designated Nay-Sayers' that would attack the context of the story.

Was I wrong ?

There are a couple groups that are spreading some disinformation about this bill. Democracy21 is one of them. Was that who that article talked about?

I just read some more about the false allegations about this supposed loophole allowing corporations funneling money.
It's already prohibited and isn't affected by McCain-Feingold or this bill

 

[zendari]

Guess the Democrats don't believe in free speech.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster
So much for the Democrats being the party of freedoms.

I try not to resort to insults, but you are a complete idiot. I think that there is a "Democrats are bad" car that you should be chasing. Oh, right, that talking point hasn't come out yet so you aren't parroting it.

Sure, coming from a guy whose handle is "RightisWrong"

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
Guess the Democrats don't believe in free speech.

No, not when it means that Republicans can continue to get away with lies and deception.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster
So much for the Democrats being the party of freedoms.

I try not to resort to insults, but you are a complete idiot. I think that there is a "Democrats are bad" car that you should be chasing. Oh, right, that talking point hasn't come out yet so you aren't parroting it.

Do you have a clue as to the law that this is addressing? Do you have a clue as to the potential for abuse of that law if changed by this Orwellian-named piece of sh*t...I mean piece of legislation?

This is an attempt to be able to use the internet for campaigning with no oversight whatsoever. It is an attempt to be able to take in soft money and spend it without a single disclaimer as to who is putting out the ad and will also allow it to candidates to subvert the "Stand by your ad" requirements that you hear on TV and radio.

So Pabster, try to get a freaking clue as to what you are talking about before just spouting the Dems are bad schtick you are almost making into an artform. This could be construed as Repubs are trying to do an end run around BCRA and campaign finance laws also.

As one-sided as Pabster may have been with his post, yours is just as bad. You've assumed the sole intent of this bill is to allow campaign finance laws to be completely skirted by unscupulous politicians advertising on the internet, and while that may very well be true, you seem just as eager to throw away the true "free speech" aspects of the bill to prevent that from happening.

Despite the intents and interests of those that support this bill, it is an interesting challenge. The line between free speech and paid political speech is a fine one. Some believe we should err on the side of protecting free speech, some on the side of preventing undisclosed finianced speech. It's obviously a delicate issue, not a cut-n-dried case as your grandiose indignation would try to convince us to believe.

If there was a bill that called for giving everyone 1 million dollars, but had a provision that stated that everyone's first born would be brutally slaughtered, would you support it? How about a bill that touted freedom of religion, but said everyone who owns a home must burn it down? Finally, how about a bill that supported freedom of press, but also made eating pizza illegal?