"Online Freedom of Speech" Bill Defeated in House Vote

[imported_tss4]

Well, guess I'll throw my two cents in. I'm a liberal and I'd have to say that I'm a little dissappointed that the democrats didn't support this bill. If their were issues about using bloggers as campaign tools, then I wish they had addressed that issue as opposed to just killing the whole bill. I can understand that they have little power to do that (given that they are the minority party). But I still find it dissapointing that they killed this bill.

However, I have one question. What freedom of speech would it allow that is currently not allowed? I was under the impression that we allready had freedom of speech. So was this bill more of a show, or did it really address a problem?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: tss4
Well, guess I'll throw my two cents in. I'm a liberal and I'd have to say that I'm a little dissappointed that the democrats didn't support this bill. If their were issues about using bloggers as campaign tools, then I wish they had addressed that issue as opposed to just killing the whole bill.

Those issues couldn't be addressed at this time, the way the bill was introduced no amendments could be added. When the bill goes thru the standard vote (ie. when there is time to debate, ammend, etc.) then I'm sure they will. Besides the bill will pass then regardless.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, there's a little more here than meets the eye at first glance.

One thing to be sure of, however, is that Repubs definitely favor the idea that you should have all the Free Speech that you can pay for... and that they'll put highly deceptive (rather than descriptive) names on legislation- first, last, and every chance they get.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, there's a little more here than meets the eye at first glance.

One thing to be sure of, however, is that Repubs definitely favor the idea that you should have all the Free Speech that you can pay for... and that they'll put highly deceptive (rather than descriptive) names on legislation- first, last, and every chance they get.

Proof? Examples? You seem to be making alot of allegations about this legislation yet don't provide anything to back it up.

I've pointed to the relevant law for corporate and union spending which has been on the books for years and didn't get trumped or changed by McCain-Feingold - nor would it be changed by this legislation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Examples of what, Shades? Deceptively labelled legislation?

Proof that the legislation was half-baked? The vote proves that... as does the imposition of a 2/3 rule for passage in the first place...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Examples of what, Shades? Deceptively labelled legislation?

Proof that the legislation was half-baked? The vote proves that... as does the imposition of a 2/3 rule for passage in the first place...

This thread is about a specific piece of legislation. You whined about it and made some claims. Please provide proof to back up your allegations against this legislation. Saying that something was proven because a 2/3 vote failed is a sad attempt on your part. It means nothing of the sort.

Now please specifically back up your BS instead of just flinging mud around while hoping people won't call you on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

More of the same, Shades. What I said wrt the legislation-

" Yeh, there's a little more here than meets the eye at first glance."

Which is along the lines of What the NYT and others have said- so we'll take some time to examine the ramifications before legislating....

You know, kinda like the way that Senate repubs are mulling over their pre-invasion intelligence report...

The remark about free speech and Repubs? Hell, that's self evident. They normally out-finance Dems ~5:3, so what would be the point if you couldn't spend the money to pay for so-called "free speech"?

 

[imported_tss4]

No one ever answered my question. Don't we allready have freedom of speech on the internet? Why do we need this bill to give us what we allready have? What does this bill give us that we don't allready have?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: tss4
No one ever answered my question. Don't we allready have freedom of speech on the internet?
Why do we need this bill to give us what we allready have?
What does this bill give us that we don't allready have?

A: Access to corporate wallets.

 

[Drift3r]

LoL - If the inheritance tax was called the "Freedom Tax" I'd bet some of you guys would be jumping up and down about how your freedoms were stripped.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: tss4
No one ever answered my question. Don't we allready have freedom of speech on the internet? Why do we need this bill to give us what we allready have? What does this bill give us that we don't allready have?

The "reform bill" that passed last year, actually limits speech leading up to an election - all forms of speech - or i should say the kind that is paid for is lmiited.

It was challeged at the USSC and was found consitutional.

it was and is avery dumb law.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Hacp

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?

If the parties were switched you could be sure the liberal thinktanks and the lefties here would be bashing the Republicans aas "setting up a police state", etc.