Remember that pesky First Amendment? It’s understandable if you’ve forgotton. Here’s my favorite part:
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Unfortunately, pesky things like the Constitution didn’t stop the House from…well, making a law abridging the freedom of speech:
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
At least we’ve got a Texan on our side — Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who represents part of the D-FW metroplex:
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate’s press release to an e-mail list."
The bill is HR 1601. Make sure to include that bill number on your placards when you descend on Washington in a marauding horn. Also, the phrase "Keep your filthy hooves off LoneStarTimes.com!" would be good. Make sure the cameras see it.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
10 Responses to “House votes to regulate Internet speech”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
You might want to point out that our very own local darling representatives Shelia Jackson Lee and Gene Green both voted “no” on this vote, in fact reflecting their favor of restricting our free speech. And I thought the Dems were the party of the little people who had no voice against the big and powerful.
From the looks of the vote, it seems that many representatives split with their party. It looks like a bipartisan gaggle.
#2 Willie nails it. It’s an issue that garnered a lot of bipartisan support, as well as a lot of bipartisan dissent.
I don’t want the feds regulating MoveOn.org any more than I want them regulating LST.
#3) Matt: same here. Regulation is the first step towards government censorship and control.
It’s also interesting to note:
Republicans in favor - 179
Republicans opposed - 38
Democrats in favor - 46
Democrats opposed - 143
So which party favors the First Amendment?
Looks like neither. A typical game in Washington is to vote the “right” way when you already know the outcome. It’s a way to cover your backside with your constituents and still look principled.
#6: True that. Makes me wonder why this bill was put through the procedure of requiring a two-thirds vote. It makes me suspect that no one wanted it passed, but some wanted to be able to claim they supported it.
The FIRST amendment? I stopped abiding by that one when it ‘evolved’ into a law which prohibited me from mentioning Jesus in public. Long live the internet!
You guys still extending the media exemption to all that apply? If so, consider this an application Just In Case….
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels would be proud of any politcian who votes to limit free speech.
The bottom line is these socialists don’t want any one criticizing them, so what better way than silence those who do?
The Propaganda Pimps aka ABC\CNN\CBS\MSNBC\CNBC\NBC\ and even Fox, pamper these losers everyday. Will not ask any tough questions because they want to get invited to the parties.
They are power hungry to the core and they use the US Constitution for toilet paper, daily.