The anti-First-Amendment types are siccing the FEC on the web. How long before they shut down this site because I occasionally have harsh words for Senator Kerry and his blow-dried running mate? Signing McCain-Feingold was one of the most shameful acts of this administration, and that Supreme Court ruling that it was constitutional was a disaster for free speech.

If they really try to regulate the blogs, it may finally start the needed revolution against all of this campaign finance nonsense.

That link is wrong (it's the regrettable posting from your previous blog entry.)

Sorry, should be fixed now.

Well, she contradicted herself.

"But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling."

Now I'll break up the next paragraph. First she said:

"I don't think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet," Weintraub said.

So that's one statement. Then the very next thing she said was:

"The question then is, where do you draw the line?"

So I ask: What Line? If you don't want to impede the "Free Flow" of the internet you don't draw a line.

So now we know what she's really planning to do. No "question" involved.

Norm

Once they censor the web, like the PRC does, how will anyone know to organize to get rid of such illegal regulation?

The FEC cannot regulate what private citizens say on their own websites. That would be unconstitutional (violation of 1st amendment). The FEC regulates how the political parties run thier campaigns. But it cannot in any way limit what private citizens say over the internet using their own money. That's clearly protected by the 1st amendment.

What if one takes blogads? They might call you a commercial site.

Rand, I think you're wrong to blame the President. McCain-Feingold was very popular among voters, was passionately supported by almost everyone in the media, and passed the Senate by 59 to 41. It was truly a grass-roots measure representing the will of the people, and the President would have been pilloried if he had not signed it.

If McCain-Feingold is folly, the fool lives in the mirror in bathrooms all over America.

I'm wrong to blame the president for failing to uphold his oath of office, and sign an unconstitutional bill? Sorry, but I expect the president to do what's right and constitutional, not yield to the clamoring of ignorance. And in fact I doubt if there would have been any political repercussions had he vetoed it, but obviously Karl Rove thought differently.

Kerry campaign worker, Chad Clanton warned the
Sinclair Broadcasting Group to look out, saying,
"They [Sinclair] better hope we don't win."

I think all Americans who aren't in lock-step with the Democrats better watch out if Kerry wins.

The only free speech they allow is the speech they agree with. Everyone else...stifle!

-cube

> The FEC cannot regulate what private citizens say on their own websites.

Sure they can. It's no different than regulating what private citizens say in a newsletter they distribute. Or in an advert they buy.

I'm wrong to blame the president for failing to uphold his oath of office, and sign an unconstitutional bill?

Don't be silly. McCain-Feingold is not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has already said it's not, and since Marbury v. Madison the First Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it does, no more and no less.

Besides, if the President really was convinced the whole idea was unconstitutional, the only rational thing for him to have done would have been to sign the bill, because only actual laws can be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Supremes don't opine on the constitutionality of mere bills.

Once again, let us not blame the President, The Brethren, vast conspiracies of any wing, God or the Illuminati for what we have done to ourselves with eyes open.