| Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines. Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet. In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote. Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory process now is under way. ..snip.. If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target? Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well? Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media? So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble? This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre. |
Read the entire interview for more details. This whole thing is just absurd. You simply cannot apply old rules and ideas to a new communication media as radically different as the Internet. You just can't. Assigning dollar values to hyperlinks from uncoordinated, unpaid, independent speech and treating them as political donations? Huh? It's as if the FCC simultaneously doesn't understand both the Internet and the First Amendment. This should be a free speech issue around which both the left and the right could rally.
So far numerous blogs seem to be following this closely, but right now the best of the bunch seems to be Jermoe over at MyDD.
Stay tuned - I have to imagine a coordinated campaign from bloggers and those who read them will follow shortly.
UPDATE: Apparently not everyone is convinced that this threat is for real. For an alternative take, check this out. Vlaid point here. It's entirely possible that this interview was just a scare tactic. It'd be ironic if his attempt to use blogs to manipulate the issue backfired because blogs allowed the truth to surface, wouldn't it?
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: IDIOTS.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1877



Leave a comment