Thread: Democrats Vote to Regulate What You Can Say or Post on the Internet

Support the Sheriffs that support The Constitution

DEMS VOTE TO REGULATE INTERNET: And what do you suppose Democrats will outlaw? You got it: Conservative political speech.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/dem...post-internet/




Democrats Vote to Regulate What You Can Say or Post on the Internet
Democrats do not want the Internet to be a free exchange of ideas. They want the government to decide what you can and can't say - what you can post
joeforamerica.com

Democrats Vote to Regulate What You Can Say or Post on the Internet

Joe For America — October 26, 2014

Democrats do not want the Internet to be a free exchange of ideas. They want the government to decide what you can and can’t say – what you can post, and most importantly – political activity.
And what do you suppose Democrats will outlaw? You got it: Conservative political speech.
Hat tip: Washington Times

The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now.

While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet.

It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the ability of individuals and interest groups to take to engage in a robust political conversation on the Internet without having to worry about registering with the government or keeping and reporting records of their expenses.

Ms. Ravel said she fears that in trying to keep the Internet open for bloggers, they’ve instead created a loophole for major political players to escape some scrutiny.

“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

THE WHOLE STory IS HERE:




http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/dem...post-internet/

Conservative Daily

Hmm...



FEC Dems Vote For Internet Speech Regulations That Their Chairman Is Equating to Censorship in China
This is where we see the struggle between regulatory and First Amendment interests.
ijreview.com|By Nick Morpus

FEC Dems Voted For Internet Speech Regulations That Their Chairman Is Equating to Censorship in China

By Nick Morpus (5 hours ago) | Business, Legal, Politics



The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced a “deadlocked” vote on Friday which would limit and regulate political speech on the internet in the same fashion as it is on television. These new rules would effectively regulate the political speech from hotspots such as YouTube, blogs, and even websites such as the Drudge Report.
The vote came up during a case in which an anti-Obama internet campaign had been posted on YouTube for free; however, Democratic commissioners have taken issue with the fact that it was not disclosed who had made them.
Any political content that is not posted for a fee is not subject to regulation, and it is this form of protected political speech which some in the FEC wish to control.The provisions came to a stalemate, with three GOP-backed members voting against the new measures while the three Democrat-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, voted in favor of them.
Ravel has announced that she will be leading the push next year on forging new rules concerning online political speech. In an era during which online political speech is becoming a major driving force in the political arena, this decision would be a large reversal in mood for the FEC, which has made it a point to protect online political speech.

“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” Ravel stated.“As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman has voiced his concerns over the new proposed measures and their effect on the free flow of political ideas on the internet, comparing it to the political censorship of China:

“I cannot imagine a regulatory regime that would put government censors on the Internet daily, culling YouTube video posts for violations of law — nothing short of a Chinese censorship board,” said Goodman.

Anyone who owns a politically driven website should worry about a day approaching when the Federal Government is put in charge of regulating all the corners of the internet with the power to censor unfavorable opinion. This is where we see the struggle between regulatory and First Amendment interests.


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/1924...itical-speech/