First They Came For Your Freedom Of Speech
Post below recycled from Riehl World . See the original for links
The Liberal Democrat Party is probably still reeling from recent setbacks on the gun control issue. But they appear to be continuing forward with their efforts to curtail speech ... starting with politicians:
"Feinstein (D-CA) would have the [Senate] Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing [congressional] members to get approval for the act of communicating on external websites. Further, it would appear that the Feinstein proposal would attempt to exercise editorial control over these sites, at least indirectly.
Over on the House side, Nancy Pelosi wants to:
... impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums -- nothing.
Also, the internet censorship rules being proposed for the Congress might extend to external web sites whose members communicate with Congress.
When liberals can't win a debate, which is typical, they opt to change the debate, or curtail the opposition's ability to present their arguments. If the nanny-state, socialist, liberals in Congress get their way ... they'll be the only ones with a voice. And that voice will be telling you how to live and what to think.
11 comments:
Wait till they say their censorship is part of national security.
So what else is new? I for one, truly hope the socialists running "your" govt. are able to pull this off. In fact, i hope their "suggestion" is broadened to include everyone in this country! Why not. Since Americans have become the weakest people on earth, all they'll do is what they usually do, bitch, whine, moan, and accept it!
The radical socialists who rule this country know far better than the people do that, no matter what they do, they always get themselves voted (see: buy their way) back into power. They also know that the American people are still so stupid as to think that one party is actually different from the other.
And just think folks, after Nov. it's all going to get a whole lot worse! Free country? (LOL) Yeah, but for whom?
The future is bleak, and I see little reason to believe that the fear is overstated.
The future is bleak, and I see little reason to believe that the fear is overstated.
Did these two socialist give any reasoning behind the proposal?
Are they really that afraid that one of their own might voice an opinion not inline with the party???
Party Above the People' should be their mantra.
Did these two socialist give any reasoning behind the proposal?
There are lots of reasons - and some of them pretty good.
The basic problem seems to be the lack of technology within the "house.gov" domain. The site run by the government does not allow for hosting videos, etc. (Makes you wonder what all the money we pay to maintain the sites goes to.) The second issue is older laws and rules that have not caught up with or cannot keep pace with technology and communication in today's world.
Some freshman Representative from California decided to start linking and embedding YouTube videosin his house.gov webpage.
This runs afoul of the "franking privileges" members of the Congress enjoy to communicate official statements and policies with their constituants and the public in general for free.
When said Representative linked the videos of him making a policy statement, there was that pesky "YouTube" logo on the video. As YouTube is a site for profit, and the statements were posted and hosted there exclusively, the franking rules came into question.
While it does seem that this is an issue of censorship, it may not be the type of censorship that we all are thinking about.
Are they really that afraid that one of their own might voice an opinion not inline with the party???
No, they are thinking that the flow of information might be stiffled by members of Congress hosting videos and other communications exclusively on commercial sites.
If a Congressman wants to put a video up on YouTube, that video is available only with the YouTube logo on it.
Like it or not, sites should not profit by the deliberate exclusivity of information disbursed by members of Congress.
That is really what is being discussed here. Why should YouTube be an exclusive host of policy statements from a Congressman? Shouldn't that video be available to any and all who want to use it without advertising YouTube? If we say that a Congressman should be able to post exclusively to YouTube, what is to prevent YouTube or the Congressman from shopping around to get a deal to host the videos? What is to prevent the Congressman from demanding a portion of the "ad revenue" his linking to the site produces?
Policy statements should not be subject to being bought and sold through an exclusive site or entity. To do so, or to start down the path that would lead to this would place a blanket of transparancy between the government and the constituants.
The better solution for this is the house.gov site step up its technology to host videos and other communication mediums. After all, we as taxpayers are paying for it.
Quoting Rep Tom Price (R-GA), "Technology moves fast. Congress moves slow,"
I think the main purpose from Pelosi's point of view is to control (read: unify) the democratic front. No alternate opinions allowed!
The "public" airwaves? LOL!!
Hello Good Gentles All!
helolo Gitarcarver!
"This runs afoul of the "franking privileges" members of the Congress enjoy ..."
Say what?!?
I read very carefully the entire statute regarding the franking privilege and can not find the subsection which restricts the rights of member to communicate with their constituents ONLY through franked communications or only through not for profit media.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/39C32.txt
There are substantial restrictions on the use of the franking privilege in order to prevent its abuse for personal or non-gonvernmental reasons but I can not find support for you argument within the code itself.
BTW, if a congressman grants an exclusive interview to a newspaper (a for profit concern) in which he discusses congressional business he would, according to your argument, be liable.
Please cite the subsection(s) that support your argument as I am intensely curious.
"No, they are thinking that the flow of information might be stiffled by members of Congress hosting videos and other communications exclusively on commercial sites."
The statute does not even speak to this issue so far as I can discern.
Pax,
InFides
I read very carefully the entire statute regarding the franking privilege and can not find the subsection which restricts the rights of member to communicate with their constituents ONLY through franked communications or only through not for profit media.
As that is not what I was saying, I won't defend your misinterpretation.
BTW, if a congressman grants an exclusive interview to a newspaper (a for profit concern) in which he discusses congressional business he would, according to your argument, be liable.
Not at all. If you would understand the purpose and the rules, the representative cannot make exclusive a policy or position statement. In other words, you can have an "exclusive interview" with someone, but if they make a statement on policy or position, that information must be available elsewhere.
The statute does not even speak to this issue so far as I can discern.
Please understand that there are rules in the House that deal with this. While you are looking at the statute, even the Republican informational book on franking fround here:
http://gop.cha.house.gov/franking/documents/2007RepublicanFrankingGuide.pdf
contains the warning that embedded links in electronic communications, (and that would mean the website of the representative) must link to sites that meet the franking standards.
The statute does not even speak to this issue so far as I can discern.
Yet that is part of the basis for franking priviledges. In days of old, there was a recognized need to communcate with constituants. If that communication was given through only a for profit outlet, such as a newspaper, the representative was thought to have abandoned his responsibility to keep the constituants informed. Thus franking came into being as a way of communicating without imposing a financial burden beyond normal governmental expenditures.
Why would anyone want policy and position statements to go out exclusively through for profit means?
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
"As that is not what I was saying, I won't defend your misinterpretation."
My bad. Since you mentioned the franking statute and its standards I assumed you were referring to it.
"This runs afoul of the "franking privileges" members of the Congress enjoy to communicate official statements and policies with their constituants and the public in general for free."
"Not at all. If you would understand the purpose and the rules, the representative cannot make exclusive a policy or position statement. In other words, you can have an "exclusive interview" with someone, but if they make a statement on policy or position, that information must be available elsewhere."
This is not the issue the franking standard addresses. This issue is if government monies can be used for communications that are not strictly speaking the people's business. The answer is no. The franking statutes and standards establish policies for how to determine whether a communication is frankable not whether it is allowed at all. The supreme court has already ruled on the highly protected right of political communication. The franking statute merely says that communications have to meet certain standards for them to be transmitted at government expense.
"Please understand that there are rules in the House that deal with this."
The rules do not restrict a member from communicating to his constituents by whatever means he wishes at his own expense so long as there is no government involvement.
The franking privilege allows him to communicate government business at no cost to himself within strict guidelines with respect to content but I do not see how the statute requires all official communication to be only by franked means. Please cite a statutory support for this.
"While you are looking at the statute, even the Republican informational book on franking fround here: ..."
I have read it in detail and the only issue is if franked communication means are used that all links found within a franked communication must adhere to the standards, because ultimately they link back to a government system which is operated at the people's expense.
Clearly, these regulations do not appear to restrict communication to only franked methods. I do not see how they could as they would certainly collide with first amendment privileges which would easily supercede this statute. Congress can make no law or regulation which denies constitutional privileges. Political speech is highly protected according to all court precedent.
"Yet that is part of the basis for franking priviledges. In days of old, ..."
I understand what you are saying but the franking privilege was to make to sure that congressmen had the means to communicate official business with their constituents.
It never was and is not intenended to restrict a member to only franked means of communication. If, as a member, I have official business to communicate then I have the franking privilege but I can always excercise my first amendment right and communicate by any means I choose.
You will notice in the guidelines you cited that the email links and other electronic links relate to communications via government systems. They would not, for example, apply to links to the members personal web cite. As long as no government mechanisms or monies are in any way, directly or indirectly, involved the members always retain the rights of speech and communication.
You will further notice that the rules pertain the the member's official government email account. Private correspondeance written or electronic which is undertaken entirely at the member's expense enjoys the same privileges as yours or mine.
Further, the procedures indicate that so long as any unsubscribed email lists are available publically then there is not violation for non-frankable materials even if they do link back to a government system. Since YouTube is freely available to anyone for viewing then I can not see how this could even remotely violate franking procedures. Anybody can watch YouTube at no cost and with no restrictions. The statements thus made by any member are freely available.
Further, the issue of franking standards relates to links which ultimately trace back to federal systems. A YouTube posting, so long as there is no link to any federal system, does not fall under this criteria. It would be an independent constitutionally protected public political communication.
However, I can see where I missed a key point that members were using their government funded pages and that, I agree, is going to create problems.
The rules do indicate that the franking advisory commitee has the right of review of non-franked communications but they would be on very dangerous ground if they attempted to stifle a communication undertaken entirely at the expense of the member and with absoluetly no government involvement.
You spoke to this very point in your earlier post:
"The basic problem seems to be the lack of technology within the "house.gov" domain."
also:
"Some freshman Representative from California decided to start linking and embedding YouTube videosin his house.gov webpage."
The issue is the use of government equipment for a franked communication that has not been approved. I am speaking to communications entirely independent of government systems and thus independent of government oversight. From what I can tell we may actually be arguing different points, government versus privately funded communications. If so , I am sorry for missing the difference.
I am certain the courts would not look favorably on the franking committee denying a member's right to communicate with his constituents entirely at his own expense. Although I do not know if they have ruled on this matter. Do you have a precedent?
The franking privilege is to create a level playing field and not merely the only playing field.
I think your point about the YouTube logo being intermixed with a franked communication could be subject to interpetation. But I do agree that it would have trouble passing the stink test.
Perhaps the best thing is to keep only government systems linked to government systems. Let the members fund their own private sites which can then freely link to YouTube.
I accept your point about government funded systems with respect to the franking privilege and commercial sites.
Be Well.
Pax,
InFide
Post a Comment