Democrats try to stile free speech
We all know that Democrats are anxious to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but this new issue takes the cake. Captain Ed takes note of this post at The Next Right which covers a couple of Democrats wanting to limit the freedom of speech those in Congress possess:
In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. ...
Well, Capuano's proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:
To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House's content guidelines.
For those unaware of this, there are those in Congress who do have their own websites. Bill Frist has his own blog as does John Campbell. There are times when those in Congress cut columns for newspapers, and those fever swamp nutters on the Left occasionally go wading through the swamp at DailyKos. But Rep. Capuano doesn't like that. He doesn't like the fact that there are a few in Congress that like talking to the people of the nation. (OK, yeah, we'd like to muzzle the KosKiddies, but there is that problem with the Constitution protecting them as much as ourselves.) And he's not the only one, either. From Captain Ed:
In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing 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.
As my source put it, these are the key issues:
-- Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
-- It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
-- The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
-- The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
-- Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
-- The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
Why do Democrats fear free speech so much? Actually it's not a fear of free speech. It's more like this draconian, Socialistic desire to quash dissenting opinions and opposing views. See, these monkeys think that they can do anything better than the public can, and that obviously includes thinking. What's really sad about this is it's so reminiscent of the novel "1984," and it's infamous Ministry of Truth. There the government controlled what was revealed to the public. In this case, both Feinstein and Capuano want to shut down what is revealed through our elected officials.
We don't need this. The Congress should be MORE transparent, not less. We saw exactly what sort of transparency the Congress believed in with the ethics reform package that was cobbled together last year. In that bill, they made it much easier to hide how they would pull off earmarks and pork-spending, and the rules governing lobbyists were made more lax.
Go ahead and drop Feinstein an e-mail at her website or give her a ring at 202-224-6352. Let her know what you think about this move to shut down free speech in the Senate, and remind her that she took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Quelling freedom of speech is hardly upholding that oath, and it's embarrassing to see her and Rep. Capuano trying to muzzle their colleagues.
Publius II
In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. ...
Well, Capuano's proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:
To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House's content guidelines.
For those unaware of this, there are those in Congress who do have their own websites. Bill Frist has his own blog as does John Campbell. There are times when those in Congress cut columns for newspapers, and those fever swamp nutters on the Left occasionally go wading through the swamp at DailyKos. But Rep. Capuano doesn't like that. He doesn't like the fact that there are a few in Congress that like talking to the people of the nation. (OK, yeah, we'd like to muzzle the KosKiddies, but there is that problem with the Constitution protecting them as much as ourselves.) And he's not the only one, either. From Captain Ed:
In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing 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.
As my source put it, these are the key issues:
-- Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
-- It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
-- The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
-- The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
-- Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
-- The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
Why do Democrats fear free speech so much? Actually it's not a fear of free speech. It's more like this draconian, Socialistic desire to quash dissenting opinions and opposing views. See, these monkeys think that they can do anything better than the public can, and that obviously includes thinking. What's really sad about this is it's so reminiscent of the novel "1984," and it's infamous Ministry of Truth. There the government controlled what was revealed to the public. In this case, both Feinstein and Capuano want to shut down what is revealed through our elected officials.
We don't need this. The Congress should be MORE transparent, not less. We saw exactly what sort of transparency the Congress believed in with the ethics reform package that was cobbled together last year. In that bill, they made it much easier to hide how they would pull off earmarks and pork-spending, and the rules governing lobbyists were made more lax.
Go ahead and drop Feinstein an e-mail at her website or give her a ring at 202-224-6352. Let her know what you think about this move to shut down free speech in the Senate, and remind her that she took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Quelling freedom of speech is hardly upholding that oath, and it's embarrassing to see her and Rep. Capuano trying to muzzle their colleagues.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home