Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Freedom of Speech is a "Loophole" ?
The New York Times editorial page expresses great outrage over the prospect that ordinary citizens and bloggers could be allowed to speak their mind about politics prior to an election. This ability, which most of us thought was protected by the First Ammendment, is endangered by a recent court interpretation of the Campaign Finance Law. Since the court interpretation is seen by many as not following the will of Congress when it enacted the legislation, the Congress is doing it's duty by stating it's intentions more clearly in new legislation that has strong bi-partisan backing. Up for a vote this week is House Bill HR1606, aptly named 'The Online Freedom of Speech Act'.
But where the Congress and I see freedom, the NYT sees anInternet Campaign Loophole ; ranting that: " For all the avowals to put the brakes on ethical lapses, the House is showing its true colors with an attempt to turn the Internet into a free-flowing big-money trough for uncontrolled political spending."
The editorial is full of overblown and false rhetoric. I could pick it apart, but that's already been done here very well here , and here .
So, I'll content myself with noting that the NYT starts it's rant with a concern about "big-money" "free-flowing" on the Internet. Now that's clearly a false statement about HR1606; but it's probably true that the NYT fears the loss of some "big-money" without it's monopoly on political speech when it counts most. ( Congressman Jack Kingston share that view in his Blog post on "Elitist Media v. Bloggers: H.R.1606").
But where the Congress and I see freedom, the NYT sees anInternet Campaign Loophole ; ranting that: " For all the avowals to put the brakes on ethical lapses, the House is showing its true colors with an attempt to turn the Internet into a free-flowing big-money trough for uncontrolled political spending."
The editorial is full of overblown and false rhetoric. I could pick it apart, but that's already been done here very well here , and here .
So, I'll content myself with noting that the NYT starts it's rant with a concern about "big-money" "free-flowing" on the Internet. Now that's clearly a false statement about HR1606; but it's probably true that the NYT fears the loss of some "big-money" without it's monopoly on political speech when it counts most. ( Congressman Jack Kingston share that view in his Blog post on "Elitist Media v. Bloggers: H.R.1606").
