Sunday, March 26, 2006
The Threat to Internet Free Speech
The internet is a powerful mechanism for individuals to speak their opinions and to find a wide range of facts and opinions. Blogs are an obvious way for people to exchange views freely and without mediation or control by any media authorities. Just try to get free time on a radio or TV program ; even letters to newspapers are limited by space and editorial review, if published at all.
In a sense, blogs and the internet bring us back to the early days of our republic when pamphleteers wrote and handed out opinions to gain support for the formation of this nation. The value of free speech was recognized as vital to the functioning of a free state and was enshrined in the First Amendment. So, it would seem especially important to protect the ability of citizens to speak freely and broadly about political issues and politicians before an election.
And that was the way it was in this country prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) - the McCain-Feingold act. That Act restricted the right to speak about candidate within two months of a federal election as a means to reduce the influence of big money on elections. Of course, the press and big Media were exempt from this restraint; essentially, this created sort of a legal monopoly on political speech when it might be most effective - at election time.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) took the view that internet communications, particularly by individuals ala blogs, were not covered by the Act. This was reasonable since Congress had expressed a strong interest in keeping the internet free of regulation and the Act was not explicit on this point. The Act proponents took a different view and sued in federal court. The court ruled that the FEC must issue rules for the internet and Congress began action to clarify its intent.
An excellent summary of the state of legislation and the impact on and dangers to free speech was made by former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith writing on the Internet & Free Speech: "For two years, campaign-finance reformers fought in the courts to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet more heavily. They won, and legislation is in the works. Two bills are before Congress, H.R. 4900 and H.R. 1606. The “reform community” is strongly backing the former, and, to garner support for it, is claiming that it offers more than adequate protections. It doesn’t."
He describes three legal "viruses" which are embedded in H.R. 4900 and pose dangers to free political speech. Read it all; a key point is that the threat of litigation can be used to close down speech by citizens who don't have the resources to fight a legal battle - even though they are in the right. He concludes with this statement: "Viruses cannot thrive in healthy bodies, and cannot thrive on protected Internet systems. H.R. 1606 protects the Net. With H.R. 4900, Internet regulation continues to infect the system. The reformers know it. They’re hoping you won’t know it until after Congress votes and moves on to other issues."
Mr. Smith is concerned that Congress might take the easy political path and vote for the image of protecting internet speech rather than the reality. That's a real concern because the "image" side is led by Senators McCain and Feingold, both of whom are mounting Presidential campaigns for 2008. It seems strange that two men seeking the nation's highest office should have so little regard for free speech by the citizens they propose to lead. Unless one recognizes how much easier it is to control the message if only a few big media speakers are allowed.
However, on Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules, which, according to the Washington Post here , "leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites."
And that's my next post.
In a sense, blogs and the internet bring us back to the early days of our republic when pamphleteers wrote and handed out opinions to gain support for the formation of this nation. The value of free speech was recognized as vital to the functioning of a free state and was enshrined in the First Amendment. So, it would seem especially important to protect the ability of citizens to speak freely and broadly about political issues and politicians before an election.
And that was the way it was in this country prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) - the McCain-Feingold act. That Act restricted the right to speak about candidate within two months of a federal election as a means to reduce the influence of big money on elections. Of course, the press and big Media were exempt from this restraint; essentially, this created sort of a legal monopoly on political speech when it might be most effective - at election time.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) took the view that internet communications, particularly by individuals ala blogs, were not covered by the Act. This was reasonable since Congress had expressed a strong interest in keeping the internet free of regulation and the Act was not explicit on this point. The Act proponents took a different view and sued in federal court. The court ruled that the FEC must issue rules for the internet and Congress began action to clarify its intent.
An excellent summary of the state of legislation and the impact on and dangers to free speech was made by former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith writing on the Internet & Free Speech: "For two years, campaign-finance reformers fought in the courts to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet more heavily. They won, and legislation is in the works. Two bills are before Congress, H.R. 4900 and H.R. 1606. The “reform community” is strongly backing the former, and, to garner support for it, is claiming that it offers more than adequate protections. It doesn’t."
He describes three legal "viruses" which are embedded in H.R. 4900 and pose dangers to free political speech. Read it all; a key point is that the threat of litigation can be used to close down speech by citizens who don't have the resources to fight a legal battle - even though they are in the right. He concludes with this statement: "Viruses cannot thrive in healthy bodies, and cannot thrive on protected Internet systems. H.R. 1606 protects the Net. With H.R. 4900, Internet regulation continues to infect the system. The reformers know it. They’re hoping you won’t know it until after Congress votes and moves on to other issues."
Mr. Smith is concerned that Congress might take the easy political path and vote for the image of protecting internet speech rather than the reality. That's a real concern because the "image" side is led by Senators McCain and Feingold, both of whom are mounting Presidential campaigns for 2008. It seems strange that two men seeking the nation's highest office should have so little regard for free speech by the citizens they propose to lead. Unless one recognizes how much easier it is to control the message if only a few big media speakers are allowed.
However, on Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules, which, according to the Washington Post here , "leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites."
And that's my next post.
