The coming crackdown on blogging posted by Ben

Update: A good portion of this has been rebutted.

----------------

The coming crackdown on blogging | Newsmakers | CNET News.com

Says Bradley Smith of the Federal Election Commission:

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

"...any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services."

"It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up and say, 'Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear,' then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger."

So digging into the article in a little bit more depth, it seems that the core issue here is that a deregulated internet means that anybody can say what they want. And if what they say happens to fall under the umbrella of overt 'political advocacy,' rather than the tricksy "we don't really advocate a candidate; we're just telling you a few irrelevant facts" approach of groups like ACT in last November's election, then it can become subject to an incredibly complicated set of campaign finance laws. Which begs the question, why is it seen as so crucial to some parties to control what gets said politically?

Unfortunately, while the necessity of free speech seems like it ought to be a non-issue across the spectrum of net-based political commentary, it's difficult not to imagine Republicans in D.C. going all gung-ho for regulation (even if it hurts their own guys) just to keep contradictory messages from left wing opposition unread, inaccessible, and punishable by fines or jail time.

Sound impossible? The FEC committee is split on party lines over the issue. And the most recent lawsuit over the former internet exemption has been found in favor of internet regulation.

I'm afraid that the sub textual message is very clear: these people don't want to allow political speech to go unregulated. They are talking specifically about the cash value of hyperlinks and advocacy. They are saying, contrary to the First Amendment, that political speech should not be free. Instead, it should have a cash value attached, be subject to regulation, and be limited to a particular amount per year.

My guess is that if anything so ludicrous were attempted, the energy and political capital that government would have to spend to crack down on net-based commentary and organization would not only be enormous, but would spark an outright electronic violation of the new rules (in the name of free speech) that could not be stopped without literally shutting down the web.

For whatever it's worth, I promised myself last November that I would stay in America and work for what I believe is right until people start to disappear. If that time comes, it's time to bury the silver and move to safety. I still don't think it's likely that we're going to reach that point in this country, but I also can no longer deny that it is possible.