I would once again take the time to thank the NY Times, the rest of the MSM, and the idiot Democrats who thought that McCain-Feingold was a good idea and an absolute imperative for the nation. I warned you. I told you. You didn’t listen. Thanks. And damn you Bush- why the hell did you sign it?
After reading this utterly disturbing CNET piece discussing the policing of the internet and in particular, webloggers, it becomes clear where we currently stand. Here are two scenarios:
1.) I buy a webcam, set up a website, and then film myself shoving a 2×4 up my ass while making out with a plastic blow up doll (or, perhaps depictions of the rape and murder of women).
2.) I set up a website and talk about why Hillary Clinton is not suited for the Presidency and then link to the Rice/Guilani ’08 website.
Now, personally, despite how depraved the first scenario is, I don’t think it should be illegal. However, I think it serves as a pretty decent example how far we have strayed from the founder’s intent when the first scenario is protected speech and the second isn’t.
Here’s to these guys, who have a pretty decent idea (via Instapundit).
Professor Bainbridge has more, including the a more genteel version of my observation:
Yet, the oddity of campaign finance regulation is that we have ended up in a place in which pornographers apparently have greater constitutional protection than political bloggers. It’s like we live in the First Amendment’s Bizzaro World.
He also has the goods on McCain and Feingold, who used their free speech to launch an outrageous smear campaign against Brad Smith, one of the few good guys.
Captain Ed also talks in detail about this, including links to discussions in MYDD and the Daily Kos, as well as this open letter to the Senate:
To the honorable Senators McCain and Feingold, et al:
I have read with considerable dismay the effect that your recent lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, upheld by Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly, will have on political speech on the Internet. I write a political media-watchdog blog, Captain’s Quarters, which enjoys a not-insubstantial daily readership. No one pays me to do this; I operate my site and write on topics purely from personal convictions and a deep desire to improve the world around me and make the nation stronger. I can unequivocally say the same about my many colleagues in the “blogosphere”, both liberal and conservative.
Now we understand from Bradley Smith, one of the FEC commissioners, that your lawsuit forcing them to regulate speech on the Internet will have the effect of turning our efforts into in-kind contributions, especially when we provide hyperlinks back to candidate sites for referencing their positions and excerpt text from their on-line documents. Hyperlinks allow our readers to check our references to ensure our accuracy and context, and perform the hygienic task of holding our politicians accountable for their campaign practices. All of this not only should fall under the protection of the First Amendment, but it should be the primary reason for the First Amendment — to protect and encourage free political speech and foster genuine debate…
And, just because I am a partisan shill, I would like to disturbingly note that despite the fact that the good guys in this story are the Republicans on the FEC, something MYDD observes (“If the 3 Democratic-appointed judges on the FEC panel manage to extend the 2002 campaign finance law to regulate political speech over the internet, we Democrats can say hello to the wilderness for sure”), for the lunatics at the Daily Kos it is more of the same old cutting off the nose to spite the face nonsense we have grown to know and love from these wingnuts. Check out the comments.