November 03, 2005

First Amendment be Damned...Full Speed Ahead

When Ford Jr. actually shows up to vote on something in Congress, he sure knows how to do it right. He, along with several other Tennessee Congressmen, voted against the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

This was essentially a one-sentence bill that would exempted online communication (aimed at protecting blogs) from campaign finance and election laws. It required a 2/3 majority vote, and because of Democratic efforts, the bill failed. Only 43 out of 189 Democrats voting voted for the amendment. Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. voted against the amendment which basically thrust a symbolic knife into the backs of Junior Mint bloggers such as Chris Jackson and David Bander.

The conclusion is quite clear....those Congressmen that voted against the amendment voted against the First Amendment.

Tennessee Congressmen voting against the bill (wall of shame):

-Harold Ford, Jr. - 9th District
-Zach Wamp - 3rd District
-Jim Cooper - 5th District
-Bart Gordon - 6th District
-John Tanner - 8th District

Voting for:

-Marsha Blackburn - 7th District
-Lincoln Davis - 4th District
-John Duncan, Jr. - 2nd District
-William Jenkins - 1st District

Powerline blog has more on the amendment's defeat. The Daily Kos condemn's the vote as well.

And, I'll stick by what I said before when it comes to the regulation of speech for blogs: civil disobedience.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Why do you object to blogs having to disclose campaign and finance information? Based solely on the principles of the First Amendment?

I'm not baiting, here, I'm genuinely curious. Because I am not sure how I feel about the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

Posted by: brittney at November 3, 2005 11:21 AM

It just seems that a sweeping exemption for blogs leaves a loophole through which wealthy media interests, politicians, and partisans can use blogs to publish propaganda.

Posted by: brittney at November 3, 2005 11:24 AM

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech...no matter who it originates from.

Posted by: B at November 3, 2005 12:32 PM

I just wonder if freedom of speech shouldn't be kept for the people, and not for corporations.

Just thinking...I mean, don't many people think political blogs are supposed to be about accountability and transparency?

Posted by: brittney at November 3, 2005 12:49 PM

Yeah...transparency is good. If someone isn't being honest, another blogger or normally a host of bloggers will call them out on it. So far, the blogosphere has been very self-correcting.

What we don't need is government regulation. Sure, you can say that it is aimed at corporations or whatnot, but when the government regulates something, everyone feels the chilling effects.

Posted by: B at November 3, 2005 01:04 PM

"I just wonder if freedom of speech shouldn't be kept for the people, and not for corporations."

Once we start being selective on who gets freedom of speech who's to say you'll have any?

Putting FEC restrictions on internet speech is precisely what the 1st Amendment was meant to preclude - government control of political speech.

Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2005 12:10 AM