Free Speech Attack Coming?
That's what it sounds like after reading
this article.
Check out the last paragraph:
Furthermore, whatever happened to the notion that "We the People" borrow limited bits of power to the government? I thought that's where the power rested. I don't recall anything in our Founding Documents that says anything about the government parcelling out limited freedom to "We the People."
When the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment, they codified into the Constitutional framework the right to a free, 'Wild West' press to keep politicians on their toes. They wanted to ensure that people could hold politicians' feet to the fire.
They certainly wouldn't have allowed politicians to put limits on the rights of citizens to use whatever tools were available to them to keep politicians honest. They certainly wouldn't have stood for the ability of politicians to ration speech.
That's why it's vitally important to get Jeb Hensarling's OnLine Freedom of Speech Act passed yet this summer. Anyone voting against it should be targeted by blogs as opponents of the First Amendment and the Constitution.
As I said way back when, I don't recall giving cheap politicians permission to regulate my First Amendment rights.
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:37 PM
No comments.
Check out the last paragraph:
Rep. Tom Allen, a Maine Democrat, co-sponsored legislation in March that would bring political Web sites under campaign finance rules if they spend $5,000 or more on their operations. He said he would watch how blogs factor into the 2006 races under the FEC rules before deciding whether to press the issue. "The challenge has been, how do you balance the fact that the Internet has evolved very fast...and how do you maintain as much freedom as you can without undermining campaign finance laws?" Allen said.That's typical Washington thinking and it's disgusting. It misses the point entirely. The challenge isn't "how do you maintain as much freedom as you can without undermining campaign finance laws?" The challenge is how can activists with free speech rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment stave off threats to their constitutional rights by the Tom Allens, Marty Meehans, Christopher Shays and John McCains of the world? To the Tom Allens and other like-minded politicians, constitutional rights are a pesky thing.
Furthermore, whatever happened to the notion that "We the People" borrow limited bits of power to the government? I thought that's where the power rested. I don't recall anything in our Founding Documents that says anything about the government parcelling out limited freedom to "We the People."
When the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment, they codified into the Constitutional framework the right to a free, 'Wild West' press to keep politicians on their toes. They wanted to ensure that people could hold politicians' feet to the fire.
They certainly wouldn't have allowed politicians to put limits on the rights of citizens to use whatever tools were available to them to keep politicians honest. They certainly wouldn't have stood for the ability of politicians to ration speech.
That's why it's vitally important to get Jeb Hensarling's OnLine Freedom of Speech Act passed yet this summer. Anyone voting against it should be targeted by blogs as opponents of the First Amendment and the Constitution.
As I said way back when, I don't recall giving cheap politicians permission to regulate my First Amendment rights.
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:37 PM
No comments.
