First Amendment Under Attack, Part III
The Center For Individual Freedom has entered the fight over the Online Freedom of Speech Act by running some print ads this past week. Here’s the link for the ads.
“The Internet is a force for innovation, openness and economic growth,” said Jeffrey Mazzella, President of CFIF. “That’s because government has taken a hand-off approach to allow the Internet to grow unfettered as a powerful tool for information and commerce.
“Now, some are trying to change course and lock up the Internet,” Mazzella continued. “Instead of letting consumers determine what products and services they want, ‘net-neutrality’ advocates want government to pick winners and losers.
“Our ads were designed to send a clear message to Congress: Government regulation means less Internet innovation!” said Mazzella. “The Internet is already neutral; Congress should not regulate it,” Mazzella concluded.
I’ve just read this press release but I’m already liking Jeff Mazzella. He swats down the so-called do-gooders’ arguments. The ‘do-gooders’ are decent people who simply put a higher priority on ‘good governance’ than they put on the First Amendment. They prefer sanitized elections.
Clearly, that isn’t what the Founding Fathers wanted. They envisioned rough-and-tumble, knockdown-drag-out brawls. They understood that sanitized elections wouldn’t keep the Republic healthy. They understood that spirited debate based on facts, idealism and principles were what would keep this nation healthy and flourishing.
Let me wax philosophical for a moment. I see the quality bloggers out there as believing in the Founders’ philosophy. We fancy ourselves as worried more about a guiding vision for the country than about personalities. We see ourselves as caring about content rather than worrying about the snappiest 4 second soundbite. We love the vigorous debates that happen on the blogosphere. It’d be a shame if some mindless government bureaucrat were allowed to regulate that.
When I started blogging, I often linked to candidate’s website for the express purpose of providing a link to major speech transcripts so that people could determine that I hadn’t taken a comment out of context. Under the rules being considered by the FEC, linking to a candidate’s campaign website would be considered an ‘in-kind campaign contribution’, subjected to a plethora of FEC guidelines. The thought of that is repulsive. And that’s being polite about it.
Again, call your representative or fire off an email for this. For those of you who live in open seats, fire off an email to the candidate to see where they stand on this vital issue. exhaust all the avenues and resources on this. It’s one of the biggest issues we’ll face between now and Election Day.
RELATED:
First Amendment Under Attack, Part II
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing