Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

The Chairperson of the Federal Election Commission is worried about blogs and websites casting personal opinions about political issues and candidates.

They seem to concerned that they (the Commission) isn't doing enough to monitor the internet.

I guess they want to censor anything that would expose the corruption and lies that inflict the political system in general.

They worry that certain restrictions and regulations that apply to disclosure don't apply to individuals.

Hmmm.

Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.


“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed on the Internet alone. As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense,” Ravel said.

Oh Oh !!

Here They Come !!

Posted to the ATS Twitter Feed with this image:

a reply to: xuenchen

Is it even possible for the current administration to be more communistic?

I guess the traitors have to do as much damage as possible to the country as payback for the last elections.

a reply to: xuenchen



.....by the way-I noticed that almost all of the words that Yahoo news banned in the comment sections are all words that accurately describe the obama admin.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
Is it even possible for the current administration to be more communistic?

Possibly requiring paid shills to disclose their financial interests (donors and sponsors) is communism???!?

I'm not sold on the idea, but I don't think it's communism.

welcome to obamanet

"If you like your internet, you can keep your internet!"

...good luck enforcing this garbage

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: FalcoFan
Is it even possible for the current administration to be more communistic?

Possibly requiring paid shills to disclose their financial interests (donors and sponsors) is communism???!?

I'm not sold on the idea, but I don't think it's communism.

Of course it isn't. It's totalitarianism. Communism is too narrow a definition for what this kind of thing represents.

Of course I have been getting the suspicion there are a lot of people out there who have actually wanted this kind of "chilling effect" sort of thing for a long time. So what they do is they figure out what kinds of things they can say that will turn the highest number of people off at one time, regardless of their political views. They say the most "outrageous" kinds of things they can possibly say to whip the public into an anti-free speech frenzy sort of state so that whatever "solutions" are eventually proposed, public opinion will be very malleable. Using the tyranny of the majority, they will be able to introduce the most outlandish solutions imaginable and the cries for something to be done will easily drown out any kind of dissent long enough to get it through.

They have been obviously working on public opinion for years on the free speech issue. Shaping it on issues like "hate speech" and "cyber bullying" and amplifying those crazy cases where someone used the internet in the commission of some horrific crime. The kind of thing that really rarely ever happens but makes a lot of noise when it does. I mean, off the top of my head, I can't really come up with an example but I'm sure someone could. Like some guy threatening his ex wife or something online.

This is the kind of thing that always happened before the internet was ever a thing with the public. But now it can be used to get people good and pissed off. Anything that's bad that involved a person saying or doing something really insane online can contribute to a cumulative negativity in the public mind on the issue of free speech online. It can be nothing more than a bunch of isolated incidents that in the end are tragic but don't add up to much more than just some crazy people being crazy like they always did. But when it is used by certain political ideologues and the MSM to kind of form a running narrative, as though free speech is the reason all of this is happening, it adds up in the minds of people who have been trained to store every little incident and refer to it often.

a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder what Thomas Paine would have to say about this?

a reply to: xuenchen

This will last 5 seconds before SCOTUS smacks it down.

They should work to end unlimited campaign donations by corporations / entities.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: xuenchen

Is it even possible for the current administration to be more communistic?

I guess the traitors have to do as much damage as possible to the country as payback for the last elections.

Yes it is possible since this administration isn't being communistic. Maybe a bit Socialist, but that isn't Communism. And this action isn't communistic.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Chairperson of the Federal Election Commission is worried about blogs and websites casting personal opinions about political issues and candidates.

Mr. "Goodman's" enforcement mechanism...

Great...take away the only platforms that people use to discuss political issues outside of bought and paid for political opinions.

Well, we can always head to McDonald's for breakfast and conversation, I'll buy the first round, ha,ha...

a reply to: xuenchen

This is what I have imagined when all the happy-talk comes up concerning net neutrality.

Although any action taken to curtail free speech by the federal government might be an issue. Unless they hide the fact by making that vehicle of free speech a "utility".

They can restrict and regulate "utilities".

They may even allow free speech in free speech zones.

But when something is a government-controlled utility, then they may feel that they have carte blanch to regulate, restict, govern it all they want.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok-I understand.

But does being socialist make it better than communism?

Either way it's like something the North Korean "gov." would be behind 100%.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry-I get different names of tyranny confused sometimes.

I would rather just lump it into one (trash) basket.

a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder is this ties into net neutrality.....Hmm. Maybe the government regulation is not a good idea after all. PTB understand the internet and the free flow of information must be controlled.



This is also why we see so many paid posters pushing agendas on sights just like this. The mainstream news is going extinct and the rise of alternative news is the future. PTB are scared and rightfully so as the flow of information is no longer controlled by them.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder is this ties into net neutrality.....Hmm. Maybe the government regulation is not a good idea after all. PTB understand the internet and the free flow of information must be controlled.

I'm surprised it lasted this long. It was a nice ride while it lasted.

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.”
― Vladimir Ilich Lenin


“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
― Vladimir Ilich Lenin


“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
― Vladimir Ilich Lenin

a reply to: FalcoFan

I have a tough time putting Socialism in the tyranny basket. I certainly don't like being overly taxed, but at least the money is going to help other people. I'm not a Socialist, but I can see the heart is there to help others.

Another reason why using the citizen's band is a good idea. No one cares what is said on the 11 meter band "party line". It is possible to use the allowed wattage to cover the 155 mile legal broadcasting range with short range skip off the ionosphere in addition to illegal distance communications using long range skip.

MURS radios can legally be used for transmitting digital data, however the band width and range is small, but I imagine someone could engineer something better. Our communications need to go underground at any rate, however that may be accomplished.

For those of you who would advocate a Ham license to use repeaters, the F.C.C. is all over that and your identity is easy to find from your call sign. However, if unlicensed operators flooded the airwaves illegally, it would make it hard, expensive and time consuming for the F.C.C. to bust everyone.

originally posted by: SubTruth
I wonder is this ties into net neutrality.....Hmm.

It doesn't.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

What the FEC is suggesting is that blogs or websites created by a particular campaign disclose that they're actually from that campaign or are paid by that campaign, just like they do with TV commercials. It would prevent astro-turf organizations popping up appearing as 'common citizens' when, in fact, they're bankrolled by specific PAC's or political candidates.