Look At Where Democrats Want To Take Free Speech

0

The FEC held a hearing on February 11th to decide whether or not blogs should be controlled by the government.

The agency has been politicized like all the other executive agencies.

This comes at the same time that the White House – via the FCC – is seizing control of the Internet.

They asked to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet. It could affect blogs, YouTube videos and websites like the Drudge Report.

All blogs, videos, and Internet sites would likely be affected by a move at the FEC to add burdensome regulations.

The hearing is partly 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. They don’t believe some individuals and corporations have free speech.

The regulations they want to see strike at the heart of the First Amendment.

If Congress can pass laws to limit or radically change the First Amendment, how do we have a First Amendment.

This has been in the works for some time and shutting down some free speech is a goal of the totalitarian left.

It won’t pass yet because it would require bipartisan support but the FCC move to regulate the Internet is another issue entirely.

In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel, pictured below, promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos and blog posts to the reporting and disclosure requirements placed on political advertisers who broadcast on television.

Ravel-2

“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 in the Internet alone,” Ravel said in an October statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

She bemoaned the fact that “In the past, the Commission has specifically exempted certain types of Internet communications from campaign finance regulations.” “In doing so, the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.

Shutting down blogs is on the totalitarian’s radar.

In September 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein put forth an effort to use the Shield Act as a way to shut down bloggers.

Feinstein wants to define who a real reporter is and who gets the protection of the Shield Act. She doesn’t want bloggers to have free speech.

“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.

Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.” The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”

She says bloggers are not to be covered by the Shield law along with terrorists.

According to her, you are only a legitimate journalist if you on her list of news services.

Meanwhile only 6 major conglomerates control all the news. It is the main reason blogs have popped up.

Make no mistake, they don’t want to shut down Soros blogs or al Jazeera – those are “real news services” to them.

The Washington Examiner reported that she would likely “regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.”

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, described what Ms. Ravel wants as something like a Chinese censorship board.

He said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

We would never again see spoofs like Obama Girl, Sean Hannity’s website would be under scrutiny, and Drudge Report would be taxed and regulated out of existence.

On April 4 2013, during a conversation with POLITICO’s Mike Allen, White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer labeled the Drudge Report as harmful.

He said the media has a “Pavlovian response” to controversial links posted on conservative news aggregator The Drudge Report.

Pfeiffer also argued that the site actively “hurts” the White House’s efforts to convey their message “on a daily basis.

One can assume from that statement that the White House expects the media to work in lockstep with his message. The Obama administration loves state media and nothing must interfere.

He also doesn’t want reporters to go to Drudge and pick up information he then has to answer questions about.

The Drudge Report is nothing more than a right-leaning news aggregator – a highly successful one. How is that damaging? He doesn’t editorialize, he aggregates. It’s closer to a free press than the mainstream papers.

This batch of Democrats, both in the White House and their supporters in Congress, are out to shut down opposing viewpoints, not exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they drew up the First Amendment.

Nor did the Founding Fathers expect the White House to behave like Third World dictators and control news reports about White House interviews, but it’s happening.