Retaking the pledge

In 2005, Patterico called for bloggers to take the same pledge he was taking:

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

It took me a day or two, but I eventually saw the wisdom of his approach.

And the Federal Election Commission wisely kept its big yap shut about the matter, until now:

In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel 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. On Wednesday, she will begin to make good on that promise.

“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.”

Take your “policy” and shove it, Annie dear. In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no such thing as a Federal Election Commission, and the limit of your public utterances would be “You want fries with that?”

So Patterico is renewing the pledge, and so am I: “If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.”

Period.

7 comments

  1. Jack Baruth »

    12 February 2015 · 7:57 am

    You know, they just keep trying to turn the Internet into television, no matter how ridiculous that appears to the cognoscenti.

    But in an era where the largest bandwidth consumers are Netflix and Amazon Instant Video, who can blame them?

  2. Roger Green »

    12 February 2015 · 8:35 am

    While I agree with core of the message. I thought the first paragraph of the Hot Air article was misleading. It’s about net neutrality and how to make it so, something I favor, as should most people on the Internet.

    Interestingly, New Zealand DOES have a ban on political speech on the Internet for a brief time before their elections, which they seem to embrace. Their campaigns are also WAY shorter, something I would embrace.

  3. CGHill »

    12 February 2015 · 8:49 am

    The question in my mind is whether “net neutrality” as we know it in any way resembles the government’s idea of “net neutrality.” (And well, Hot Air often lives up to its name.)

  4. McGehee »

    12 February 2015 · 8:56 am

    I want the FEC to tell me where the money’s coming from for this anti-“dark money” campaign they’re hearing.

  5. McGehee »

    12 February 2015 · 9:01 am

    I oppose “net ‘neutrality'” precisely because I’m being told everybody should support it. It sounds too much like “the science is settled.”

    And anyone telling me I can’t express a political opinion on the internet right before an election will be invited to go back to North Korea.

  6. Tatyana »

    13 February 2015 · 12:05 pm

    “Net neutrality” in reality translates into litany of praises for Dems, liberals and the rest of the Pinko &Co crowd.
    So, thank you but no, thank you.

  7. Tatyana »

    13 February 2015 · 12:06 pm

    omitted: …praises and their darling PC issues.

RSS feed for comments on this post