The Honorable John Sullivan
The Honorable Dan Boren
The Honorable Frank Lucas
The Honorable Tom Cole
The Honorable Ernest Istook
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs,
Today, prominent and influential bloggers all across America are writing pointed missives to their Representatives, pleading the case for The Online Freedom Of Speech Act, and bemoaning their own Congressmen’s betrayal of free speech. But I have the pleasure of not being one of those prominent and influential bloggers. Instead, I get to write a congratulatory letter of thanks.
Thank you, all of you, for voting to pass HR 1606, The Online Freedom Of Speech Act. Thanks to freedom-loving legislators such as yourselves, this bill obviously enjoys majority support, and will surely pass when it comes up again, in circumstances that do not require a two-thirds supermajority.
I live in Mr. Istook’s district, but I really want to thank the entire Oklahoma delegation to the House on this occasion. It is such times as these that I am proud to be an Oklahoman. Other states may have their good features — Maine has a gorgeous coastline, and New Mexico has a really neat flag, just for instance — but Oklahoma has a top-notch Congressional delegation. That ought to count for a lot. (Just between us, I do believe that if you five gentlemen constituted the entire House, the country might be better served than at present.)
Gratefully,
Sean Gleeson
sean.gleeson.us
P.S.: I am publishing this letter for all to see, on my prominent and influential blog, at sean.gleeson.us on the Internet. Please feel free to go there and leave comments, or read the comments added by other citizens.
Where credit is due
First, a quote from House Speaker Dennis Hastert: Today’s action marks a sad day for one of our nation’s most sacred rights: freedom of speech. The federal government seeks to…
Just wondering if you were planning to post how they voted on this?
All five Oklahoma Representatives voted to pass HR 1606. The bill failed, but it is sure to come up again.
HR 1606 is:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.”
So was this bill introduced to limit internet “entities” from receiving campaign contributions from political parties? Or was it to limit everyone (and their grandma) from expressing their political views and/or support for any political candidate?
I guess I am confused as to what this bill was to do exactly. I remember, sometime within the last 1-2 years, the gov decided to include the internet as part of how they legally defined something … something political. I have forgotten.
Was this bill trying to remedy that?
correction: “limit everyone (and their grandma)” should be “Stop limiting everyone (and their grandma)”
sorry.
The bill was trying to remedy the McCain-Feingold law, which suppresses free speech, by making an exception for online communication. (Other public communication would have remained suppressed.) Read this.
That site did explain what this bill was doing a little bit more, but I would like to know exactly how the FEC is screwing people… wait. I got it now. kinda. “In 2002, the FEC concluded that the campaign finance law did not cover the Internet”. A judge opened a can of whoopy on that. That’s where we are, now.
Oct 2004:
[LINK]
March 2005 (The coming crackdown on Blogging):
[LINK]
It is the “lmy little old grandma” scenario. If everyone’s grandma wants to put up a “blistering ad” (as new.com.com calls them) for a political candidate, then they should be able to. If they want to pass on political notes of a party member, they should. If they want to create an immoral and/or unethical and/or illogical ad of their own which is debasing or of libelous nature (political or not), then they can. Of course then they’ll have to worry about a libel suit against them, just as any citizen would. I doubt many people have to worry about that though.
So, I agree. A US citizen should not be held to the same restraints as a media corperation. This bill was about free speech…or the restoration of it in internet communications for US citizens. So, why didn’t it pass? Why couldn’t 3 more people (Democrats, in this case) look at this bill and YEA it.
I would understand if the bill had some undesirable riders attached, but there weren’t.
weird.
Thanks, Sean, for the original link