The Wilsonian vision of domestic governance through expertise and fiat quickly devolved into a reality of goon squads, political persecution, crushing of dissent with formal and informal political violence, politicization of law enforcement, etc. The Occupy bomb-throwers and the imbecile hooligans committing arson to prove that “black lives matter” are not quite the American Protective League, but they’re of a piece with it. In the Wilson years, we had politicized police; in the Obama years, we have a weaponized IRS . . . and Justice Department, and police unions, and jailers’ unions. The Wilson-era progressives tried to use the Sedition Act to shut down critics of the great progressive. In our time, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Harry Reid want to throw people in prison for popular political activism of which they disapprove. The grand plans of 2009 are coming unraveled, as grand plans do, and so the Left grows ever more naked in its coercion. On the official side of the spectrum, you have Senate Democrats voting to repeal the First Amendment so that they can suppress political criticism. [emphases added]
And now you have Democrats on the Federal Election Commission pushing to shut down the Rightosphere:
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 commission, which consists of three Republican and three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005. However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties, and PACs.
This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of spending caps in restricting political speech.
This would be by their usual metric of issue and candidate advocacy being deemed "in-kind campaign contributions". By some deck-stacked formula, a blog like this one would be, that's right, monitored by the federal government, and when enough of our posts regarding a candidate, or party, or issue, reached the FEC's arbitrarily assigned "contribution" limit, we would, somehow, be rendered unable to write any more about that candidate, or party, or issue. Or be shut down altogether.
And remember, our platform is currently owned by Google, so you know they would happily and eagerly cooperate. Or else.
And the reach of the feds' dragnet would be a lot farther and wider than just Political Pistachio:
Last October, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel issued a statement in which she complained that the agency was not doing enough to monitor activity on the Internet.
“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.
That's a function of what how she sees her job description, isn't it? Which ought to tell you all you need to know about what she considers her job description to be.
However, the commission’s three Republican members – Lee Goodman, Caroline Hunter, and Matthew Petersen – responded to Ravel’s comments in a joint statement.
“Despite the Internet’s growing importance as a tool for all citizens to engage in political debate, and notwithstanding this Commission’s promise to take a ‘restrained regulatory approach’ with respect to online political activity, [Ravel] apparently believes the time has come to impose greater regulation on political speech over the Internet,” the group wrote.
According to Commissioner Goodman, who served as chairman of the FEC last year, regulation of content placed on the Internet is a very real possibility.
“The commission has seen proposals to regulate even issue advocacy referencing federal candidates that is disseminated on the Internet," Goodman told CNSNews.com.
"That could reach YouTube videos, blogs, and websites like [the] Drudge Report,” he warned. [emphases added]
And shut down one and all if they "disseminate political speech" that doesn't meet with the approval of the Obama Regime. Which begs the question of what they think "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." actually means. There's nothing in the First Amendment about the communications medium by which speech, political speech most especially, is disseminated. It says that the feds SHALL NOT abridge speech and press freedoms, PERIOD. Thus, what the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are pushing for is flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional.
But they know that, just as they know precisely what Amendment I says. They just don't care. Or, as Kevin Williamson wrote above, "The grand plans of 2009 are coming unraveled, as grand plans do, and so the Left grows ever more naked in its coercion." As the Left always does, in every country, at every past and future time, because its ideology doesn't work, but is also its adherents' de facto religion, and like all godless religions, "heretics" are not and will not be tolerated.
Besides, as I'm sure the White House would admit if its occupant was capable of such candor, they don't see anything in the First Amendment that forbids the Executive Branch from abridging free speech and press freedom. Or "the pen and phone are mightier than the parchment".
In any case, the inevitable Executive Order banning the Rightosphere is coming. It's just a matter of time, "public comment period" or no "public comment period," which is just to identify which persons the Regime will "disappear". Pity we won't be able to read all about it, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment