By Douglas V. Gibbs
The desire to kill political speech on the internet is nothing new, when it comes to the liberal left progressive Democrats. Their goal is not to win in the arena of ideas, but to eliminate any voice that dares to speak out against them in the arena of ideas. In the battle to silence dissent online, an attack is being launched by the FEC (Federal Elections Commission). Regardless of Congress, regardless of the First Amendment which tells the Federal Government to keep its hands off of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of association, and regardless of State election laws and authorities, the agency under Barack Obama is targeting the way campaigns are presented online - whether you like it, or not.
Last Friday, probably still smarting from losing the Citizens United court case that was argued in 2009, and decided in January of 2010, and after a dead-locked 3-3 FEC commission vote, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media.
Democrat FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced she plans to do what she can to make sure the FEC begins regulating internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.
Unable to kill the voice of corporations regarding their involvement in cases via the Citizens United case (and to control the internet through net neutrality rules, which the courts has also slapped the leftists down, regarding), this power play for regulatory control without congressional legislative authority follows a ruling that was deadlocked with an FEC 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio-based internet campaign opposing President Obama featuring two videos, which the FEC says violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads, and were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising, should be allowed to do so.
Applying FEC regulations against the internet would expand the power of the FEC, which currently, under a 2006 FEC rule, regulates only internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites. Free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation with the intention to increase voter participation in politics. Republicans argue that if the Democrats get their way on this, it would not only expand federal government power over free speech, but allow the FEC to control anybody's opinions who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room. Comical internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.
Personal blogsites, like my own Political Pistachio, are much like a person's front lawn. The real argument here, is, should the federal government be allowed to tell me if I can put a candidate's sign on my front lawn? Should they be allowed to control my political speech while I am standing on my front porch? Should they be allowed to dictate to me whether or not I can put political bumper stickers, especially for candidates, on my car? The internet is an extension of our own personal property. What we say and do on our own property, for those that stop by and visit to see, is our own business, and to try to regulate that is a direct assault on our personal freedom of political speech as individuals.
Democrats have been salivating for some time with their desire to control internet political speech, arguing that videos online should be regulated no differently than ads on television. Democrats have lost their control over the dissemination of information through the media because individual bloggers and online commentators are not deep in their pockets, like the mainstream media and search engines are. Understand, though, that despite their argument that their actions are in the interest of achieving fairness, the desired move by the FEC Democrats is actually in line with the liberal left progressive philosophy of doing whatever they can to silence their opposition. It is only a matter of time, if this FEC ploy comes to fruition, before all personal opinions are wiped from the internet, and they begin to eye forcing you to remove campaign signs from your front yard, and bumper stickers that dare oppose them from your vehicle.
The attempt to regulate political speech includes going after sites like DRUDGE REPORT, where opinion pieces are not necessarily written, but instead the conservative site provides a list of links to various stories that leftism may not wish to be provided in such an easy to find manner when it comes to looking them up through a liberally slanted search engine. DRUDGE has a very popular front lawn, and a lot of people like to stop by to see what they have, and public opinion has been influenced by it - so as far as the far left is concerned, such freedom to know what is going on, and to know what your government is doing, has got to stop.
Remember, back in July, Washington D.C.'s House of Representatives observer Eleanor Norton said that you don't have a right to know what is going on in your government. By her logic, if you don't have a right to know, what makes you think you have a right to have an opinion regarding what is going on in your government?
Remember, they call themselves "progressives" for a reason. Once they get their foot in the door, they progress forward to take the rest of what they want. If leftism gains an inch, they will eventually tax all inches, and control every foot they possibly can. Today, they target internet political speech. Tomorrow, you will be arrested for daring to discuss with your neighbor the need for candidates that may stand against the one party rule of the totalitarian Democrats.
The arrest will probably be the result of your neighbor, or your children, turning you in for delivering unacceptable political speech.
Regarding Citizens United Case; Extra:
Excerpt from Political Pistachio article: Justice Stevens: Change the Constitution, April 25, 2014
This one is directly connected to the Citizens United case, where it was decided that corporations are people, and that their freedom of speech is exhibited through campaign spending. In Justice Stevens' dissent summary, he explains, "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office…[t]he financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
What was the purpose of creating corporations in the first place? Was not the idea to create a fictional "person?" Ever heard of a "fictitious business name?" Why is it "fictitious?" Is it because the business is fictitious? Of course not. The personhood of the company is.
In the 1700s, William Blackstone wrote: “it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public” to “constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. These artificial persons are called ... corporations.”
Corporate personhood, therefore, exists.
Does not a corporation, as a person, hold the same rights as an individual? A corporation has a right to own property. It has the right to form contracts. And if anyone tries to stand in the way of either of those rights, a corporation has the right to sue in court.
Regardless of employees, leadership, or the stockholders, a company’s property is held in its own name and belongs to it, not to the investors. If the corporation breaches a contract, it’s the company, not the individual stockholders, that is responsible. If the corporation is harmed in some way, the individual investors are not allowed to sue. The corporation has to do it.
Are these not all features of personhood?
In Citizens United, despite Stevens' dissent, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as ordinary individuals. As the majority commented, corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.
This one is directly connected to the Citizens United case, where it was decided that corporations are people, and that their freedom of speech is exhibited through campaign spending. In Justice Stevens' dissent summary, he explains, "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office…[t]he financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
What was the purpose of creating corporations in the first place? Was not the idea to create a fictional "person?" Ever heard of a "fictitious business name?" Why is it "fictitious?" Is it because the business is fictitious? Of course not. The personhood of the company is.
In the 1700s, William Blackstone wrote: “it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public” to “constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. These artificial persons are called ... corporations.”
Corporate personhood, therefore, exists.
Does not a corporation, as a person, hold the same rights as an individual? A corporation has a right to own property. It has the right to form contracts. And if anyone tries to stand in the way of either of those rights, a corporation has the right to sue in court.
Regardless of employees, leadership, or the stockholders, a company’s property is held in its own name and belongs to it, not to the investors. If the corporation breaches a contract, it’s the company, not the individual stockholders, that is responsible. If the corporation is harmed in some way, the individual investors are not allowed to sue. The corporation has to do it.
Are these not all features of personhood?
In Citizens United, despite Stevens' dissent, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as ordinary individuals. As the majority commented, corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
VIDEO: CHAIRMAN WARNS 'REGULATING SPEECH' - Fox News
Push for controls on Internet - Washington Times
DEMS ON FEC MOVE TO REGULATE DRUDGE - Washington Examiner
VIDEO: CHAIRMAN WARNS 'REGULATING SPEECH' - Fox News
Push for controls on Internet - Washington Times
Citizens United, Stevens Dissent Summary - Patriots for Change
Justice Thomas Was Right: Citizens United and the Defenestration of Brenen Eich - Wall Street Journal
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - FindLaw Case and Codes
Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn - Fox News
VIDEO: Democrat Rep: "You don't have a right to know what's going on in your government" - Tea Party News Network
No comments:
Post a Comment