Democrats on FEC want to regulate internet more

[AlbqOwl]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

 

[chuckiechan]

I seriously doubt SCOTUS would do that, even with 4-4.

It's regulating free speech. People, as well as the news media have a constitutional right to lie.

 

[reinoe]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

Thank God Trump won the presidency. Could you imagine how out of control our intelligence agencies would be if he had lost the election?

 

[Redress]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

From your source:

Seizing on an exit report card of the agency by ex-Commissioner Ann Ravel, the left is complaining

I read that far and stopped. "Left" is a direction, it does not speak. It is a smear article, nothing more.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

This seems more like requiring them to report their donors rather than regulating actual content. Though, admittedly, I'm not well versed in this subject.

 

[AlbqOwl]

From your source:

I read that far and stopped. "Left" is a direction, it does not speak. It is a smear article, nothing more.

You could have fooled me that the Left, used as a noun to designate that those who are ideologically left of center, doesn't speak. Seems to me it is speaking a LOT!

And the topic is not the source that is used to illustrate or explain the topic.

But if the topic is not of interest to you, isn't it wonderful that there are so many other topics to discuss out there?

 

[AlbqOwl]

This seems more like requiring them to report their donors rather than regulating actual content. Though, admittedly, I'm not well versed in this subject.

I didn't take it that way. I think they could care less who the donors are. I read it that they are just using that as an excuse to regulate content. Maybe I read that wrong?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Thank God Trump won the presidency. Could you imagine how out of control our intelligence agencies would be if he had lost the election?

It seems to me the intel agencies are already out of control and seem to think they have every right to operate outside of congressional oversight or discipline. And that concerns me.

But in this situation, you see more and more push for government control over the internet. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I believe was just a nice sounding ploy to give the government more regulatory power, thus control of the internet. And regulating presumably political content on the internet, along with government power to state what is and is not political, would essentially remove pretty much all liberties from the internet.

I think we are wise not to ignore these things when they surface.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I seriously doubt SCOTUS would do that, even with 4-4.

It's regulating free speech. People, as well as the news media have a constitutional right to lie.

SCOTUS has a pretty good track record of protecting free speech, but even there more and more leftist ideology is creeping into SCOTUS decisions. If the Left's lawyers are sharper than the Right's lawyers, or the Right is caught sleeping on this one, they very well could make a compelling argument that the government has the right to regulate political content on the internet as much as it regulates how political not-for-profit organizations are allowed to be.

 

[Redress]

You could have fooled me that the Left, used as a noun to designate that those who are ideologically left of center, doesn't speak. Seems to me it is speaking a LOT!

And the topic is not the source that is used to illustrate or explain the topic.

But if the topic is not of interest to you, isn't it wonderful that there are so many other topics to discuss out there?

No, it is not. Some people are speaking, but those people have differing opinions in alot of areas. When people use phrases like "the left says", or "the left wants"(or right in either case), they have proven that they are clueless and should not be listened to.

 

[jonny5]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

Wont happen. The internet cant regulated since its not a public utility. The FCC would have to make it one.

 

[natsb]

There are already rules in place concerning political content. Many based on recent SCOTUS rulings. I cannot see a circumstance where the FEC would be permitted to bypass those rules for the purpose of censoring political content.

This looks like some members of the board are looking to get slapped down again.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No, it is not. Some people are speaking, but those people have differing opinions in alot of areas. When people use phrases like "the left says", or "the left wants"(or right in either case), they have proven that they are clueless and should not be listened to.

Well please take that discussion to the appropriate thread. This one is what the Left/Democrats are proposing re internet regulation.

 

[Redress]

Well please take that discussion to the appropriate thread. This one is what the Left/Democrats are proposing re internet regulation.

So your position is that an anonymous twitter handle is "the left/democrats"? See, this is exactly about the topic, and how you and your source are trying to spin things into something that is not there. You made a claim, in the thread title, and now you do not want any discussion in the thread on your claim? Really?

 

[AlbqOwl]

So your position is that an anonymous twitter handle is "the left/democrats"? See, this is exactly about the topic, and how you and your source are trying to spin things into something that is not there. You made a claim, in the thread title, and now you do not want any discussion in the thread on your claim? Really?

My position is that the Democrats want to regulate what some people post on the internet. THAT is the topic. Thanks so much for uinderstanding.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Wont happen. The internet cant regulated since its not a public utility. The FCC would have to make it one.

You might be right though at issue is an FEC regulation. But apparently the Democrats would apparently like to be able to regulate what at least some groups can post on the internet.

 

[Redress]

My position is that the Democrats want to regulate what some people post on the internet. THAT is the topic. Thanks so much for uinderstanding.

There is nothing to support that claim though. Your source does not support it. Reality does not support it. Your source is about an anonymous twitter tag. That is not "democrats". And it is about updating disclosure rules, not regulating what people post. Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest? And when called on it, why did you feel the need to try and suggest that facts where not part of the discussion?

 

[jonny5]

You might be right though at issue is an FEC regulation. But apparently the Democrats would apparently like to be able to regulate what at least some groups can post on the internet.

Actually I was being sarcastic . The FEC DID declare that internet is a public utility and THAT is what allowed Democrats to start trying to control it (and probably GOP some day too). The public should never have allowed it, but theyre sheep.

 

[Zyphlin]

When it comes to the internet, basically both sides have been doing various things that infuriate me recently.

 

[Renae]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

The left has lost it's collective mind since Citizen Untied and they keep looking for new ways to control speech.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually I was being sarcastic . The FEC DID declare that internet is a public utility and THAT is what allowed Democrats to start trying to control it (and probably GOP some day too). The public should never have allowed it, but theyre sheep.

Ah I see. Dang, that's twice in the last month that I've been slow on the uptake that way. I need to step up my game here.

But, in any case, we have a President now who isn't real big on government control of things the government shouldn't be meddling in, so hopefully we're safe for a few more years anyway.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The left has lost it's collective mind since Citizen Untied and they keep looking for new ways to control speech.

In recent decades, the Left loses its collective mind every time they are out of power. They get more frantic, foolish, angry, malicious, and too often violent. They have always cared more about ideology than they care about the long range effect of what they do. They ignore unintended bad consequences or ineffectiveness because to them, good intentions are sufficient to defend something. But it is important more than ever to control speech and information.

In any case, because they believe they have the right to punish or oppose, violently if necessary, anybody who is politically incorrect, i.e. believes something they don't agree with--they call this constitutionally protected free speech :roll: --internet control makes sense.

They pretty much control the message in education and the mainstream media, but that wasn't sufficient to prevent loss of power in Congress, the White House, and state and city governments across the country. We the people were no longer dependent on those sources to inform us because we have access to so much information on the internet. So it only makes sense they want to restrict what information is available to us there too.

 

[Kurmugeon]

It seems the Democrats want the FEC to regulate internet content posted by not-for-profit organizations. The main bone of contention is that the NFP orgs don't always reveal their donors plus the internet isn't being regulated for content and spending and should be.

FEC Dems again eye regulating Drudge, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook | Washington Examiner!

But aren't there as many left wing NFPs posting as right wing ones? What benefit would you see to government regulation of the internet? What dangers?

Discuss.

Just like dozens of other aspects of our society, they will not "Regulate" equally, but rather with a Partisan Bias.

Just look at the aspect of the "Confederate Flag" issue, where the Lefties want to Ban that aspect of free-speech, on the bases of it encouraging racial hatred and violence, yet the same Lefties are all for the Free-Speech of Black Lefties Murder Rally speakers openly calling for Anti-White, Anti-Cop violence, murder, and even Racial Genocide!


Given what we have experienced in the differential enforcement of such things, this is a slippery slope we should not even let the slightest foothold be established, because it is a certainty that the Left will apply bias, propaganda, and differential "Justice" to the subject.

-

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just like dozens of other aspects of our society, they will not "Regulate" equally, but rather with a Partisan Bias.

Just look at the aspect of the "Confederate Flag" issue, where the Lefties want to Ban that aspect of free-speech, on the bases of it encouraging racial hatred and violence, yet the same Lefties are all for the Free-Speech of Black Lefties Murder Rally speakers openly calling for Anti-White, Anti-Cop violence, murder, and even Racial Genocide!


Given what we have experienced in the differential enforcement of such things, this is a slippery slope we should not even let the slightest foothold be established, because it is a certainty that the Left will apply bias, propaganda, and differential "Justice" to the subject.

-

I thought about that too which prompted the third option on the poll. Is very limited regulation appropriate to make it illegal to post something deliberately inflammatory or misleading in a way that can harm a person or group? But given the general dishonesty in the political fabric of our nation these days, who could be trusted to enforce such a regulation? We already have slander and libel laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced? I ultimately concluded that no regulation was better than well intended regulation that would almost certainly be selectively and maliciously enforced.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Does anybody know if this is a legitimate website?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1104

It would apply to California only at this time, but apparently there is a bill working its way through the California legislature that would add to their existing election law:

[h=3]SEC. 2.[/h] Section 18320.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
[h=6]18320.5.[/h] It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.
(b) Any candidate for election to public office.​

And the California legislature is packed heavily enough with Democrats to pass that should they choose to do so. This could bear watching.