Glenn Reynolds links to an editorial in the Washington Times that urges "Free speech for bloggers," to which Glenn adds, "and everyone else." But while that caveat in his headline is appreciated, it does tend to get lost in the sauce. The key language pulled from the editorial by Instapundit is, "Unfortunately, no matter what the FEC decides, there's a chance that the days of unbridled political discourse on the Internet are nearing their end. . . . We encourage lawmakers to support the bills so that Internet free speech can advance unimpeded."
Why "unbridled political discourse on the Internet"? Why "Internet free speech can advance unimpeded"?
As I have said before, I think this is a terrible formulation, both rhetorically and legislatively. It allows Congress to buy off the for-the-moment influential blog medium while continuing to savage the Constitution for other media -- including, conceivably, as-yet undeveloped or unrealized media -- via the notorious McCain-Feingold anti-sedition legislation. The best thing the "Blogosphere" -- right, left and center -- can do in connection with this issue is refuse to be bought by a dubious, and prospectively temporary, carve-out for "Internet free speech" only.
1 comment:
All true. The point, in my view, is that the courts insist that "money
isn't the same as speech," but that's like saying "money isn't the
same as property," just about. Money buys the ability to amplify
speech, without which speech is worthless.
Post a Comment