From the department of "Unclear on technology"

[theweaselking]

American Republicans planning to restrict political speech on the internet, by claiming that links and discussion are "support" of a campaign and thus covered under campaign finance law, allowing the government to issue fines and potentially arrest people for "breaking campaign finance law" - by linking to and talking about political figures.

Leaving aside the technological impossibility....

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Lets hope this is vaguely defined, so people can get in trouble for mentioning politicians. In things like newspapers.

Or would that help with creating the new facist state?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There's already a "press" exception to campaign finance law. It's not "advertising" if it's a news outlet doing it.

This is, of course, why George Bush has illegally paid news outlets to advertise him, why Jeb Bush ensured that falsifying news was found to be legal, and why they've both been paying people to CREATE "news outlets".

[zenten.livejournal.com]

What's the definition of "news outlet"?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

While the article mentioned in John's post does not use the term news outlet, it does say that the press exemption applies to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." Given the handy link the article provides to the US Code (Title 2 (Congress), Chapter 14 (Federal Election Campaigns), Subchapter 1 (Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds), Section 431 (Definitions)), it appears that the press exemption applies to

any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

(You know, if you worked at such a place, and had an Internet connection, and were blogging from work, and thus were using the facilities of a periodical publication... Nah. Dumb.)

I shall leave to someone else the cynical commentary about the owning and controlling of news outlets.

FWIW, I'd like to think that at the very least linking to material would be a service

provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee;

and since the value of such services are not considered contributions, that would be fine.

As for talking about it... Look, am I being ignorant or horribly idealistic again, or isn't there something about free speech and press somewhere in some old document a bunch of dead guys wrote up a long time ago? Couldn't that be expected to apply?

Findlaw's got a (doubtless very brief) discussion of interpretation of the First Amendment, if you want to take a look.

Meanwhile, on a tangentially related note[1], I have laid my hands upon a complete copy of William Blackstone's /Commentaries on the Laws of England/ (1765-1769), and am going through them. There are some good words written therein:

The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.

I do not like to think what he would have had to say about the Florida Second District Court of Appeals ruling on the FCC policy against falsification of the news.
---
[1] Since the most comprehensive effort to assess the outlook at the time concluded that the POV expressed in his writings was likely the one reflected in the Amendment in question.