First Amendment Threat

David Hardy has the run-down on the latest threat to free speech: required registration of bloggers with 500 or more readers, who may comment on policy issues.

Say Uncle has the right idea on this one.

I sure as heck don’t have AT‘s readership, but I have exceeded the 500-reader limit (866 unique visitors, actually) over the past couple of weeks.  I’ve been known to take some heat over freedom of the press issues, but also to push the limits from the other side.  The difference, quite simply, is that when you own the media, you control what does (or does not) get published.

Bob Krumm wraps it up nicely, too:

I’m obviously not in favor of this mind-numbingly stupid and anti-constitutional idea.  Nor do I expect it to get any traction–especially once Sen. Reid discovers that his registration scheme would more adversely effect his side of the aisle.

14 Responses to “First Amendment Threat”

  1. on 18 Jan 2007 at 8:07 pm AT

    Yeah, hell with that. I’ve broken dumbass laws before, and I’m certainly not afraid to do it again. Which is the biggest reason why I should never be in politics.
    Interesting that this comes up, at the same time as the .gov opening up the door for military tribunals for journalists.

    I have readership?

  2. on 18 Jan 2007 at 8:29 pm daco

    Well AT your “readers” do better with pictures, but don’t get over 500 of em’ sport or I’m called Vitter.

  3. on 18 Jan 2007 at 8:36 pm Jacket

    Maybe she meant *leadership*, after all AT is the leader in blogs around here.

  4. on 19 Jan 2007 at 5:19 am girlfriend

    Wonder if he is friends with the constable in Anderson County, Ed Williamson.

  5. on 19 Jan 2007 at 8:32 am AT

    Daco, the court ruled that that one kindergarden class had to stop reading the ‘tumor.

  6. on 19 Jan 2007 at 11:44 am daco

    That is such a load of crap. Who does that judge think he is? Children need a wide range of diversified views in order to receive any quality of education. The Tuma is just one color in the rainbow, one note in the chorus of free thinking ideas.

    Personally, the tuma is mandantory reading for all of my grandkids under 5.

  7. on 19 Jan 2007 at 7:05 pm Joel

    Netmom, this appears to be a bunch of conservative hysteria.

    http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_registr.html

    Of course, since it was sponsored by Harry Reid, I guess lying about it makes it ok.

  8. on 19 Jan 2007 at 7:07 pm Joel

    Section 220 was intended to require “astroturf” (fake grassroots) organizers who get and/or spend more than $25,000 per quarter to disclose the sources of their funding.

    So, naturally, the astroturf organizers who actually get and spend over $100,000 a year were the ones who organized an astroturf campaign of lies and fear to get rid of section 220.

  9. on 19 Jan 2007 at 9:37 pm BCR

    At BCR we have done as many as 700 unique visitors in one day. Right now we are running around 4,000 unique visitors a month and growing. So we are definitely impacted by this one.

    Yet my authors are a bunch a rednecks for the most part, so you can guess what our answer will be.

  10. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:05 pm Joel

    Is BCR a lobbying firm? If not, how will you be impacted?

  11. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:18 pm Netmom

    That depends, Joel. How do you define “lobbyist?”

    I don’t know about BCR, but I would anticipate questions about my own status — not by people with legitimate concerns about lobbying, but general malcontents who thrive on causing problems for others.

    I am paid $150/month to serve on the local school board. I do go to City Council meetings and to the State Legislature to talk to representatives in those bodies about how I would like for them to vote on issues that impact our school system.

    I also blog extensively about education topics, as well as local and state government.

    Yet, that does not make me a lobbyist, blogger for hire, astroturf, or any of those other things. I still think it’s a stupid idea, and one that would unnecessarily grow into yet another enormous government entity that doesn’t produce anything but misery for its citizens.

  12. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:30 pm Joel

    Well, if you want to make up phony hypotheticals, I’m sure you can invent something to justify the concerns expressed by the right-wing blogs you read.

    You are not a lobbyist by anyone’s defintion, netmom, and you know it. Nothing you posted here leads me to believe that you take in more than $25,000/yr for lobbying activity. It is sad to see that you can’t admit you made a mistake on this one; you’re starting to sound like AAC.

    When you’re ready to be serious about this topic, take a look at the link I provided. I realize it isn’t posted on a wingnut site, but the truth seldom is.

  13. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:32 pm Joel

    Sorry, that should read “more than $100,000/yr”.

  14. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:37 pm Joel

    It turns out that an amendment by Bob Bennett (R-Utah) to strip the grassroots provision from the ethics bill was approved on Thursday, so this is a moot issue. The grassroots provision was not in the final version of the ethics bill that was passed on Friday.

    Do try to read non-fiction from time to time, netmom.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post

Leave a Reply