Obama's Internet Grab

[Guest posted by Annie Lee Mann]

Obama Adminstration Seeks Control of the Internet

The Obama administration is engaged in an effort to take control over internet and citizens’ freedom of speech and press under the guise of providing internet infrastructure security. If you don’t believe me, check it out: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act This link provides analysis, full text of bill and a PDF summary of key provisions. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is independent and a reliable source. I don’t think anyone could accuse them of being part of a right-wing conspiracy (I don’t think a lyricist for the Grateful Dead is a card-carrying member of the Klan or the NRA.).

It got too much attention as a single bill and has since be dissipated into 14 (!) other bills, but you should know about it. It wouldn’t cost as much as a government takeover of health care, but it might be even more frightening. This bill provides for outrageous and unprecedented power to be given to President to invade citizen privacy and even to shut down the internet. They seek to control – not just regulate – all electronic means of communication, both commercial and private.

Am I overreacting? Reading dire possibility into an honest effort to prevent cyberterrorism?

I don’t think so!

Okay, President Orwell, Mr. “judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.” For an extended version of the web surrounding our president, go to http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp .

For now, let’s just look at his Czar for Diversity at the FCC, Mark Lloyd. The following are excerpts from his book “Prologue to a Farce,” subtitled “Communication and Democracy in America.” http://books.google.com/books?id=SbmxyHXadQ4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI#v=onepage&q=&f=false .

I can’t get free access to all the book, (and certainly don’t want to buy it!) but just in the first few pages Lloyd makes clear his passionate belief that the government should control all media because “Corporate America” doesn’t serve to inform our citizenry. Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself:

“The ongoing American experiment in democracy is failing. And it is failing because we have allowed our public sphere to be dominated by the interest Madison called merchants.” (page 11) “The most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry. This faction has had many names over the course of our history. Madison called them the mercantile faction. . . today we call them Corporate America.” (p. 16, lamenting the slippery slope public communication went down when the decision was made not to have government-controlled telegraph)

[I can’t resist a sidebar. Everyone has seen http://www.storyofstuff.com/ , right? The cute little cartoon movie about the evils of capitalism that is being shown to schoolchildren nationwide? (complete with tests administered by teachers at the end to insure the Obama Youth get it?]

“The ideals of political equality and a government that operates in response to the informed consent of the governed are for most Americans only romantic notions. Our republic, the unique American mechanism for realizing the will of the people, is something warm and fuzzy to salute or sing about at best. At worst it is viewed as a dysfunctional and unreliable interference. But, in the main, it is regarded as merely another service provider, an odd cousin to the market.” (p.11) . [No, never mind singing the national anthem. Much better we should sing the praises of our führer . http://newsrealblog.com/2009/09/28/mm-mmm-mm-barack-hussein-obama/ ]

“The real questions is: What is the governing structure that will allow us to address the serious public injustices in our present?” (P.13)

“I will counter…[Thomas Jefferson’s outdated canard that that government is best which governs least, p.14] that … Americans clearly want many things that only government can provide: a clean environment, affordable health care, safe streets and so on. The answer to the problems of achieving our ideals of political equality and democratic deliberation is not to be found in limiting the only mechanism that can help us improve our society. “ (p. 15, emphasis added)

“We should never have allowed one faction to dominate our public sphere. Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality.” (p. 17)

“Indeed, as communications technologies become even more important to democratic participation, the government’s inherent responsibility to protect and advance democratic engagement is increased.” (p. 20) [all well and good unless you’ve read the provisions of the Cyber Security Act of 2009!!)

“[under the chapter sub-heading] The Altar of the First Amendment” p. 20

“This book does not ignore the First Amendment. The First Amendment deserves our attention. . . I only seek to place it in a context with other communications policies.”

Not vital link, but interesting if you have time, because it leads to so much more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/weekend-opinionator-acorn-falls-the-web-rises/ I missed the Daily Show, so was glad to see the clip!

The internet is key to bringing down totalitarians around the world, which is why they seek to ban or control it in China, and now in the U.S.A.

Congressional Dems Love Censorship

Democratic members of the House and the Senate have advocated rules that would censor Congressmen and Senators from using certain websites to communicate with constitutents, according to Hot Air.

Even worse, in the Senate, Diane Feinstein proposes that the Senate Rules Committee must approve any intertnet cite that does not end in "Senate.gov":

Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.

It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.

The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.

(Note to Feinstein: please blacklist my site! It would be an honor.)

The rules would prohibit a Senator from posting on his own campaign web site. It means that a Senator could not write a letter to editor in the online edition of a newspaper. And it means that he or she could not write guest posts -- or even post a comment -- on the millions of citizen-run web sites from which voters increasingly get their news.

This is why many conservatives make the deliberate grammatical error of referring to the opposition as Democrat, rather than Democratic. There is nothing Democratic about censorship.

In the Democrats' topsy-turvy view of the constitution, there is no right to bear arms (though the second amendment, and now the Supreme Court, say otherwise). There is a right to an abortion (though the constitution says no such thing). And now the first amendment right to free speech and press allows Democrats -- the majority -- to silence colleagues who dare express themselves on the internet, unless the site is preapproved by the majority.

The same buffoons who warned us that the Patriot Act heralded the end of our rights were right -- just for the wrong reason.

Nancy Feinstein, who is leading this exercise in black-listing, is also trying to bring back the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine, to require conservative talk radio to give equal time to "progressives" whose own radio stations bombed for lack of listeners.

This is what tyrrany of the majority looks like. As a clear-cut violation of the first amendment, it's the perfect case for the ACLU.

McConnell Vindicated on Campaign Finance

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has long opposed "campaign finance reform" on the grounds that it limits free speech. Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling suggests that Justice Samuel Alito -- and perhaps a majority of the Court -- agree with McConnell.

The Court struck down the "millionaire's amendment" that waived the contributions limit for candidates running against millionaires who self-fund their own campaign.

As McClatchey noted, McConnell's opposition to the "millionaire's amendment" comes at a steep cost:

Ironically, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling gives McConnell's Democratic opponent, Bruce Lunsford, the leeway to fund a stronger campaign against the senator, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the Cook Political Report.

"The ruling will allow Lunsford to spend as much money as he wants without any recourse from McConnell," Duffy said.

Lunsford, a wealthy Louisville businessman, has coffers capable of bankrolling his campaign. Though he initially wrote in filing papers to the FEC that he doesn't intend to spend his own money, Lunsford became the first Kentucky candidate ever to trigger the millionaire's amendment when he pumped more than $1 million of his own money into his bid for U.S. Senate.

During his unsuccessful 2003 and 2007 runs for governor, Lunsford pumped $14 million of his own money into the campaigns.

After the toxicity of Hillary Clinton, and the endless parsing and backpedaling of Barack Obama, McConnell's respect for the first amendment reminds us that public servants are called to put country ahead of their own hides.

Dem Thought Police Chide Fischer

Greg Fischer's Old Lady ad has drawn the wrath of the Kentucky Democratic Party establishment -- specifically, Dan Mondiardo, Crit Luallen, Jack Conway and John Yarmuth.

These four "concerned Kentuckians" wrote Fischer to complain about his attacks against Bruce Lunsford's Vencor debacle and to ask Fischer to pull the ad "immediately."

Page One reprints the letter, which states in pertinent part:

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Democratic Party asked all Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate to sign an Oath of Honorable Campaigning and agree to focus on positive ideas and solutions for Kentucky, not on negative, personal attacks on fellow Democrats.
. . .

Of the seven Democratic candidates running for the nomination for U.S. Senate, you were the only candidate to not sign that oath. Now, your campaign has launched a personal attack against a fellow Democrat’s character. By doing so, your campaign is playing right into Senator McConnell’s hands and is endagering [sic] the opportunity for change this November.

Oddly, the letter never names Lunsford, though it obviously refers to him. It's also strange that Steve Beshear did not sign the letter, but Mongiardo did. But most disappointing is the apparatchiks' complete and utter disdain for Greg Fischer's free speech rights. So much for a free and open debate.

The "oath" that Fischer correctly refused to sign is troublesome as well. In first amendment parlance, it would be void for vagueness; its interpretation is subject to the whim of whoever gets to define "negative." That is, it's viewpoint discrimination, and the viewpoint being discriminated against is Fischer's.

There's no state action, so the first amendment applies only by analogy. For anyone who -- in the tradition of John Stuart Mills -- believes that the answer to vile or inaccurate speech is more speech, it's a shameful example of censorship.

It's also pathetic. Lunsford lost twice because of his Vencor baggage. It's the elephant in the middle of his campaign office. Ganging up on Fischer and sending mean letters does not change this central fact of the campaign. To the contrary, it only underscores that Lunsford is such a weak candidate that he cannot defend himself.

Can't Believe He's One of Ours

It's not often that I agree with the Herald-Leader's John Cheves and Page One, but both lead me to conclude that a bill sponsored by Rep. Tim Couch, R-Hyden to ban anonymous web comments is one of the dumbest attempts of a pathetic legislative session.

The bill, according to Cheves,

would require anyone who contributes to a Web site to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that Web site. Their full name then would be used whenever they posted a comment.

Web site operators who violated the disclosure law would be fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

Couch admits that his bill might conflict with the first amendment's right to free speech. Consequently, he says that he won't "push it."

And he admits that it is unworkable and unenforceable. "The state can try to pass some rules, but I don't really think it would do anything."

The jurisdictional issues would be a full employment act for lawyers: the extra-territorial reach of a Kentucky statute. Just yesterday, this blog was read by people in Australia, France, Greece and the United Arab Emirates. Good luck trying to serve those readers with a summons, if they comment anonymously.

I prefer that people use their real names when commenting on blogs; it elevates a comment's credibility above the level of, say, graffiti. But that's a question of personal preference for the person making the comment or moderating the blog. Until Tim Couch and his colleagues in Frankfort can figure out how to run state government, they'd best not take on anything else, like running the Internet.

If speech on the Internet is actually dangerous, then Homeland Security can track down the author (unless Nancy Pelosi has her way). Couch's interview with Cheves, however, suggests that he is concerned about petty nastiness rather than terroristic threats. But short of enlisting the aid of Homeland Security (who has bigger fish to fry) how would Couch even find the commentators, given that they're anonymous?

Couch does not explain why he bothered to file a bill that he won't "push" because it's probably unconstitutional. What a waste of time and money, especially given the many genuine issues that Frankfort needs to address.

Not an Update but nonetheless: Even the Founding Fathers would be found liable under Couch's bill. The Federalist Papers, after all, were written anonymously, under the pen name "Publius." If Couch tried to limit the bill's application to just Internet speech rather than printed books, he'd simply compound its constitutional infirmities.
.