Regulating Political Speech Online?

from the bad-ideas dept

Michael S. Malone is trying to bring to light a federal judge's ruling from last year that didn't get very much attention. Apparently, U.S. District Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (whose name you might recognize from the Microsoft anti-trust suit) ruled that, despite it clearly not being mentioned in the law, the internet should be restricted by the McCain-Feingold Act, effectively regulating political campaigning online. The ruling, basically, was that it wouldn't make sense for the internet to be excluded, since that would defeat the purpose of the law. However, as Malone points out, it basically treats the internet as if it were a broadcast medium, rather than a communications one -- and creates a serious problem for free speech issues. The point he makes is that, since anyone can publish online, the system helps work out the problems itself: "Pick a viewpoint, no matter how nutty, and it will be there on the Web -- and counterbalanced by 20,000 contrary arguments. It is a forum that demands not more regulation, but less; not more oversight, but more sunlight. Not mandated disclosure, but competitive exposure of misbehavior." Every election season, we see increasingly innovative uses of the internet in campaigns to help bring up issues and involve more people in the process. Regulating the internet when it comes to campaigns could effectively kill that ongoing evolution of the tool.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    dorpus, 17 Feb 2005 @ 2:55pm

    What about extremism?

    Extremists will find company on the net. Over in Japan, there is now a whole subculture of "2ch-ers" who compete to make bigger boasts about the joys of mass murder, or other terroristic acts. Police have cracked down when the threats got too specific, but overall, there is now a greater pool of knowledge on how to commit mass terrorism, and greater camaraderie among people who enjoy such thoughts.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    gp, 17 Feb 2005 @ 3:15pm

    No Subject Given

    Many first amendment specialists already believe McCain-Feingold to infringe on pure political speech, why shouldn't that travesty also apply to political speech voiced on the Internet?

    Maybe the Net community will be more successful in highlighting the issue than the political community has been.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.