The First Amendment Applies Online, Too!

There has been much talk about determining how

much leeway political speech, or at least that from

certain quarters, should have online. Some people

(mainly those to the left of center) think that conser-

vatives have too much of a presence in cyberspace,

and that regulations of some sort will guarantee

other voices (again, mainly lefties) will have 

supposedly equal access and forum for their views.

But consider the following:

Ten years ago, The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

pondered whether it should regulate political content

posted on the Internet. In 2006 the commission 

unanimously approved a rule which freed the great

majority of political commentary on the Internet from

governmental regulation. This rule, casually known as

the Internet Freedom Rule, exempted all political

commentary distributed online for free by citizens

and groups alike, whether in e-mail or on blogs,

websites, or social media websites such as Facebook,

Twitter, and such. The commission retained jurisdiction 

over just a few limited areas: political parties, political

campaigns, and political action committees, and all others

who posts electoral advocacy online for an advertising fee.

This rule empowered millions of citizens to speak widely

as bloggers (like your favorite Peasant!), podcasters, 

YouTube posters, and such, reaching a nationwide audience.

New political communities have been formed online.

Political speech flourished as a result, with the Internet

becoming the nation's town hall, if you will.

But liberals have begun to call for investigations of 

conservative groups for posting political videos on 

YouTube without first reporting them to the FEC. 

The commission voted to investigate one such group,

voting along party/ideological lines; the two Republicans

voted no, the two Democrats and the lone independent

voted yes. This case generated a wave of protest from

citizens wanting the Internet to remain unfettered

by regulation, with nearly 2,000 comments submitted 

to the FEC to that effect. 

The FEC should stick to their 2006 rule and expand 

Internet freedom, for the low cost of a personal computer

and a monthly connectivity charge, people can reach

millions of people. The Internet has been a force for 

democracy for modern journalism, enabling so many

people to become online publishers of opinions and

ideas. Furthermore, the FEC has no authority to regulate

political speech for the purpose of limiting same, except

for regard to large monetary contributions that have 

corruptive potential. Also, citizens have the right and 

the ability to seek the viewpoints that they want to hear from. 

Government should not be allowed to impose regulatory 

hurdles to the ability to access these viewpoints. This would,
of course, fly in the face of the First Amendment.

Finally, the FEC would have no effective means of 

monitoring the Internet to find posts meriting its investigative

eye. And that is a good thing, lest the dread chill of govern-

mental presence be at the backs of all those who wish to

share political ideas and opinions. This is what happens

in countries with totalitarian governments. And for this reason

alone FEC regulation of content on the Internet, to the degree 

which some in our country would like to see, should never

be implemented nor encouraged.

If we are to remain a free country, we must foster and maintain

open channels of communication. To do anything to the contrary 

would undermine one of our most important freedoms: freedom

of speech. 

MEM