×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-nancy-pelosi-was-in-the-other-room dept.

Censorship 561

selil writes "A story popped up on the ChicagoBoyz Blog. It says 'Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums — nothing.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

561 comments

The democratic party in a nutshell: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24120781)

"We know what's best for you"

Trying to bail out Obama? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24120861)

Now that the largest group on my.barackobama.com is protesting his FISA flip flopping...

Nancy Pelosi is VERY weak (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121265)

Nancy Pelosi is a VERY weak woman, it seems to me.

She's the Democratic leader Republicans would choose.

Re:Nancy Pelosi is VERY weak (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121537)

Don't forget how Zionism plays into politics in D.C. Saying this makes anyone extremely unpopular but it explains a lot.

hradek (0, Flamebait)

hradek (815183) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120787)

Somewhere I heard that Bush and his cronnies were the ones making the flow of information more regulated and examined.

Re:hradek (3, Funny)

all5n (1239664) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121149)

Naah, they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets while using oil money $100 bills to light their cigars. That is, when they arent listening in on my phone calls to my mother in canada telling me about her hemmerhoids.

Re:hradek (5, Funny)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121381)

they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets

Did they run out of lawyers already?

Re:hradek (4, Interesting)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121385)

Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Conservative it doesn't matter who tells you what the corporate agenda is. The corporations are still in charge.
They are the "elite" the "haves" that like to make your decisions for you..or rather make your decisions for their profit.
Anyone that supports the current system of corporate rule are the enemy no matter what party they support. Most people won't believe this and that is why they are winning the class war. Unfortunately the bulk of people like to have someone else think for them which is why democracy won't solve this problem.

Usually... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121485)

But sometimes an opposing party does a stupid thing that the other party's known for doing, especially when it comes to giving more power to the government. People argue long and hard for one political party or the other, but sometimes people forget that it's like arguing over which hyperactive little boy should get to play with a gun. Also keep in mind that no political party in the world has a minimum IQ requirement (or any real requirements apart from who's scratching who's back for that matter, AFAIK).

The Hen or The Egg (4, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120815)

Does politics bring in the idiots from the streets, or does politics create idiots from sane stock? Discuss!

Re:The Hen or The Egg (4, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120831)

Discuss!

Without prior consent? I think not!

Re:The Hen or The Egg (4, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121233)

Let's get real. Currently "official" congressional communications are limited to the house.gov site. If you read not TFA but the letter it cites, it discusses some *possible* ground rules to follow in approving additional sites as venues for hosting or disseminating "official" congressional content.

Some of these ground rules are
  • that the site should be pre-screened to ensure it's not going to be running ads alongside the content that will harm or impugn the dignity of the congress.
  • that links to the content on the site should contain an exit notice so that surfers know they're leaving an official government site and going to an external site.
  • The content must be properly identified as official congressional content and meet existing rules and regulations regarding official content.

The hyperbole by the obviously conservative-leaning original poster and the TFA is ridiculous and is just a prime example of alarmist propaganda, trying to blow this WAY out of proportion.

It's simply a proposal for ground rules as the committee examines extending the ability of members of congress to post "official" content outside of existing official channels. Rather than being a "clamp down", it's actually broadening the number of venues members of congress can use for posting "official" congressional communications, but tries to ensure that there will be some level of decorum and good taste.

Re:The Hen or The Egg (3, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121363)

but tries to ensure that there will be some level of decorum and good taste.

But, these are Congressmen...?

Re:The Hen or The Egg (2, Insightful)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121491)

The hyperbole by the obviously conservative-leaning original poster and the TFA is ridiculous and is just a prime example of alarmist propaganda, trying to blow this WAY out of proportion.

Why do the poster and TFA have to be necessarily conservative? They may simply have been misinformed (i.e., didn't read up on everything) or have some other reason to dislike Pelosi (i.e., she ran over their cat).

Never forget Hanlon's razor [wikipedia.org].

Re:The Hen or The Egg (4, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121509)

content that will harm or impugn the dignity of the congress.

See, you had me going there for a minute...

Re:The Hen or The Egg (1)

ShadowWraith (1322747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121071)

Idiots off the streets. Unabashedly lying in front of huge crowds takes a certain emptiness of mind, and that's what it takes to get elected.

Re:The Hen or The Egg (1)

clem (5683) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121529)

The real trick of it is to not lie to the crowd by framing your statements so they lack any substance that's falsifiable. Just leave 'em with a warm feeling fuzzy feeling while saying nothing. They'll fill in the vacuum of information with their own opinions which, of course, they'll agree with.

Not "idiots". (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121095)

They just have very specialized knowledge. The knowledge of how to get themselves elected, keep getting re-elected and moving up the chain of authority.

All of that schmoozing and such does not leave much time for learning anything else.

So they rely upon "advisors" for their "information". And said "information" has to be communicated to them in the least technical terms. Which results in statements about "tubes" and "trucks".

But to be fair to them, my CFO asked a little while ago if the power problems we had were a result of her sending an email to Iceland. After all, it must take a lot more power to push the message that far than to push it across the street.

Fable of the King Tree (3, Interesting)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121415)

It's the fable from the bible.

When all of the trees were picking a king, they asked a fruit tree, but he said "I'm too busy making fruit"
They asked a shade tree, but he said "I'm too busy providing shelter for animals"
Then they asked the thorn bush and he said "Sure thing, jerks. I got nothing better to do" and with his newfound royalty, he promptly burned the other trees to cinders.

The efficient, productive members of society are too busy doing their jobs to devote their time to sit in endless, pointless council meetings, knock elbows with the fat stock, and climb a social-political ladder of vipers. We barely have time for our friends, much less coddling those who would so quickly turn on us as enemies. On a much smaller scale, take a look at typical office management. The man who [might know something but] can't do anything himself is the one in charge over everything.

Are there exceptions? Of course. It's hardly a rule if there are no exceptions.

tl;dr version:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach? Politics!

"so-called"? (4, Funny)

kithrup (778358) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120825)

censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting

Your epidermis is showing.

Re:"so-called"? (3, Insightful)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120993)

Which is one thing I don't get. The "Right" is always complaining that the "Mainstream Media is Liberal!!11!1!11!elevetyone!!" is it not? So, in holding with that theory, if they're not lying the fairness doctrine would help them. Look at it this way, if the media were truly liberal, then they'd have to have more conservative guests to meet fairness doctrine rules.

Then again, since the mainstream media is corporate (i.e. what sells ads) and not liberal, would it really matter?

Direct link to the letter in question (5, Informative)

FrameRotBlues (1082971) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120829)

Here's a direct link [gopleader.gov] to the letter in question.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question (4, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120975)

How dare you? If you post the real document people might read it! And see that this - analysis? - is a crock of horseshit.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question (4, Interesting)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121235)

Forgot to mention - any IT guys looking for work in the Washington, DC area should write to Mr. Capuano and tell him you know how to set up a video server. Seems this all started because the House has lousy IT.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121375)

I agree, way to overblow the house simply wanting media coming from representatives to be standardized. I can't believe how much BS this is.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121147)

I'm trying to find the fairness doctrine part of the letter, and frankly, I'm having difficulty.

--AC

Seems fairly benign (4, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121153)

Basically it's saying that if you have official content you want to post (e.g. big videos) that you can't post on house.gov, you currently can't do it. Since some content is hard to post, Pelosi is suggesting new rules that allow it to be possible, within guidelines.

It's actually more permissive than our Internet posting policies here at work. Right now, you have to work through us (the web services team), as opposted to setting up your own URL and posting whatever you want outside of the official content.

Come up with a better technical solution. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121227)

So, the current rules say that everything must be under the domain "house.gov".

But the video tools available (how so?) are not what they want. This is flaky.

And the bandwidth can be a problem. I understand that.

So, the simple solution is to allow each Congress Critter to set up his/her own sub-domain.house.gov wherever s/he wants to. With whatever bandwidth s/he wants to purchase. Particularly if it is from a local provider.

Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120837)

the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting

[Citation needed [wikipedia.org]]

Re:Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121099)

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Any law that forces news outlets to reflect reality as it exists rather than as we conservatives wish it were is UNFAIR. Thank God for Fox News.

Re:Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine (0)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121205)

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Any law that forces news outlets to reflect reality as it exists rather than as we conservatives wish it were is UNFAIR. Thank God for Fox News.

If only I had my mod points, I'd get this OUT of AC hell and into +5 Funny.

More proof... (-1, Troll)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120839)

Here's more proof that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give a damn about the Bill of Rights. The Republicans are wiping their asses on the Fourth Amendment, and now the Democrats want to wipe their asses on the First. But they still take turns wiping santorum off their dicks with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Re:More proof... (0, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121093)

The original fairness doctrine stated that due to the limited resource of OTA broadcasts, any controversial issue that would be brought up on the radio had to be balanced by another fair opinion.

You can say whatever the hell you wanted, but, if you were using public airwaves for it, you couldn't sit there and lie for like, 3 hours straight. Now that Reagan did away with that, Rush Limbuagh and his ilk filled that void and now are allowed to spew crap unabated.

I'm sure there's something more than the TFA's letting on. that just seems to sensationalist to be right.

Re:More proof... (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121173)

if you were using public airwaves for it, you couldn't sit there and lie for like, 3 hours straight.

You still can if you're the President and you're giving the State of the Union address. If the President ever actually told the truth during one of those addresses, his speech would consist of, "The United States is in deep shit, and it's our fault."

Re:More proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121283)

Who decides then what's fair?
The government? Or maybe the market?

Resources are different from what they were decades (almost a century) ago.

Who is allowed to file a complaint about what's fair?

What topics are covered? Can any religious belief out there (buddhists, etc) claim fairness doctrine against christian TV & radio? (yes they could).

If the "fairness doctrine" is re adopted, where will it stop?

Or just let the market decide!

Re:More proof... (3, Interesting)

j79zlr (930600) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121469)

The market did decide and Air America is going out of business. The liberals didn't like this and are trying to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to force liberal ideas on NPR where they are not listened to.

Re:More proof... (1)

jevvim (826181) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121183)

Any material created by a Representative in their official role of Representative is the property of the United States of America, and the Capuano letter [gopleader.gov] (the 'source' for this article) states that they want to EXPAND the sites onto which this USA-owned material may be posted. Currently, Representatives may only post this material to pages under House.gov, but they want to allow 'outside channels' to enable functions that House.gov can't serve effectively, such as streaming video. This is no where close to the "barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership" meme that the submitter (selil) introduced. In fact, the entire activity here appears (again, from the Capuano letter) to be RELAXING the rules on where content may be posted. Original article: -1, Troll.

If the President can ignore the Constitution... (-1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120841)

I guess she figures that she can do it too.

far fetched? (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120843)

I'm a dedicated political centrist. This sounds so fanciful that it smells of bull-shit spin and politicking to me.

Re:far fetched? (3, Informative)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121033)

Maybe a less "spinny" version would be in order? Basically, it's letter stating that House members should be allowed to use non house.gov areas to post things. But in order to use non house.gov resources, the materials and the site in question has to be vetted by a committee.

It sounds more innocuous the way I spelled it out, but the end result is the same. A committee would have to give prior approval to anything that appears on a non-official site, and approve the site.

Re:far fetched? (4, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121135)

The sites will be vetted to prove that it is secure, that not just anyone can post video "from teh US congrass." Horrors. And it mentions nothing about Nancy Pelosi.

This must be reliable (5, Insightful)

Champ (91601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120849)

So, Submitter says that the right-wing Chicagoboyz blog says that Congressman Culberson says that Congrassman Brady says that Congressman Capuano says that Majority Leader Pelosi says she wants to stifle free spech?

EVERYBODY PANIC!

Re:This must be reliable (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120895)

Better than that... panic and quick, write a blog about how you feel about this as a congress person...

Re:This must be reliable (1)

Champ (91601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120899)

Yeah, it's Speaker Pelosi, I know that but my typin' fingers got mixed up.

Re:This must be reliable (1)

Garabito (720521) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121369)

Believe at most 10% of what a politician says and 0% of what a politician says another rival politician said.

This keeps opposition off the Internet (0)

ShadowWraith (1322747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120875)

That means McCain won't be able to post anything, even though he's a Presidential candidate. Though, McCain never had any hold on the Internet anyway.

Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24120923)

This assume McCain knows how to use a computer

Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121119)

Maybe we should be watching to see if he's blinking anything in Morse Code...

Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet (4, Insightful)

compass46 (259596) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121347)

Please don't vote if you don't realize McCain is a senator is this has to do with House rules.

Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121379)

Please don't vote if you don't realize McCain is a senator is this has to do with House rules.

Great point and I'd mod you up if I had pounts. Although - I sometimes find myself wishing Senators would keep their mouths shut too.

Good enough for the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24120905)

Given that the ACLU [nytimes.com] apparently supports internal censorship, I don't see why Democrats wouldn't also.

Fairness (0, Troll)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120915)

So according to this story Pelosi wants to impose the fairness doctrine on all political communiques by Congressmen. They would no longer have the ability to maintain even their own websites or speak to their constituents through any of the media without ensuring identical coverage would be granted to the opposition. I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.

Re:Fairness (1, Insightful)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121443)

I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.

Hmm. Did they not become founders (of a new nation), because of such restrictions on their conduct (among other things)?

We don't have to ask how they would have acted: we know how they did act.

Of course the Honorable House Majority Leader would claim that right-wing spin, in the absence of "fairness" is the source of that historical account.

If public funds are used to pay for a political message from an elected representative, it stands to reason that some allotment of public funds are available to all elected representatives for such purposes. Let the comm^H^H^H^Hdemocrats pay for their own damn propaganda.

(And, for the record, I am libertarian, and take equal issue with many things the right does as well).

Re:Fairness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121493)

George: Hey, Ben. Did you hear that Pelosi bitch wants to approve everything we put on the internet?!?!

Ben: What's the internet?

um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24120919)

So this is entirely confusing. Isn't the democratic party supposed to be opposed to this sort of thing? Champ is pretty much right on

Not anything like what the abstract says (5, Informative)

grolaw (670747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120959)

This is a regulation of HOUSE MEMBERS usage of the Internet - not the general public. Look at the linked letter: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov]

The AS ASS above thinks that the Dems are manipulating the general public's right to free political speech, he is dead wrong.

The limits are to be placed upon Members of Congress and their staff and merely require that the material is vetted (I approved this ....) and that limitation of the staff's right to engage in political speech is included, too (it already is restricted - See, the Hatch Act, http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm [osc.gov] ). RTFA.

Right wing mods can go to hell (2, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121179)

Modding the truth as troll won't make it any less true, assholes. Read the letter.

Re:Not anything like what the abstract says (1)

dvnelson72 (595066) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121255)

Vetted? Doesn't editorial discretion depend on the editor? Who gets to vet these communications? Why shouldn't a congressperson be just as entitled to make an ass of themselves as anyone else?

I'll pose this as a thought experiment. Suppose that Newt Gingrich wanted his party to "vet" all communications from the Democrats in the House. Would they not cry and scream about their right to free speech? Here's another, much worse one. Suppose the President (any President) wanted to "vet" all communications from Congress?

If I were an opposition Congressperson, I would say go ahead, then I would find some way to get this into the courts, while flouting the rules completely. I would post what color and style underwear I suppose Ms. Pelosi is wearing every day. "July 7. Hot pink thong covered by a girdle." That oughta spark a big fight.

Total Crap (5, Informative)

loteck (533317) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120987)

From the PDF of the letter in question:

"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should b e construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."

This is an attempt to deal with technical issues and update existing House rules to keep up with technology. There's a lot of FUD in the article summary and in TFA.

Re:Total Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121177)

FUD in an angry conservative blog?!? You must be mistaken!

Anyone read the actual sources? (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24120997)

Here is the actual letter they reference: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how they can draw those conclusions from the source they reference. And I don't see anything about Pelosi. The letter seems to say that people can post stuff on outside servers, provided there is a way of verifying it really came from who it says its from. Whoah! Scandal!

Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (1, Flamebait)

Talsan (515546) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121131)

Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories?

Because then they can have their share of "sensationalist" news?!?\

Seriously, though, how anyone could read that letter and interpret it as a method of suppressing speech, I don't know. Then again, Republicans have always known how to spin things for the masses.

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (1)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121583)

Then again, Republicans have always known how to spin things for the masses.

So have the Democrats. This is not a Republican-specific pass-time.

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (0, Flamebait)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121159)

Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories?

Either to fight off the long-developing impression, that they are crazy left wing/communist propaganda den (that impression started to wear off slowly ever since John Katz disappeared), or to make that same propaganda a bit more subtle, by picking only the worst from among the right wing/libertarian sources...

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121351)

I guess to some people, anything left of Reagan is left wing. I've never had the impression Slashdot was in any way left wing. Slashdot is and always has been centrist/libertarian. Try mentioning that the government should raise taxes to cover more social programs and see how fast you get modded into oblivion. Or try saying we should seize the property of the rich and nationalize it. Left wing/communist my ass.

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (0, Flamebait)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121395)

Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.

Maybe they figured "why give ALL our time to the crazy left wing conspiracy theories"?

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121585)

Such as? Care to name any 'crazy left wing conspiracy theories' posted on Slashdot that even come close to that level of insane misinterpretation?

Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (1)

crumley (12964) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121489)

Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.

Just tag this as fud or flamebait and move along. Sometimes trash gets past the firehose.

Summary Over the Top and Dead Wrong (5, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121031)

I've read the PDF about the *suggested* changes.

Currently there are rules governing the posting of *official* House of Reps material which includes the requirement that such posts are done in the house.gov domain.
The suggested change allows that material to be hosted on external servers subject to the *existing rules*.

It says *nothing* about prohibiting posting of opinions by house members on any web site. Nothing.

Spin and counter-spin (4, Insightful)

Madball (1319269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121045)

The actual correspondence: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov]

I read it three times, and it seems pretty standard. Basically, it's mostly about links to non-official websites and standards those outside sites must meet. It's no different than the rules that most corporations place on user-maintainable CMS systems.

Note: it never discusses approval of any particular piece of content (except to the extent that official postings already have to meet certain standards), just having pre-approved sites.

Democrazy and elected officials (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121049)

I guess having members of congress, or other elected officials, available for comments and statements online would make communication too efficient.

Seriously though; good or bad, gagging the political leaders of a country is down right anti-democratic. Internet is the way to engage in debate and arguing over different viewpoints (and having massive flamewars) in this day and age.

Re:Democrazy and elected officials (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121105)

What it comes down to I reckon is the fact that internet is a media that can be very hard to control (as in manipulate to favour a particular candidate). Because of that some politicians see it as a threat to their political power and position (and it is).

(-1, Troll) (4, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121055)

Here is the letter linked as "evidence" of this "censorship" policy:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov].

Seems to me that it's referring to "official" House media... that is, representative of The House. Makes sense that if something's supposed to represent the body it ought to be approved by the majority, Democratic, Republican, or whoever.

Any other sources that indicate that congress is being gagged in their personal speech?

Re:(-1, Troll) (4, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121243)

Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.

Re:(-1, Troll) (1)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121563)

I read it, too. My interpretation of it is it requires that any web site that hosts official video from a member of Congress has to be "approved" by the committee in question before it is allowed to be posted.

Fairness doctrine was fair (0, Troll)

Manchot (847225) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121127)

Superficially, the Fairness Doctrine looked like it was a violation of the First Amendment, but it really wasn't. Broadcast licenses are simply a contract between the People and those who wish to broadcast. If you choose not to follow the rules imposed by the FCC, that contract can and should be revoked. It's the same as any other contract. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, not a platform.

Big media will never allow this (1)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121161)

From what I've ready on this plan, media companies will have to dedicate 'some time' not 'equal time' to the opposing views. Media currently is enjoying a market where they only broadcast what brings in listeners. Currently most of the listeners are coming from conservative radio talk. Pelosi et al don't like that they are getting more than their share, so they want to push 'fairness.' Well if Big media doesn't think being fair, by putting on the opposing view, is going to bring in listeners (read money) there's NO WAY they're going to allow it. If someone with an opposing view had something that the masses wanted to hear, they would have put it on already.

When this was originally done, media was not made of huge mega-corps. They couldn't fight it. Now we have clear chanel, newcorp, etc. With a lot more fighting power.

Regardless of it's likelyhood to pass or not, I'm against it.

Slashdot needs a no blog policy (2, Interesting)

bbasgen (165297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121201)

Recently Slashdot has posted a few articles from blogs as if they were somehow authoritative. I know that Slashdot "editorship" is a frequent source of ridicule, but this is poor form that just isn't necessary. A blog should never be a "source" -- do just a few minutes of research, find the actual sources, and post an article about that... if it actually crosses any kind of threshold.

It seems only fair... (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121213)

the elephants are trying to get rid of the 4th Amendment, of course the jackasses are trying to get rid of the 1st.

/yes, I read TFA and know it's not actually the issue, this is humor, get over it.

Fairness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121223)

A day at congress:
List of things to discuss and deal with (in order of "importance"):
Blogging
Walls around United states
(a million other things ranging for marriage to impeaching someone that is going to be gone in a couple months)...
Home foreclosure problems
Afghanistan
Iraq
Economic problems in the US
World food crisis

Its not even that something like this would bother me, its more of do they deem the other issues not important, or have they solved them already? oh no of course not, why would we do something important?

Nancy Pelosi - Communist party representative (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121313)

that's right, i said communist

First Amendment (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121333)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There that settles that. I can understand the restrictions on public airwaves but blogs and webpages? Seriously, when an elected representative endorses or sponsors a law that is deemed unconstitutional that representative should face some sort of sanctions. Depending on how bad the law is this should range from fines, upto and including barred from public office and prison terms. This would make them more accountable for the BS they are tossing around and make them read and think about the damn bills they are rubber stamping.

Re:First Amendment (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121457)

I was just getting ready to point that out myself.

Whether or not TFA is factual, and no matter how much Pelosi may wish those were the rules, there is not even a snowball's chance in hell that rules like that could pass Constitutional muster.

I've also seen a couple of replies here that think it makes a difference that these proposed rules are talking about Congress and not the general public. Doesn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of Congresscritters to speak in public too.

Never understood why... (1, Informative)

Illbay (700081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121359)

...they call 'em "liberals." The Latin root "liber" (free) does not compute.

Twitter? (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121413)

I guess I can see the blogs if it's a statement about democratic policy in general as being maybe an issue, but twitter? Come on, you guys!

Think of it this way also... (1)

GregNorc (801858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121417)

Would Nancy want a Republican congress disallowing Democratic congressmen from commenting on the issue?

Wow wtf I just called her yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24121477)

I just called her yesterday and left a message on her voice mail saying that I felt like she was a traitor to the american people after the news came that she was not going to support contempt for karl rove [afterdowningstreet.org]

and I told her that I read it on that website... now she's looking to censor the congress from communicating on the internet? WTF?????!!!!!!!!

That bitch needs to be impeached.

The start of the new Nanny State (0, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121533)

First Congress and the Federal Government gets told what to post and what not to post on the Internet. Then after that US Citizens get told what to post and what not to post on the Internet. Why? Because Nanny says so. Nanny knows best, and if you cross her she will give you a time-out in prison.

What a Jackass (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 5 years ago | (#24121581)

"the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting"

Where the hell did this come from? Oh wait, I know. The Fairness Doctrine says you can't endlessly repeat lies without once and a while admitting the truth. Yep, I have to agree, that would surely curtail conservative so-called speech, which is basically a relentless spew of lies and innuendo.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...