Blogger beware? State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to file public reports detailing their finances.In a collision of 21st century media and 1970s political reforms, the inquiry hints at a showdown over press freedoms for bloggers, whose self-published journals can shift between news reporting, opinion writing, political organizing and campaign fundraising.
State officials are downplaying any possible media rights conflict, pointing out that regulators have already exempted journalistic blogging from previous guidelines for online campaign activity.
But the blogosphere is taking the notion seriously.
I’d rather shut the place down then be made to fill out paperwork about the use of my 1st Amendment right.
Actually, strike that.
Exactly what kind of “lobbying†I do here is a mystery to me. I’ve gone to a few hearings on the topic of firearms laws in Washington, but always as a private citizen. I have never once attempted to play myself off as a media outlet.
However, if I am going to be considered a media outlet by Washington State Legislators, then it would stand to reason that I should be entitled to press privileges and the like.
I could find being a thorn in their side quite entertaining enough to spill ink on a form or two. I have never had ads here and I get no money from this bit of what I consider “therapy”, the number of single zeros on the form should piss off these “regulators†quite readily.
But truly and seriously, if the local talk guys and the editorialists don’t have to fill out the forms, then there is no reason to make online publishers do so other than harassment. I’ll fight against it until they stuff it down my throat.
Afterwards, I’ll post so damn much they’ll regret having ever thought of the idea.
I think that all of the right-of-center bloggers (and those Lefties that give a damn about the 1st Amendment) should pledge to disobey any law or regulation restricting their free speech, and possibly prepare for a lawsuit against the feds if such restrictions are imposed.
However, there’s another step that should be taken: prepare to blog from non-US locations. Have the servers located somewhere outside of our borders and be able to prove it – then MAKE the feds do what China does, have a national “filter” (i.e. censorship). The point is that no matter what the law says, no matter the results in court, such a system couldn’t be defeated. Hells bells, if the old USSR couldn’t squelch free speech, how could the US government do so in a country with a tradition of giving the middle finger to Uncle (to say nothing of far more effective tools to do so)?
IOW, fight – every way possible. If the law is against free speech, it seems crystal clear to me that we will have reached a situation not unlike that which caused the Founders to sign a certain document on 7/2/1776.
As an example of “lobbying”, remember that a Federal Agency may make up it’s own definitions as it goes along. Remember the case of Mr. Olson, who had a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle that slam-fired, and was thereby prosecuted for possessing a machine gun?
“Lobbying” would, for us, probably include naming a politician or political group, or advocating for or against same, while providing a link to an organization which could, would or should accept money for that person, group or process.
I don’t think that merely EXPRESSING opinion could ever be construed as lobbying, but going the extra step and connecting to any sort of action (call your local dot org, etc) could be, by a runaway, control-oriented government.
This is just another “rally against the internet” cry by the neanderthals.
Kinda of like rallying against the tide. How would an anonymous off-shore blog be regulated? Indeed, how would a Texas hosted blog be regulated in Washington State?
Then, who would find these blogs to regulate? Would it be someone’s job to surf the web?
Dorks.
My initial reaction to this would be “get bent”.
I paid for the space, and I did not get any money from any political entity, lobbying group, or anything of the nature. I took the time to build this gorramed webpage. I have a Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression.
My secondary reaction, barring the first not working, is to move the webpage offshore. Granted, that would cost me, given my contract with my current hosting company, but I suspect they might actually understand.
This is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to squelch dissent and silence opposition, and it should be treated with the appropriate disdain, disregard, and distaste.
Don’t Lobbyists make money? I sure don’t.
Get ’em bent with a barb-wire corkscrew – and offshore is a fine idea.