HOUSE Republican Leader John Boehner

New Government Censorship? We’re Not Laughing

An article in today’s edition of Congress Daily AM (Capuano: Boehner’s Charges On Rule `Laughably Inaccurate’), looks at Rep. Michael Capuano’s (D-MA) lengthy three-page statement explaining his proposed new restrictions on communications technology within Congress.  House Republicans, respected transparency advocates, technology experts, and concerned citizens around the nation have carefully reviewed his proposal and they’re not laughing.

In his statement, Rep. Capuano explains that his proposed rule, which includes creating a list of “approved” technologies

…allows the American public to have full access to information from Members while ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not support commercial or political advertising on the web.

Interesting point.  Wouldn’t it also then stand to reason that the common practice of Members of Congress submitting op-eds to local and national publications that are published online aside paid advertisements would also be banned?  Op-eds such as these in the Boston Globe or RollCall (screencaps below)? Coincidently the Rollcall article is also linked to on Rep. Capuano’s official website.

Do readers of the Boston Globe and RollCall now think that Rep. Capuano endorses cheaptickets.com, Bernardi Honda, and the new KC-45 tanker?  The answer is no.  Just like the readers of the Boston Globe online, Americans who regularly visit YouTube and other video sharing sites understand that advertisements and content are completely unrelated.  As John Wonderlich, program director for the Sunlight Foundation states:

If the potential for conflict of interest or political advertising is so low (in) the context of the traditional press, then why are we treating the Internet differently?

The web is not “a necessary evil…like cellphones” as Rep. Capuano recently stated in the Washington Post.  The Internet is a powerful tool.  House Republicans understand that embracing technology is essential in improving communicating with their constituents and increasing transparency in government, and they will continue fighting to ensure this new form of government censorship is not enacted.

Permalink |

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm and is filed under General, internet freedom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “New Government Censorship? We’re Not Laughing”

1. Matt Says:
   July 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

   Nick - Excellent post. I can not believe that the Democrats would try to muzzle the ability of Members to communicate with the public. What are they trying to hide from us?

2. Web Use Update | The Open House Project Says:
   July 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am

   […] Are we treating the Internet differently than we do traditional media?� (See Boehner’s recent post for an expansion on this theme.) Probably more importantly, what are the principles we can use to […]

3. Bill Bowen Says:
   July 11th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

   Nick, what part of “Congress shall make no law” (the first clause of the 1st Amendment) does the Congressman from the People’s Republic of MA not understand? A Congressman does not surrender his or her civil rights; as a matter of fact they have enhanced rights to free speech (The “Speech and Debate” clause).

   I understand that Sen. Feinstein is proposing a nearly identical set of rules for the Senate.

   We all know why this is happening - the truth of what the Democrats are trying to do to the country is getting out and they don’t want it to, hence, they feel they must seal up the conduit.

   Congressman Boehner, it is time for a Special Orders blitz on this subject, along with the Fairness Doctrine and the Broadcaster Freedom Act. We CANNOT let the Democrats attempt to repeal the 1st Amendment by statue or House rule.

   BTW, a large number of the blogs such as Atlasshrugs and Redstate have picked up on this story. Kepp pounding on this until the Democrats understand the 1st Amendment means what it says!!

4. Bob Carr Says:
   July 12th, 2008 at 7:01 am

   You guys just keep on fighting for your rights, so you can help fight for mine. What do they want, a Czar of Web sites. Will there be a Senate confirmation hearing months long for each new administration, to pick the most PC candidate as Czar? What a crazy bollixed PC world this is becoming. A lot of “common sense” conservative thought is needed. Freedom is needed.

   Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.

5. Think MPS Says:
   July 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am

   Did anyone actually read his letter? There’s nothing there. No issue. He even clearly says that association with advertisements should be “avoided to the maximum extent possible.” And the question about “approved sites” probably has as much to do with security (since people would be accessing them through the House site) as anything, although those criteria would be decided by the larger committee.

6. house painter Says:
   September 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

   Yeah definitely a tough question.

7. Congress Comes to YouTube (again)…But it Almost Didn’t Happen &laquo Publius’ Forum Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 7:52 am

   […] easy to forget that only a few months ago Democrats on the House Administration Committee were proposing rules that would have brought this free flow of information to a screeching halt. The proposed rules, […]

8. Congress Comes to YouTube (again)…But it Almost Didn’t Happen : Stop The ACLU Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 7:58 am

   […] easy to forget that only a few months ago Democrats on the House Administration Committee were proposing rules that would have brought this free flow of information to a screeching halt. The proposed rules, […]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

---