PDA

View Full Version : ‘Regulations’ of Political Speech on the Internet




tod evans
04-17-2017, 08:25 AM
From Drudge;


Former FEC Chairwoman Calls for ‘Regulations’ of Political Speech on the Internet

https://heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/

The former Federal Election Commission chairwoman Ann M. Ravel says that political speech must be controlled on social media. She presented her remarks in a speech at UC Berkeley, calling for regulations against “fake news.”

Speaking at an event called “Future of Democracy,” Ravel argued the proliferation of “fake news” and political advertising on platforms like Facebook influenced elections. She warned that the lack of disclosure by the creators of these campaigns was becoming a huge problem.

“We know that there’s a lot of campaigning that’s moved to the internet, whether it’s through fake news or just outright advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little,” she said. “And so that the disclosure that we expect as to who is behind campaigns is not going to exist soon”

“Some people are even predicting that by 2020 most of the advertising is going to move from television to the internet, and I think this is a serious issue that requires a lot of discussion,” continued Ravel.

During her tenure as the chairwoman of the FEC, Ravel previously called for right-leaning websites like the Drudge Report to be “regulated,” and blamed hostile responses towards her proposals on “misogyny.” She claimed it was within the purview of the Federal Election Commission to oversee internet political activities, including the airing of political viewpoints.

In 2015, the Democrats tried, but failed to expand the FEC’s regulatory powers to cover social media posts and other forms of political speech on the Internet, which are not subject to the same scrutiny as political advertisements on old media. At the time, liberal watchdogs complained to the FEC with allegations that (then-probable) presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley were skirting finance laws to campaign. Conservatives managed to stall the vote, fearing that the additional powers would chill political speech on the Internet.

Since then, Revel has only doubled down. In her speech at UC Berkeley, Revel claimed that companies like Facebook have “no real knowledge” of who sponsors the posts of political viewpoints on their platforms.

“I think this is a really serious issue that we need to address,” she said.

CaptUSA
04-17-2017, 08:43 AM
The question isn't really whether speech should be regulated, or not - the question is, "by whom?"

These people always seems to think there is a magical fairy land where the regulators are good people with only the purest of intentions and share the exact same interests as those calling for the regulations. This has NEVER been the case. "Regulations" are always designed by the powerful to maintain their power. Period.

The thing about market regulations is that each person plays an important rule in deciding what needs to be regulated an what does not. It's fluid and ever-changing, but incredibly responsive. It's like liberty magic!

phill4paul
04-17-2017, 08:46 AM
The question isn't really whether speech should be regulated, or not - the question is, "by whom?"

These people always seems to think there is a magical fairy land where the regulators are good people with only the purest of intentions and share the exact same interests as those calling for the regulations. This has NEVER been the case. "Regulations" are always designed by the powerful to maintain their power. Period.

The thing about market regulations is that each person plays an important rule in deciding what needs to be regulated an what does not. It's fluid and ever-changing, but incredibly responsive. It's like liberty magic!

The only good regulation is self regulation. :)

tod evans
04-17-2017, 08:54 AM
The only good regulation is self regulation. :)

We neeeeeeeeeeeed a department of internet speech regulation and SWAT teams, special prosecutors and secret judges to issue blanket warrants...

Just think of the jobs!

nikcers
04-17-2017, 09:02 AM
From Drudge;


Former FEC Chairwoman Calls for ‘Regulations’ of Political Speech on the Internet



Not political speech, I am performance artist Alex Jones's lawyers tell court not to take anything he says on his show seriously, bc he's a "performance artist." (https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/65s0oo/alex_joness_lawyers_tell_court_not_to_take/?utm_source=ifttt)

Suzanimal
04-17-2017, 01:14 PM
853964463367651329

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2017, 02:09 PM
The question isn't really whether speech should be regulated, or not - the question is, "by whom?"

These people always seems to think there is a magical fairy land where the regulators are good people with only the purest of intentions and share the exact same interests as those calling for the regulations. This has NEVER been the case. "Regulations" are always designed by the powerful to maintain their power. Period.

The thing about market regulations is that each person plays an important rule in deciding what needs to be regulated an what does not. It's fluid and ever-changing, but incredibly responsive. It's like liberty magic!

I think they all, especially the woman in the OP, have no qualms about the fact that they want to regulate for political advantage and silence opposition. That is their entire rational for it right from the start. It is thinly veiled at best.

dannno
04-17-2017, 02:40 PM
Good thing Trump is President rather than Hillary, most of the right-wing political commentators would have been banned by now.

phill4paul
04-17-2017, 03:42 PM
Good thing Trump is President rather than Hillary, most of the right-wing political commentators would have been banned by now.

Which might be what America really needed instead of a long slow con-job.

inthehall
04-17-2017, 03:51 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Ingsoc_logo_from_1984.svg/300px-Ingsoc_logo_from_1984.svg.png