Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet
Posted by Zenpundit on July 8th, 2008 (All posts by Zenpundit)
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.
This was first reported to me by Congressman John Culberson (R-Tx) and I asked for approval to cite him and for any media links to this story. He provided the following link of regulations proposed by the Chair of the Congressional Commission on Mailing Standards (PDF) Congressman Michael Capuano (D-Mass) that was sent to Rep. Robert Brady, Chairman of the House Committee for Administration. The net effect of the regs would be to make it practically impossible for members of Congress to use social media tools to discuss official business or share video of the same with the public while creating a partisan disparity in what little approved messages might be permitted. It would be a very considerable error to assume that the House leadership intends to let dissenting Democratic members post any more freely than Republicans.
Set aside the nakedly partisan aspect of this plan for a moment - on the technological merits alone this may be the goddamn dumbest thing I’ve heard of regarding the Internet coming out of Congress in a long, long time. The dinosaurs who are uncomfortable with computers, the unwashed masses being aware of their actions and free political debate want to turn the clock back to the 1970s. Except during the 1970s no one would have dared to propose controlling what a democratically elected member of Congress could say to their constituents. Doesn’t it register in the Beltway that they are talking about public information that already belongs to the people of the United States? Senators and Congressmen should be interacting with citizens more freely, not less; the U.S. Congress needs radical transparency not greater opacity imposed by the Democratic House leadership to better hide shady dealings
It’s a brazenly Orwellian and most likely unconstitutional power grab by the Speaker of the House unlike anything dreamed of by any previous speaker - not Sam Rayburn, not Joseph Cannon. Nobody.
Nancy Pelosi has finally arrived at a historical pinnacle - as an enemy of free speech and the public’s right to know.
UPDATE:
Given that I was somewhat intemperate in tone in my post and many questions were raised by the other side regarding the document, I’m highlighting my reply to those commenters who felt aggrieved:
Briefly:
1. The old rules were indeed worse than the new proposed changes. They were also not enforced and most members of the House posted as they pleased, much like the rest of us.
2. Putting new, modestly less restrictive rules in place and actively enforcing them results in a de facto large increase in the level of restrictiveness to access social media.
3. What larger public good is served by either the old or the proposed new rules?
4. The complexity of this elaborate gatekeeping system is rife for partisan abuse and selective enforcement that would have a chilling effect on members of Congress using social media. If you think Pelosi is a saint then imagine the system in the hands of Tom DeLay. The pre-publication review is itself a significant barrier to access given the limited time Congressmen have in very busy schedules
5. The rules that seem “reasonable” regarding content and external sites are subjective and are to be interpreted by the majority at the minority’s expense. Again, consider the shoe on the other foot.
6. Changes in the rules of the House of Representatives are done only in close consultation with the Speaker, who appoints the committee chairmen, and the the majority leader and whip. The chance of Nancy Pelosi not being at the table here is about zero. That the issue is being pressed on the Senate side as well indicates that this is a coordinated leadership agenda and not minor tidying up by members themselves.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Good work uncovering this, Mark.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
i have read the PDF and it seems merely to update existing regulation because of new technologies and, that being the case,I am unsure why you call the Dems ol;d timers who know-nothing etc when in fact the Dems seem very adept in the current campaign in using the Net for political money raising.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
A dumb plan indeed. Let’s see how long it withstands public scrutiny.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
No Fred, this would be prior restraint, violation of which would mean a possible charge before the Ethics Committee, in order to stop members from disseminating information that is already in the public domain. And would give the Congress the right to designate “qualifying” sites to receive such information - something akin to the Congress deciding to license “qualifying” newspapers.
How exactly does a Congressman on Youtube come under the authority of the committee that deals with the use of franking ? It’s like saying they should also control his cell phone.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Careful, Zen, you might be giving Capuano more ideas… :-)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Interesting. First, Jim McGovern (D, MA) is Pelosi’s go-between with FARC in Columbia. Now Mike Capuano (D, MA) is fronting her attack on free speech. What does Pelosi have on MA? Are they circling around Ted?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I would imagine that resistance to this will be strong on both sides of the aisle so no worries on this particular initiative.
However, this is just another example of the brazen power-grabs that we can expect should the Dems be granted carte blanche in the form of control of the White House and a solid majority in both houses of Congress.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I miss the good old days of my childhood when the pre-boomer leftist would rather be burned alive than see the worst of speech suppressed. Perhaps I’m romanticizing from childhood memories but the pre-68 American left was a different breed.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:55 am
The emotions this woman conjures in me are not healthy
July 9th, 2008 at 7:16 am
“I miss the good old days of my childhood when the pre-boomer leftist would rather be burned alive than see the worst of speech suppressed. ”
Indeed. TV-broadcasted filth is protected speech. But if it has to do with politics, well, then it’s subject to restriction (whether it’s McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, or this crud that Zen dug up).
The is precisely the opposite effect that the First Amendment was supposed to have.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“Perhaps I’m romanticizing from childhood memories but the pre-68 American left was a different breed”…indeed, it’s hard to imagine civilized people like Orwell or Koestler (both socialists) wanting much to do with the present-day Left.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
The old, pre-1968 Left were in fact a species of liberals. Socialistic liberals, yes, but still adhering to some kind of Enlightenment-derived liberalism. They were beaten on all fronts after 1968 by the New Left, which took over the Democratic Party in 1972, and has taken over the universities and much of the rest of American life. These people are not liberals in any sense. They are radicals who believe in power and not in freedom. Freedom, to them, is a mirage, a bogus term used to justify power relationships. The New Left do not believe in reason as the basis of policy, including public argument, since power shapes consciousness and arguments and logic are irrelevant and only power relationships matter.
The Left as it is today is the successor to the old liberalism of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc., the “skinny tie” New Frontiersmen who got us into Vietnam and the Great Society, then were driven from power forever.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ummmm…. people need to learn to read. The above poster was correct. The rules that you people are laughing about have already been in place. All this letter suggests is a method to follow those rules yet host large files (like video) offsite.
But, whatever. Liberals are evil, etc, etc.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I think you need to read the PDF again. It doesn’t at all say what you are claiming. In fact, it specifically says….
“Please note that nothing in these recomendations should be construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communication.”
They’re not trying to censor speech. In essence the document says Congressman really like posting videos, but the house.gov servers don’t have enough space to host them all, so we should approve some external sites for doing that, like other branches of govt do. But there should be some rules around which sites are allowed to be used to make sure Congressman don’t put their videos on sites they will later regret using. (Notice nothing here about content.)
The rules are, to paraphrase:
1. Make sure the video clearly states it is official Congress content
2. Don’t put the video on a site whose content doesn’t comply with existing guidelines.
3. Any link from house.gov site to an external site should make it clear they are leaving the house.gov site
4. CHA should maintain the list of external sites that meet these requirements.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
There is absolutely nothing in that correspondence about censorship.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The proposed regulations have to do with updating the rules about making official House of Representatives material available through non-House outlets, like providing video. Any Congressman can twitter on his BlackBerry all day long from his seat in the chamber, and these rules have no effect on that.
Get it? It governs official House communications, not the communications of individual Congresscritters.
Loosen the tinfoil next time and reread your sources.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I’m sorry, did you actually read the regulation? This specifically allows people to post their youtube videos to their official sites. This is standard, and good.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
IANAA(merican) and it’s been a decade sinde I studied political science in the US, but:
Isn’t an elected official of the government supposed to stick to the party line?
The moment you work for the government, whatever you say should reflect the official stance of the government.
The only thing this bill does is make sure that Government Officials don’t make an *ss out of themselves or their party.
Have you ever tried running a student board, or sports club, or even raising a child?
One person can weaken the power of the entire governing body by going against the ‘party line’.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I say, give them all the rope they want. Lets relive the hayday of the Carter years all over again. In the end, we will get another Reagan…… and hopefully another Congress lead by someone like Gingrich at the same time.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I must agree with anon here–I see nothing pertaining to censorship in that document, at least beyond what is already in place. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content–and if they’re at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they’ll know they can’t go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is–a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I’m sure the reasoning behind this is that they don’t want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications–that would look bad to -anyone-.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Your title and post are inaccurate and misleading based upon the content of that PDF. Having read the PDF in its entirety, the memo is first and foremost a set of /recommendations/. Secondly, it doesn’t mention or involve Nancy Pelosi in any direct way. Thirdly, it is about /expanding/ capabilities, not limiting. Currently the memo indicates it is a violation of (longstanding) regulations to post official content “outside of the house.gov domain”. The memo is discussing ways that members of Congress could use outside sites to host content that is displayed on House websites. Namely, it should be clear that the content is being officially posted (using taxpayer’s time and money) by a congressperson as part of their job.
So - RTFM. This is about allowing house members to put YouTube videos and other forms of modern media on their webspace, while still maintaining clear distinctions about what is official communication and therefore subject to regulation. You should also note that these regulations are not about “keeping the truth from getting out”, but designed to (e.g.) help the public distinguish between when a Representative is representing, when they are campaigning, and when they’re just acting like a normal Joe with a blog.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
What a silly blog - there is no censorship proposed and nothing stopping any member from blogging or being quoted anywhere else. Take off your tin foil hats people.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
This is about fear mongering lies against the “left” and “liberals”.
Don’t interrupt the illiterate with all this “facts” and “reason” and “logic” about how this regulation is nothing important.
I’m gonna go back to watching and laughing.
Commence craziness, crazy “conservatives”.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Yes, it’s important for the right wingnuts to keep chasing any excuse to hate the lefties, no matter how lame and inconsequential. So now that this rant has been quashed, they’ll keep looking for the next liberal ‘controversy’. What they won’t do is consider that the very issue they object to here, censorship, is much more of a problem in the current Executive Branch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_fetish_for_government_secrecy
because we must adhere to our rich fantasy life and scrupulously avoid confronting facts.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Ha!
The author of the blog is apparently a factually-challenged right-wing nutjob whose reading comprehension places him or her at, generously, a 2nd grade reading level.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Secondly, even a cursory review of the letter disproves the blogger’s rant. The letter itself states that the recommendations do not change any of the rules governing members of congress in their official communications.
Why do right-wing bloggers tend to be so stupid? I mean, stupidity isn’t restricted to any one side of the ideological spectrum, but for some reason on the internet the right-wing fruitcakes like the blogger in question exhibit such profound stupidity that it makes you wonder how they function in day-to-day life. I mean, you’d think their mental deficiency would result in them blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves, or getting run over by a train or something.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
This post is terribly disingenuous to what is actually going on. Official government publications, and correspondences (in this case video clips) can not be published along with any commercial materials, because to do so could be considered a de facto endorsement of the commercial. So a congressperson posting a floor statement on youtube could be (legally) construed as endorsing whatever ads are on the page.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m not seeing any form of censorship in that PDF letter. In fact, it looks as though they’re looking for an “official” external medium to make it easier to post official content to their own websites at house.gov. It seems as though it’s only meant for official content and not whatever the hell they want to say.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Wow, the blog posters have missed the point to a spectacular degree. Let me summarize it:
Currently, Official communications from House members to the public have to be on the house.gov web site. Each member gets his own section of that site, of which he or she controls the contents.
The House web servers are overwhelmed and underequipped to handle new technologies such as video, while external sites such as Google/Youtube and Yahoo are equipped to provide such hosting services.
This letter recommends allowing congressmen to use such sites, which they are not presently allowed to, for official communications.
This has nothing to do with campaign or office web sites or social networks. If a congressman wants a facebook account, that has nothing to do with this. If he wants to comment on a Blog, that has nothing to do with this.
What I don’t grasp is where censorship or Nancy Pelosi come into this.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The original poster needs to stop frothing at the mouth and RTFA when he is not high on rightwing KoolAid. Basically, House Members find current tools for dealing with video to be hard to use, so now a Congressman is offering guidelines for those who want to post on sites outside of House.gov. Big fckg deal.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
As others have mentioned, the document you link to does not support your post.
But of course, you aren’t lying and deliberately trying to spread mis-information.
Of course not.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
more rethuglican bullshit. house rules ALREADY and long have prohibited Official Business being posted anywhere but on the house.gov site. These new rules would OPEN UP other possibilities. Official Business is NOT communication with their constituents. They can communicate however they like, Official Business being limited to house.gov sites has been LONG established and if the rethugs don’t like it they could have changed it while they were SO LONG in complete control.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
This article is total crap, which is just about all I get from my party these days. *sigh* Remember when we used to be *real* conservatives? The good guys, who were honest and reliable? What happened to our party? When did we start spewing so much propaganda? It’s because of f@#! ups like you that the Democrats have started looking like the good guys.
I was hoping now that Bush was a lame duck, this kind of thing would be toned down a little bit.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Let me guess. The people that want this are the people that also think Linux is a way of life… An operating system is a tool people!
July 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Transient but angry liberal commenters,
Briefly:
1. The old rules were indeed worse than the new proposed changes. They were also not enforced and most members of the House posted as they pleased, much like the rest of us.
2. Putting new, modestly less restrictive rules in place and actively enforcing them results in a de facto large increase in the level of restrictiveness to access social media.
3. What larger public good is served by either the old or the proposed new rules?
4. The complexity of this elaborate gatekeeping system is rife for partisan abuse and selective enforcement that would have a chilling effect on members of Congress using social media. If you think Pelosi is a saint then imagine the system in the hands of Tom DeLay. The pre-publication review is itself a significant barrier to access given the limited time Congressmen have in very busy schedules
5. The rules that seem “reasonable” regarding content and external sites are subjective and are to be interpreted by the majority at the minority’s expense. Again, consider the shoe on the other foot.
6. Changes in the rules of the House of Representatives are done only in close consultation with the Speaker, who appoints the committee chairmen, and the the majority leader and whip. The chance of Nancy Pelosi not being at the table here is about zero. That the issue is being pressed on the Senate side as well indicates that this is a coordinated leadership agenda and not minor tidying up by members themselves.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Zen, good riposte.
Calm, logical, respectful, far above what this lot deserve in response.
It will have zero impact on this strange baying pack that wandered in here.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Are you sure it was an actual pack and not just Fred?
July 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
LOL! I like Fred.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
are you crazy? This is nothing at all like what this post says. Why must you lie? Thinking people won’t actually research themselves?
July 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I see. And all the censoring the Bush administration has done about actual facts — censoring scientific reports that don’t support the party line — is … what?
Conservative nutjobs seem to have learned groupthink very well indeed…
July 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“…all the censoring the Bush administration has done …”
So, (1) there is no censorship at issue, so this is a rightwing smear campaign, but (2) Bush did (supposedly) all kinds of censorship so … what, exactly? That would then make it OK for the Dems to censor the GOP? But that would contradict (1)?
Lefty nutjobs seemed to have learned coherent argument very poorly indeed?
July 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Various commenters using ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies:
The minority leadership of the house and at least one Democratic member feel that these new rules proposed in the .doc are going to adversely impact their normal use of online social media in their capacity as elected representatives. As a result, and I agree with them, they are raising this issue in order to push the majority to reconsider the approach.
What need is there really for a complex process here for technology that is used everyday by kids in high school ? Why should, say, Rep. Dennis Kucinich have to clear anything he might want to put up on The DailyKOS or youtube ?
July 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Zenpundit,
Those draconian rules you are referring to are included below.
The real issue with using youtube has to do with allowing commercial content to be mixed with Official Content. See Content e) below. In addition I believe that these rules pertain to what expenses a Congressman and their office can be re-embersed for. This implies that if they are willing to pay for distribution out of their own pocket that the rules do not apply.
This has little to nothing to do with Pelosi and a lot to do with technology moving faster then congress. There is no requirement that all publication all speech has to be pre approved by the ranking democrats. The question is of where official documents can be published. Currently that shouldn’t be published on sites that have commercial content. Anyone who wan’ts to set up a site where pages open to
Specifically the HCA rules on electronic communication can be found in their handbook
http://cha.house.gov/committee_handbook.aspx#electroniccommunications
Web Site Regulations
General
Web sites are a series of centrally maintained Web pages, accessible to the public via the Internet and stored on a specific host paid for with official funds. The home page is the first accessible page for that site.
1. Ordinary and necessary expenses associated with the creation and continued operation of Web sites in support of official committee business are reimbursable.
2. The minority and subcommittees shall be entitled to a separate page that is linked to and accessible only from the committee’s Web page. For any Web pages created under this policy, the Chair (committee or subcommittee) or Ranking Minority Member (committee or subcommittee) responsible for its content must be identified on the introductory page.
3. Web sites must be located in the HOUSE.GOV host-domain and may be maintained either by House Information Resources (HIR), the committee office, or a private vendor.
4. Committee Web sites may link to Member Web sites, but Member Web sites may not be located on Web sites paid for by committee funds.
5. HIR will display an exit notice stating that users are leaving the House of Representatives, prior to linking to a non-House of Representatives Web site. The exit notice will include a disclaimer that neither the committee nor the House is responsible for the content of linked sites. Committees maintaining their sites on the Public web server are required to incorporate the exit notice into their external links.
Content
The content of a committee Web site may not:
a. Include personal, political, or campaign information.
b. Be directly linked or refer to Web sites created or operated by campaign or any campaign related entity, including political parties and campaign committees.
c. Include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position.
d. Generate, circulate, solicit or encourage signing petitions.
e. Include any advertisement for any private individual, firm, or corporation, or imply in any manner that the Government endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity, or service.
Name (URL)
1. The URL name for an official Web site located in the HOUSE.GOV domain must be recognizably derivative or representative of the name of the committee.
2. The URL name may not be a slogan or imply in any manner that the House endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity, or service.
Security
1. All House systems and devices with connections to the Internet must comply with network and security guidelines of the Committee on House Administration. These guidelines include the following:
a. Offices must send a written request for access to Internet services to HIR. Technical requirements will be provided to each office by HIR.
b. All users authorized access to the Internet must have unique identifiers and password security.
c. Users must immediately report any unauthorized access or unusual system activities to HIR Security Office (x66448). HIR will investigate any breaches of the Internet security system.
d. Internet access will be installed only after determination by HIR that anti-virus software has been installed on the committee’s computer system.
2. Users with current anti-virus software provided by the House installed on in-office computers may download software, patches, and fixes. Users are responsible for complying with legal or contractual requirements from the owners of the software at least every six months.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Zenpundit,
Briefly:
1. Nobody in their right minds thinks that Pelosi is a Saint. Considering her stance on the recently passed FISA bill, she’s probably more popular among Republicans than a large number of Democrats these days.
2. In your “calm, logical, respectful” response, you don’t offer any evidence from your primary source that your post is even close to describing what the letter contains.
3. You state that
July 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Apologies for the html mistake. Obviously, my points 4 & 5 are not meant to be Zenpundit quotes.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
We see here the difference between journalism and blogging. Even ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine has fact checkers. Zenpundit just called an otherwise upstanding member of the community an enemy of free speech and accountable government. Serious charges indeed. Was there evidence to back this up? No, not really. Heaven help us if bloggers ever do become considered legitimate sources of information.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Lex & Zen
“Zen, good riposte.Calm, logical, respectful, far above what this lot deserve in response.It will have zero impact on this strange baying pack that wandered in here”
“Various commenters using ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies”
This is true, but irrelevant because this is not about logic and its fallacies. This is political warfare and all these comments are just rhetorical tactics. Don’t approach this as if you’re are having a legitimate academic debate because that is not what this is. In political warfare there are no points for being respectful, logical and above what they deserve. I wish that weren’t the case, but it is. It took me a long time to realize that but eventually I resigned myself to it. These people are the progeny of Gramsci, Munzenberg, Alinsky, and Lakoff. This is actually an opportunity for learning. Let’s say you were writing a paper on the “art of political warfare” and you had printed these comments out as part of your research. What lessons could you learn from them?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Zenpundit just called an otherwise upstanding member of the community an enemy of free speech and accountable government.
Nancy? Is that you?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Phil:
Shouldn’t all of us be referring to the document that Zenripost is using as a source? Is it really unreasonable to call into question his conclusions if the source document doesn’t support them?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Sorry - it’s been a long day and now I’m calling Zenpundit by the wrong name. I think it’s time for me to own up to my mistakes and call it a night.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Just one more thought:
Zen, if you go after Pelosi on her craven support of telco immunity, I’ll be right by your side!
July 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Hmmmm blogers and journalists….
I do have an expectation for anyone who publishes anything other then fiction to.
1) read the relevent material
2) check with reputable 2nd sources
3) ask for comment from the attacked side (The attacked side would like to respond http://www.cha.house.gov/view_press_release.aspx?r=20080709181113)
4) have the courage to publish under your own name (ok common sense and all this rule is forgiven if your life and liberty are at risk)
This article fails these tests. zenpundit should retract it using the “ohh never mind”.
For disclosure I am a Libertarian and while I don’t mind reasonable articulate attacks on the powers that be, this isn’t one this is BS
July 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I guess the wave of clones has passed.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“For disclosure I am a Libertarian . . .”
Yes, and you’ve no doubt voted for Republicans/Libertarians and/or free-marketers for most of your life and now, low and behold, you’ve seen the light and will vote for the Messiah. Tell it to the MSM. They’re buying.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
James F. ,
I do have to respond. What does this conversation have to do with any opperating system? This is about how members of the house of representatives can communicate with the outside world. There was never any requirement that they do so using gpl based code. Go back and read the rules. Not then and not under the rule changes. One question I have for you is should the government be required to release publications in a nuetral non-proprietary format. I think that should be the rule. Do you?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Seriously, can anyone point to evidence in Capuano’s letter that supports Zenpudit’s post?
And by evidence I mean actual quotes?
Anyone?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Looking at the letter, I think you (and apparently Rep. Culberson) have seriously misconstrued it. Those regulations govern “official” House communications, that is, messages which are paid for by the taxpayers. It is entirely appropriate for the House to set rules restricting such communications. For example, we would all agree that incumbents should not have unlimited franking (taxpayer-paid mail) privileges in the run-up to his reelection, used to send us all campaign literature at our own expense. As I read that letter, it does not claim to regulate ANY speech by Members of Congress on blogs or other websites, such as (among many others) their campaign web sites. It only applies to official content produced at taxpayer expense. If Rep. Culberson wishes to write his own blog on a private site, I don’t see anything in this letter which would stop him. If he wants to have his taxpayer paid staff write a blog on a private site, then these rules would apply… as they should.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Sorry, that last message (10:24pm) was by me. I wasn’t trying to be anonymous, just forgot to put in my information.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
rrr,
What are you talking about? I have voted for a republican 1 time. That was when one of the authors of CA prop 215 ran for govenor against Dan Lungren (Autorney general of CA). That primary election was the one and only open primary and rather then vote for Steve Kuby I voted for prop 215 against the State DA. I have also voted for the Alaska Independence Party. I also pretty much exclusevly run linux.
So Rrr… sounds like a dogs growl to me. and your repourte smells like a foul hounds breath to. Is that best you can do? Any intellect in you? No? hmm
July 9th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I’ll thank Steve for the link to Rep. Capuano - that was interesting and informative.
Disavowals of any intent to censor or limit access to communication are great whether you view that as have always been the case -as I’m sure you do- or as a tactical repositioning in response to today’s outcry. That there might be a cautious pause to think through all the implications of revisions of rules suits me fine. Rep. Capuano’s commitment in that regard will be applauded in public by me if he follows through.
Earlier today, the last contact I had with Rep. Culberson indicated that he had a meeting with Rep. Capuano and Rep. Brady on this matter - not certain if that link was written before or after said meeting or what the results of the meeting were, if it came to pass.
Regarding other comments:
I am not an anonymous blogger and never have been any more than Marc Lynch’s use of Abu Ardvaark made him anonymous. In any event, this site permits anonymous postings and comments.
I am not a “journalist” and Chicago Boyz is not a newspaper. I relayed an accusation by a member of the United States Congress who agreed to be quoted by name with the document he himself provided. He was concerned with how such rules would be enforced and interpreted and is himself an attorney.
Here’s what an internet expert, Clay Shirky, wrote regarding the proposed rules:
http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject/browse_thread/thread/1e8d9aa1c7a903d8
“Don’t make the mistake of assuming an unpoliceable rule is also unenforceable.
They can enforce it the way we enforce parking rules, which is to miss
most violations, and then bring on draconian enforcement of enough
violations to create a chilling effect. This would also allow the
Rules committee to use enforcement as a selectively wielded stick.
As an analogy, despite two decades of open access journals, academics
still stick to closed access ones, even though those journals are
organized to specifically thwart academic goals of sharing knowledge.
The academics do this because the internal needs of the profession
(which journals matter most for tenure etc.) actually matter more to
them than the stated goals of the institution as a whole.
YouTube et al threaten to bring openness to the House, and to
normalize a channel in which franking privileges create no advantage
for incumbents. In a social environment as tight as the House, the
threat of unlikely but serious punishment, for an activity that
Members may not be in a hurry to embrace or defend anyway, will be
enough to make discussion with constituents out in the open an edge
case.”
Speaker Pelosi is on record in supporting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Ask her office. In my view, she is a hands-on Speaker with a firm grip on the actions of her leadership.
There is no obligation here on my part to be nonpartisan or neutral - though the GOP also raises my ire on occasion - the other side has been free to say whatever they wished in the comment section here. No one censored you or anyone else, despite many of the comments ( though not yours, Steve)amounted to name-calling drivel.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
zenpundit,
Thank you for an open honest response. I agree “Chicago Boyz is not a newspaper”, but I still expect it and you to respect journalism or at least highlite your material as political oppinion.
The house rules seem even handed and clear “do not use house funds to pay for sites that include commercial content”. If youtube desires to become a distribution point fro official house documents they can easily do so. I also suspect that the cable/sattelite companies that sponsor cspan could also do so.
I am not a fan of Nancy Peloci. I think the US population spoke very clearly and told the Democrats and the republicans to get our kids out of Iraq. Nancy hasn’t listened. Even though I am a Libertarian, I reached into my pocket and I donated a few hundred dollars to the Cindy Sheehan campeign running against Nancy. I am no politically aliegned with Cindy on any other issue then I will fight to my last breath to insure my 15 year old son doesn’t share Cindy’s son’s faight!
But when we speak clearly, we need to be absolutely honestly correct. When we kick these sobs out of office we will be doing so for just cause and not as a lynch mob!
Unlike, the two pollitical parties that care more for how the spoils are devided, we must care for truth!
July 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Zenpundit:
I agree with much of your last comment. However, you have still never used the actual text of Capuano’s letter to support any of your accusations. You offer Clay Shirky’s thoughts as eviden