{"id":24927,"date":"2017-09-15T13:09:06","date_gmt":"2017-09-15T17:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=24927"},"modified":"2017-09-15T13:09:06","modified_gmt":"2017-09-15T17:09:06","slug":"democrats-still-trying-to-suppress-free-speech-pt-1-gazillion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=24927","title":{"rendered":"Democrats still trying to suppress free speech Pt. 1 gazillion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. For the past few years, the Democrats on the Federal Elections Commission have been demanding the right to suppress any web site with a political opinion if they didn\u2019t like what was being said.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Interestingly, it was sites like the \u201cDrudge Report\u201d that they were looking at. The leader of this movement to suppress the 1st<\/sup> Amendment was former chairwoman Anne Ravel. Even though she no longer is on the commission, she\u2019s still trying to shut down web sites she doesn\u2019t like. Here are the details from the Washington Examiner<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibily even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook<\/a> is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub and former FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel quickly reacted to reports on the Russian ads targeting voters, using their favorite social media tool \u2013 Twitter \u2013 to indicate their new focus. <\/b><\/p>\n

And what, pray tell, would that \u201cNew Focus\u201d be?<\/p>\n

Weintraub also demanded that the FEC address the issue<\/a> of “internet political communications” at its next meeting on Sept. 14. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Does anyone see the problem with that demand? It runs head first into that pesky little document, (For Proglodytes anyway), called the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, the 1s amendment. Of course, we all know that the Constitution and the 1st<\/sup> Amendment mean nothing to these thugs.<\/p>\n

Facebook’s involvement and proof of Russian spending on political ads could give Democratic FEC critics of the freewheeling Internet the case they’ve needed. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Republicans on the FEC have claimed for years that the Democrats have been focused on the Internet in part because they want to silence conservative outlets like the Drudge Report, conservative videos, and even movies. <\/b><\/p>\n

Oh the Democrats hate Drudge with a passion. They have repeatedly tried to shut him down, ever since he broke the story about Bill \u201cThe Silver Zipper\u201d Clinton and Monica \u201cMouth like a Hoover\u201d Lewinsky, leading to his impeachment in the House of representatives.<\/p>\n

But the Facebook revelation and huge amount of money involved should give the Democrats a new weapon in their fight to regulate spending on Internet sites beyond paid advocacy. Under current rules, paid online ads that say, for example, “Vote For” or “Vote Against,” are regulated. The so-called Internet freedom rule, however, exempts free Internet posts and advocacy by third parties. <\/b><\/p>\n

Funny thing, I don\u2019t recall seeing a single ad from Russia on Faceplant. I did see some posts from the Russia Times, and I did look at a few of them, however, I know that they are…wait for it…RUSSIAN!! Besides, I truly question these \u201cRegulations\u201d regarding vote for or against. Seems to me that might be a violation of Freedom of speech. An aside. Faceplant was backing Comrade Bernie and then Felonia von Pantsuit and were doing things to interfere with Donald Trump and his supporters. I guess Russia didn\u2019t get their money\u2019s worth then.<\/p>\n

Ravel, who is still influential in the campaign to regulate Internet spending, signaled in another tweet her support for a national campaign to pressure Congress to expand FEC rules to cover online campaigns.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And to that I saw:<\/p>\n