Regulating the Internet and An Affirmative Value of Freedom

Adam Bonin has done stellar work on the FEC and campaign finance reform - now the House is considering HR 1606, the online freedom of speech act, as well as a competing bill from 'the reformers'.  I have gotten behind 1606, and it's because I believe in the ideology of the netroots.

Common Cause sent an email out a few days ago asking its members to not allow a soft money loophole on the internet by supporing its own competitive legislation.  It had a scaremongering subject line, as good direct mail pieces should.  I respect this group for what they've done to fight corruption.  I respect them for their dedication, and I like what they fight on and how they fight on it.  Nevertheless, Common Cause was founded in the 1970s, and today we have a government that is more corrupt and money-dominated than it has ever been.  In other words, I think new strategies other than 'restrict!  restrict!  restrict!' are in order.

There are two ways to deal with corruption, and one is to attempt to limit the actions of citizens and corporations.  The other is to encourage participation so that citizens themselves check each other. That is my ideology.  I believe in participation and organization, because it works.  Freedom works.  It's pragmatic.  I don't want to restrict, I want more.  The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less.

That's why I'm behind HR 1606.

Tags: Common Cause, Democracy 21 (all tags)

Diaries

Advertise Blogads