the blog issue is of course important, but take this chance to develop another issue ,if possible

The beauty of C-Span is that viewers like me gain new information. This is my first time on your blog and I also entered the ankle biting pundits blog as well. Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Thank you.
Milko G.

C-SPAN Video Link

Individual First Amendment rights take precedence. The founders obviously favored free political speech yet had to use synonyms under the spectre of Colonial rule.

Clearly they spoke their conscious  through pseudonyms, and the biggest bloggers are themselves known entities.
The federalists and antifederalists agreed on the valueof free speech.

   "The framers of it; actuated by the true spirit of such a government,which ever abominates and suppresses all free enquiry and discussion, have made no provision for the liberty of the press, the grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants; but observed a total silence on that head. It is the opnion of some great writers, that if liberty of the press, by an insitution of religion, or otherwise, could be rendered sacred...that despotism would fly before it."

   Clearly without the promise and guarantee of free speech there could be no just founding of government's authority. Indeed such was inherent in any form of free rule as a necessary deterrent to 'despotism'.

    "WHO'S HERE SO BASE,THAT WOULD A BONDMAN BE?
     "IF ANY, SPEAK, FOR HIM I HAVE OFFENDED.
     "WHO'S HERE SO VILE, THAT WILL NOT LOVE HIS COUNTRY?
     "IF ANY, SPEAK; FOR HIM I HAVE OFFENDED."

     Even questions which beg not answer are given chance to reply, that the founders supported free speech in its purist form. The online discussion is a valid extension of this belief.

    "I confess that I am unprepared for so extensive and so important a disquisintion; but the insiduous attempts which are clandestinely and industriously made to pervert and destroy the new plan, induce me the more readily to engage in its defence; and the impressions of...constant attention to the subject, have not been so easily effaced as to leave me without an answer to the objections which have been raised."

    (discussing the Consitutional model):
"When the people established the powers of legislation under their seperate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question, respecting the jurisdiction of the house of assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdication is effecient and complete."

     Clearly the above statement taken in light of the First Amendment provides  unlimited right to expression, this applied to every medium known in its era.

    "Hence it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given, but in the latter the reverse of the proportion prevails, and every thing which is not given, is reserved. This distinction being recognized,will furnish an answer to those think the omission of a bill of rights, a defect in the proposed consitution: forit would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our creation, that we should enjoy those priviliges, of which we are not divested either by the intention or the act, that has brought that body into existence. For intance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition, what control can proceed from the federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?"

     This  makes the case for free speech most clear. He conitnues said paragraph with a media application of said free speech:

     "If indeed, a power similar to that which has been granted for the regulation of commerce, had been granted to regulate literary publications, it would have been as necessary to stipulate that the liberty of the press should be preserved inviolate, and that the impost should be general in its operation."

     So clearly the media format, then encompassed in two fields, should be unabridged by any federal entity as per founder's wishes and general overall consent: "...there is no reason to suspect that so popular a privilige will in that case be neglected.In truth then, the propsed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject-nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent."

     What Congress can not do regarding the field of free speech is what is clearly stated. All other powers remain implied top the State of individual rights, these beings having rights above states proportionally as states did above the whole of government in that time.

    The State of free individuals takes precedent over State entities of any kind, in whole or part.
   

Please visit my diary on this topic and help me shore up this campaign:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/28/84917/5457

    The founding feeling was one of bipartisan liberty and from this exchange of ideas and value a working cohesive framework would uphold  just movement of matters wighed in discourse and reflecting considerate balance thereof.

     "Regarding it then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered in the world."

     Clearly the right of free speech and free presentation of all such ideas in shared formats(media) was the cornerstone of consensus Consitutional government.

     The letter copied in summary says:
    "Mr.Wilson's speech was frequently interrupted with loud and unanimous testimonies of approbation, and the applause which was reiterated at the conclusion, envinced the genral sense of excellence, and the conviction which it had impressed upon every mind."

     Those words and their concrete application within our Constitution stand timeless and should remain untainted, free. In no way can Congress dilute the elixir of core Constitutional values which free speech does indeed represent in word and deed.

     The federal government is the body of this plan, the state government its mind, and the individual rights of its citizens is its Spirit.

     To limit citizens' speech via legal constraint is to bind the spirit which is the heart of American freedom. Clearly the ability to speak one's mind on available media is the cornerstone upon which we build this Democracy.

He wears his heart on a his sleeve enough as is, enough so to cover his fascist fan club armband...

Blogs allow 'each person to assert their own'.

   The model of Consitutional law was broad granted rights, initially granted to a more narrow set of recipients(landowning males).

    This model for change has been the same since in terms of scope- less restrictive, and  wider application.
     This with later amendments granting more people the same freedoms (amend.15 and 19 for example/precedent).