Comments Posted By Captain Salty
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
Thanks for the comment on my site.
I've actually given some thought to some of the points you've raised. The feds will have to apply the same standards of advertising regulation to the Internet that they do to other forms of media. You can't, for instance, be more strict on Internet advertising than you are on newspapers ads. So, they wouldn't be able to regulate any old blog with advertising. I mean, if a blog advertises with Google ads, and then contracts ad space with another service, I can't see where they're liable.
Well, maybe, if the blog refused to run ads of one candidate and not the other; or if a blog offered lower rates to one candidate over another. In that case, where equal access is denied, it would be hard to argue that the site has engaged in legitimate opinion making, and not outright activism. I mean, I wouldn't have seen the Bush campaign advertising on Kos or Eschaton. It would have been wasted money. But, if they tried to advertise and were turned down for partisan reasons...
I think you're right. I think ultimately, the court will ultimately find that most blogs are the electronic version of a backyard fence conversation, and will expressly forbid government regulation over them. I think ultimately, what they'll wind up really looking at are loopholes in McCain-Feingold that exist on the Internet. Those certainly exist.
I think that if anything, what will eventually happen is that a few sites will have to carefully think about some of their content.
For instance, Atrios might have to reconsider posting information about Pennsylvania Senate candidate meet-up times and locations. Not because that by itself might be illegal, but it might affect what sort of information he's allowed to post as the campaign draws to a close -- posting information for a Joe Hoeffel rally might make his next post, a post about how Arlen Specter will use a pro-life litmus for sending judges to a Senate vote, look like advertising, or advocacy by an allied organization.
I agree the future on this is mighty murky, and I'd prefer it didn't happen. But, I'd be willing to stake a great deal of my personal and professional credibility on that this will not affect the vast, vast majority of bloggers.
Comment Posted By Captain Salty On 6.03.2005 @ 11:55
Very few people on the left pay Ward Churchill any mind. Frankly, very few of us knew who he was before his comments caught fire. He'd go away all on his own if the Right would let him go.
As for Jarvis' comment that Bill Maher was exploiting a Sept. 11 family member because he'd found one who supported Churchill's right to say what he wanted ... he'd have exploited him in the same way if he'd purposefully found one who thought Churchill should shut up, and who'd bring great public shame on Churchill, which is apparently what Jeff Jarvis wanted.
Comment Posted By Captain Salty On 6.03.2005 @ 14:55
