The Online Freedom of Spech Act, which the House of Representatives voted on yesterday, failed to achieve the needed two-thirds supermajority under the fast-track rules it was made subject to. But that’s not the most interesting part.
The final vote tally was 225 yeas and 182 nays, pretty strictly down party lines. The bill is not dead, however; it can still go through the “slow” process, which takes longer, but only requires a simple majority.
The most interesting part was a comment from Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who said in floor debates, arguing against the bill, “We don’t allow child pornography on the Internet. . . . We don’t because we think those laws are important.”
What the hell does child pornography have to do with protecting political speech on the Internet? Are political commentators so dangerous that they have to be regulated? Perhaps in some cases, we are.
In any case, Meehan apparently thinks it’s important that these dangerous political commentators on the Internet be regulated.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3475 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Joel
Nov 03, 2005
Methinks this is a case of technophobia. I highly doubt that Congress-critters even understand how the web works. At least I hope it’s that simple, if not then it certainly is sinister.
Czarina
Nov 10, 2005
Being in the adult industry, I would like to say that it is the current administrations goal to stop all pornography online. There fore they tent to say that it is all child pornography, that way they can get the money to push their religous values on others. I don’t think that they intend to do anything in regards to political speech in the internet.
Regards, Czarina.