The Blogger Protection Act of 2008
April 25th, 2008 | by Congressman Denny Rehberg |
A 2007 report (pdf) found that, in 2006, almost one out of three Americans – more than 60 million people – used the Internet to get political news and information and to discuss campaign races. Over half of Internet users say that they use it because of the amount of information and perspectives that are available – something not easily or cheaply available through more traditional forms of media.
One of the primary sources of participation in 2006 was ‘blogs’. It seems there is a blog for just about everything, and not surprisingly, many of them discuss politics. For that reason, young voters are participating in the process more than ever before.
In Montana, we have blogs of every flavor. Some are supportive of conservative ideals, while others are critical. Some write about local issues and some focus on federal matters. Some focus on policy while others concentrate on politics. Whether I agree with them or not, it’s always important to remember that these blogs are written by everyday Montanans. They are the Voice of the People. It’s important we protect that freedom.
One way I’m doing this is by supporting H.R. 5699, the Blogger Protection Act of 2008, a bill which would protect Montana’s bloggers from the unnecessary intrusion of Washington, DC bureaucrats.
In 2002, Congress passed Campaign Finance Reform which some opponents feared would curb free speech. While the bill didn’t specifically mention regulation of the Internet, the law of unintended consequences resulted in a 2004 Federal Court ruling (pdf) which ordered the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to begin regulating speech on the Internet. The Internet, they argued, like newspapers or magazines, could provide “in-kind” support to a candidate by hyperlinking to their website or suggesting that people donate to them. As a result, bloggers faced a threat of FEC investigations which would have resulted in a public disclosure requirement and expensive litigation, providing hindrance to the work you all do.
Thankfully, in 2006, at the urgent request of Congress, the FEC passed a rule (pdf) exempting blogs and their authors from this destructive intrusion of federal authority. We argued the Internet is unique because the consumer, not the producer, decides what’s worth reading. Unlike traditional media, speech on the internet is not constrained by scarcity of space and production. Internet content is only as effective as the choices of the audience to view it.
Exempting Internet speech from FEC regulation was right thing to do, but the fight isn’t over. As easily as this rule was created in 2006, it can be removed by a new Administration. That’s why the Blogger Protection Act is necessary. It’s critical my House colleagues and I move quickly in making this protection permanent.
I’d like to thank Craig Sprout, author of Montana Politics, for giving me the opportunity to explain why this bill is important. Montana Politics is one of the most seasoned Montana blogs so it’s an appropriate forum. Of course, there are many other great Montana blogs and I’m proud to stand up for their right to say what they think even while I don’t always agree with what they say.
28 Responses to “The Blogger Protection Act of 2008”
By Jim - PRS on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
Good on him. Good on you.
By Doug on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
If we can’t ditch Campaign Finance Reform, your legislation is a welcome, if not perfect, solution. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the Montana Blogosphere, I can’t think of a better place for you to have done so.
By Wulfgar on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
With respect, Mr. Rehberg, now that you’re a big ole fan of blogs, do you care to clarify your comment on YPR from a couple years ago, where you said in response:
JIM GRANSBERRY: Well, we’re almost to time, and here’s a question, and I asked this one last on purpose because it says, “why do you refuse to debate your opponent, Monica Lindeen, in a public forum? Don’t you think the citizens of Montana have a right to have both candidates answer questions in a debate format? Or are you afraid of having to defend your ideas and positions in person?” This comes from Jaime in Helena.
DENNIS REHBERG: Well, thank you, Jaime, because it once again gives me an opportunity to for me to correct blogs – blogs are something we’re going to have to deal with in the future. You can write or say anything. Uh, Jim, you know as well as I do that – what was it, two months ago? You asked me to do a debate in Billings and I said, “yes.”
What exactly is ‘dealing with blogs’? The obvious insinuation is control. Do you care to repudiate that idea? Is there something wrong with being able to ‘write or say anything’? Is that a challenge for you, Dennis?
I would seriously like answers to these questions, Dennis Rehberg. You appear all in favor of defending blogs such that they can give you money. Your host here has claimed in the past that one should not trust claims of right and/or rightiousness if the claim involves getting money. I concur. So I am curious as to how you actually feel about the ‘freedom’ that you wish to afford blogs, Representative Rehberg.
(Craig, this really is something of a coup. Congratulations and well done my friend.)
By Wulfgar Slayer on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
Wulfie, as a Democrat I know that whenenver you want to “deal with something” you immediately think of government regulation. It’s how your liberal brain is wired. If there’s a problem, yo, we’ll regulate it! Check out this tax while my majority spends it.
The way I read this comment is that we, as a society, will have to address the fact that there is no editorial process for blogs. No peer review. Anyone can say anything and it shouldn’t be reported as if it were truth without outside verification. If I’m not mistaken, a liberal Montana blogger was recently caught red handed lying about Congressman Rehberg’s record.
We as a society will have to deal with bloggers who don’t necessarily tell the truth. But I don’t think Rehberg was insinuating regulation – and judging from his support of this legislation – I’d say there’s proof in this pudding.
But Wulfgar, you’re not stupid and you know this, so stop pretending to be worried.
By carol on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
What on earth was supposed to be so ominous about “deal with” anyway? I never understood that brouhaha. “Deal with” has a lot of contradictory meanings, including simply to “address” or “handle” (equally vague) or “solve.” You all made a mountain out of nuthin’ Wulfgar. It sounded to me like Rehberg just wanted to come to grips with the new media.
By Wulfgar on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
Your suggestions are all very helpful, and useless. I really think that Dennis ought to answer this question himself, don’t you?
By Jim Lang on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
You think he actually has the guts to engage in a dialogue with you?
By Steve on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
No, I think he has the wisdom not to bother.
By Bill Smith, ARRA Editor on Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
We appreciate you all in Big Sky Country. Thank you Congressman for seeking the continued protection of free speech for all blogger. I agree with a previous commenter, “I can’t think of a better place for you to have done so” right here in “Montana Blogosphere.” A big shout out to a fellow blogger and advocate for the truth, “Craig Sprout” – Thank You!
By Wulfgar Slayer on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
ATTENTION CONGRESSMAN REHBERG:
Thank you for your thoughts on government regulation, and for making it clear in your original post where you stand on government interference with blogs.
DO NOT get involved with Wulfgar. DO NOT answer his questions or engage him in dialog. Wulfgar’s primary talent is calling people names – he adds very little to the discussion and is not actually interested in your response. He’s an angry little man with a computer – sort of like a jack russel terrier yapping at your ankles.
By auntie lib on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I have a question: the exemption speaks to “uncompensated bloggers” which is the vast majority of conservative bloggers anyway, but what about those – such as our friends at Left in the West – who are being paid from various sources including their sponsors, advertisers, and apparently other funding sources? How do the campaign finance laws impact them and the candidates they support? Anybody???
By Craig on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
If this devolves into name-calling, I’m turning the comments off. I think Wulfgar asked a valid question. While I agree with Carol’s interpretation, I think it’s fully within Wulfgar’s right to ask.
Whether or not Congressman Rehberg chooses to respond is his business, and people can make their own judgments from there.
By Erica on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
Craig, man…you freakin’ RULE!! Nice going.
By Stix on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
Thanks Congressman for supporting this Bill. And Thanks goes to Craig for allowing him to express his views on his blog.
By Mike LaRoche on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
Kudos to Rep. Rehberg for acting to protect political free speech on the internet.
By Jay Stevens on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
I have a question: the exemption speaks to “uncompensated bloggers” which is the vast majority of conservative bloggers anyway, but what about those – such as our friends at Left in the West – who are being paid from various sources including their sponsors, advertisers, and apparently other funding sources? How do the campaign finance laws impact them and the candidates they support? Anybody???
That is an excellent question!
I read over the bill, and it looks like all Internet activity that is not paid for is protected. That is, if LiTW links to, say, Jim Hunt’s page and urges folks to donate, that’s cool as long as Hunt doesn’t pay us to write the post.
BTW, LiTW’s income is derived wholly from its ads. We don’t have sponsors or mysterious funders. Although if anyone wanted to mysteriously fund me, I’m available!
By Jay Stevens on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
By the way, that’s just my interpretation of the bill. I’d gladly hear from others on that…
By Ed Kemmick on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
One small point: Rep. Rehberg says 60 million people add up to about 1 in 3 Americans. Doesn’t he mean 1 in 5, since the population is now at about 300 million? Or did he mean 1 in 3 Americans old enough to vote? Don’t sell our country short!
By Jim Lang on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
So someone paid by a newspaper to blog would not be covered, correct?
By Craig on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
The way I read it, it applies to an individual or corporation that:
I’m no legal eagle, but I think that City Lights would not fall under this act, but if Ed were writing a different blog, on his own time, it would be different.
By Ed Kemmick on May 1, 2008 | Reply
What if I’m commenting our your blog on company time? Whoops! There I go again.
By the way, it appears we agree about the meth billboard.
By Craig on May 1, 2008 | Reply
In my esteemed non-legal opinion, it sounds more like an issue to take up with Steve Prosinski, not the FEC, though I could certainly be wrong.