Slashdot Log In
Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jul 09, 2008 02:00 PM
from the but-nancy-pelosi-was-in-the-other-room dept.
from the but-nancy-pelosi-was-in-the-other-room dept.
selil writes "A story popped up on the ChicagoBoyz Blog. It says 'Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums — nothing.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:5, Insightful)
"We know what's best for you"
Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if you read the PDF of the letter mentioned, it is about technical limitations of U.S. government support for internet access. The rules proposed seem very sensible. The letter says NOTHING about Nancy Pelosi.
Parent
The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Interesting)
Does politics bring in the idiots from the streets, or does politics create idiots from sane stock? Discuss!
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Funny)
Discuss!
Without prior consent? I think not!
Parent
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of these ground rules are
The hyperbole by the obviously conservative-leaning original poster and the TFA is ridiculous and is just a prime example of alarmist propaganda, trying to blow this WAY out of proportion.
It's simply a proposal for ground rules as the committee examines extending the ability of members of congress to post "official" content outside of existing official channels. Rather than being a "clamp down", it's actually broadening the number of venues members of congress can use for posting "official" congressional communications, but tries to ensure that there will be some level of decorum and good taste.
Parent
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Funny)
content that will harm or impugn the dignity of the congress.
See, you had me going there for a minute...
Parent
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
impugn the dignity of the congress.
Do you know what to impugn [reference.com] means, or why prohibiting it is an infringement on free speech?
Parent
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll counter with Grey's law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Parent
Not "idiots". (Score:5, Insightful)
They just have very specialized knowledge. The knowledge of how to get themselves elected, keep getting re-elected and moving up the chain of authority.
All of that schmoozing and such does not leave much time for learning anything else.
So they rely upon "advisors" for their "information". And said "information" has to be communicated to them in the least technical terms. Which results in statements about "tubes" and "trucks".
But to be fair to them, my CFO asked a little while ago if the power problems we had were a result of her sending an email to Iceland. After all, it must take a lot more power to push the message that far than to push it across the street.
Parent
Direct link to the letter in question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Direct link to the letter in question (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you? If you post the real document people might read it! And see that this - analysis? - is a crock of horseshit.
Parent
Re:Direct link to the letter in question (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to mention - any IT guys looking for work in the Washington, DC area should write to Mr. Capuano and tell him you know how to set up a video server. Seems this all started because the House has lousy IT.
Parent
Seems fairly benign (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually more permissive than our Internet posting policies here at work. Right now, you have to work through us (the web services team), as opposted to setting up your own URL and posting whatever you want outside of the official content.
Parent
This must be reliable (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Submitter says that the right-wing Chicagoboyz blog says that Congressman Culberson says that Congrassman Brady says that Congressman Capuano says that Majority Leader Pelosi says she wants to stifle free spech?
EVERYBODY PANIC!
Not anything like what the abstract says (Score:5, Informative)
This is a regulation of HOUSE MEMBERS usage of the Internet - not the general public. Look at the linked letter: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov]
The AS ASS above thinks that the Dems are manipulating the general public's right to free political speech, he is dead wrong.
The limits are to be placed upon Members of Congress and their staff and merely require that the material is vetted (I approved this ....) and that limitation of the staff's right to engage in political speech is included, too (it already is restricted - See, the Hatch Act, http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm [osc.gov] ). RTFA.
Total Crap (Score:5, Informative)
From the PDF of the letter in question:
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should b e construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
This is an attempt to deal with technical issues and update existing House rules to keep up with technology. There's a lot of FUD in the article summary and in TFA.
Anyone read the actual sources? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the actual letter they reference: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how they can draw those conclusions from the source they reference. And I don't see anything about Pelosi. The letter seems to say that people can post stuff on outside servers, provided there is a way of verifying it really came from who it says its from. Whoah! Scandal!
Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.
Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess to some people, anything left of Reagan is left wing. I've never had the impression Slashdot was in any way left wing. Slashdot is and always has been centrist/libertarian. Try mentioning that the government should raise taxes to cover more social programs and see how fast you get modded into oblivion. Or try saying we should seize the property of the rich and nationalize it. Left wing/communist my ass.
Parent
Summary Over the Top and Dead Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
I've read the PDF about the *suggested* changes.
Currently there are rules governing the posting of *official* House of Reps material which includes the requirement that such posts are done in the house.gov domain.
The suggested change allows that material to be hosted on external servers subject to the *existing rules*.
It says *nothing* about prohibiting posting of opinions by house members on any web site. Nothing.
(-1, Troll) (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the letter linked as "evidence" of this "censorship" policy:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF [gopleader.gov].
Seems to me that it's referring to "official" House media... that is, representative of The House. Makes sense that if something's supposed to represent the body it ought to be approved by the majority, Democratic, Republican, or whoever.
Any other sources that indicate that congress is being gagged in their personal speech?
Re:(-1, Troll) (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine (Score:5, Funny)
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Any law that forces news outlets to reflect reality as it exists rather than as we conservatives wish it were is UNFAIR. Thank God for Fox News.
Parent
Re:far fetched? (Score:5, Informative)
The sites will be vetted to prove that it is secure, that not just anyone can post video "from teh US congrass." Horrors. And it mentions nothing about Nancy Pelosi.
Parent
Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't vote if you don't realize McCain is a senator is this has to do with House rules.
Parent
Re:hradek (Score:5, Funny)
they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets
Did they run out of lawyers already?
Parent