Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet

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.'"

The democratic party in a nutshell:

"We know what's best for you"

Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement?

Fraud Alert: The Slashdot story seems to be without support elsewhere. It may be a paid Slashvertisement.

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.

The Hen or The Egg

Does politics bring in the idiots from the streets, or does politics create idiots from sane stock? Discuss!

Re:The Hen or The Egg

Discuss!

Without prior consent? I think not!

Re:The Hen or The Egg

Let's get real. Currently "official" congressional communications are limited to the house.gov site. If you read not TFA but the letter it cites, it discusses some *possible* ground rules to follow in approving additional sites as venues for hosting or disseminating "official" congressional content.

Some of these ground rules are

• that the site should be pre-screened to ensure it's not going to be running ads alongside the content that will harm or impugn the dignity of the congress.
• that links to the content on the site should contain an exit notice so that surfers know they're leaving an official government site and going to an external site.
• The content must be properly identified as official congressional content and meet existing rules and regulations regarding official content.

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.

Re:The Hen or The Egg

content that will harm or impugn the dignity of the congress.

See, you had me going there for a minute...

Re:The Hen or The Egg

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?

Re:The Hen or The Egg

Never forget Hanlon's razor [wikipedia.org].

I'll counter with Grey's law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Not "idiots".

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.

Direct link to the letter in question

Here's a direct link [gopleader.gov] to the letter in question.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question

How dare you? If you post the real document people might read it! And see that this - analysis? - is a crock of horseshit.

Re:Direct link to the letter in question

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.

Seems fairly benign

Basically it's saying that if you have official content you want to post (e.g. big videos) that you can't post on house.gov, you currently can't do it. Since some content is hard to post, Pelosi is suggesting new rules that allow it to be possible, within guidelines.

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.

This must be reliable

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

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

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?

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?

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.

Summary Over the Top and Dead Wrong

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)

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)

Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.

Re:Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine

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.

Re:far fetched?

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.

Re:This keeps opposition off the Internet

Please don't vote if you don't realize McCain is a senator is this has to do with House rules.

Re:hradek

they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets

Did they run out of lawyers already?