FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE BLOGGERS (II)

Last August, the Obama White House sent up the moonbat signal, requesting its mindless minions to inform on their fellow citizens:

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

That didn’t work out very well (we think), but the Dems haven’t given up their effort to stamp out dissent. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) explains:

Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment.

He’s talking about the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), which resticts how some entities can exercise their free speech rights. But it’s the exemptions that tell the tale:

There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt.

Now, see if you can guess what “driving force” that would be (hint: it ain’t the NYT). Come on, you can do this. Give up? OK:

Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources …

This is, of course, blatently unconstitutional. But that hasn’t been much of an impediment for the Democrats lately.

I guess it’ll be shot down in the courts, assuming it passes. But the mere attempt demonstrates that we need to get rid of these fascists as quickly as possible.

Come on, November!

Comments 6

  1. Marc Brown wrote:

    Isn’t this about more freedom rather than less? Don’t you think we should know if you are being bankrolled by the health insurance industry, for example, to influence elections? I would have thought you of all people would want to know if shadowy Orwellian figures were subverting the political process.

    Posted 28 May 2010 at 3:46 am
  2. Matt Horn CBC wrote:

    Marc, this is not a transparency bill, it is a suppression bill. Please familiarize yourself before comment.

    Catron, remember, the unions are also exempt (once again) from this act.

    Posted 28 May 2010 at 8:36 am
  3. Marc Brown wrote:

    OK Matt – what won’t you be able to do?

    Posted 28 May 2010 at 2:11 pm
  4. ECM wrote:

    Marc:

    So it’s OK to know all these things about bloggers, but unions, the media, and anyone else exempted is A-OK w/ you? Consistency? Nah, not for Marc!

    Posted 28 May 2010 at 9:36 pm
  5. Marc Brown wrote:

    Sorry ECM – but the question is the same – what is it you won’t be able to do?

    Posted 29 May 2010 at 12:42 pm
  6. Robert wrote:

    Marc if “this about more freedom rather than less?” Why are some group exempt from the requirements?

    Why should it matter “if you are being bankrolled by the health insurance industry…to influence elections?” It is not about the who but the content of what they are saying. If a study by “big oil” or a commercial is right and true why does it matter who supported it?

    I you supporting the idea that people who support causes should be “outed” and should not get any privacy in their lives? If so should it by applied to all causes or groups?

    Posted 31 May 2010 at 9:53 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *