I have absolutely no idea why State Attorneys General are trying to limit the Internet Decency (Immunity) Act 27 USC 230 which provides immunity to persons running and operating blogs, but we all must be aware of this proposed law and strenuously oppose it, when and if it comes along.
See the notice and article from the ACLU:
Further, note the tag line today on the ACLU: BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN’T PROTECT ITSELF.
Make sure you strenuously oppose this law. Millions of independent press and bloggers depend upon it. In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS explained that there were a number of independent and small news providers in the colonies which were, even at that time, essential to the public finding out the truth when other, larger news sources were presenting biased news to benefit the King of England and those services were under a burden of oppression and heavy taxation.
Blogs and blogging has become (to the chagrin of many professional journalists) a source of news and comfort to a large growing segment of the US citizenry and the world.
We must support freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the full and complete extend proclaimed in the Citizen’s United case. If you have not read that case, please Google it and read it now. While it was to some extent about how corporations had first amendment rights and political speech was not to be regulated by the US government, 90% of that case greatly enlarged and enhanced rights for US citizens to say what they wanted–without interference from the US government.
Citizens United firmly stated that the US government cannot do 3 things: 1) It cannot tell a citizen what to say and when; 2) It cannot make a citizen speak when s/he does not want to and 3) it can only tell entities to disclose or warn under the most stringent of circumstances–a) there must be a clear need (FDA package inserts, warnings about flammability of products, made in X country designations, etc.) and the proscribed speech must clealy meet those objectives. On that basis, SCOTUS struck down an election law saying that the movie “Hillary” could not be banned 30 days before or after an election as “political speech.”
But the most interesting part about the entire case is that “Hillary” the movie was deemed even by the majority of SCOTUS to be pejorative, no less than 4 attorneys either appeared in the movie or were in the trailer as involved in the production of the movie, horrible things were said about Senator H. Clinton–BUT NO WHERE DID SCOTUS EVER SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THE ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN ANY BEHAVIOR SUBJECTING THEM TO DISCIPLINE.
Go get the movie on Netflix, see the scurrilous language, the baseless allegations and horrendous insinuations.
Then tell me what exactly the ARDC is doing with me and Ken?