Dina W asked:


Bill came before the house today, HR 1606, well-known as on-line Freedom OF Speech act. The philosophy was that on-line communication (e.g. Blog, Websites, etc.) did not become as & quot; Kommunikation& quot; à œ bereinstimmung with the regulations à ¼ more ber the FEC. So wà ¼ rde guaranteed that those discuss the political questions of us, on-line wà ¼ rde do not run afoul the FEC. ¼ rlich I took the Patterico Pledge to NatÃ, so that even if the FEC tried to regulate, my behavior am I more than glà ¼ cklich, say her exactly, where they go können. It is really not calculation, there it became parteiisch of Rep Hensarling (R-TX) into the house, and an identical calculation (P. 678) became in the senate of Harry Reid (D-NV). The Maà Ÿ nahme was it, becomes under suspension, which did not mean that it requires 2/a 3 vote in yes-to happens, the typical simple majority. This is with non-controversies Maà Ÿ took usually presumably easily happens, and thus Maà Ÿ took with limited debate and without à „ nderungen hinzugefà ¼ gt während to the discussion process. Indeed, the two other Maà Ÿ took under suspension today became co-ordinated by the voices of the 407-0 and 408-0. HR 1606 not by a vote of the 225-182, approximately 55%, far behind that the necessary two-thirds. The left has the vote is correct, thus wà ¼ rde I to suggest, a view. If you have a blogger and your representatives against this Maà Ÿ nahme, which could do you straight wà ¼ nschen, around him a call. Indeed, that is reason to the use of their Bloggy all powers, around its back threw from the office comes midterm election time. To the Glà ¼ ck, my Rep, Tom Price, has to this in. Republican has the positive 179-38, and democrats tuned 143-46 against of margin. Now, I ask myself, why democrats are correct, so à ¼ berwältigender majority against on-line free speech? Can someone help me on these? This seems to oppose like a rather strange thing. Because the things, which I read on DailyKos and YOU are gefährlich close to obszön, and democrats are always ready to defend Obszönität on each level. Könnte it its that they try beschränken to certainly lose a medium it? I am rather sure that is the reason, why they **** talc radio. The Internet is like talc radio fà ¼ r the masses. I mean, am her like that fear before the competition in the realm of the ideas and the written word that we do not dare her plebes speak ourselves? I do not have never said I to have an agenda, I have straight not use prepossession sources, seeing you the difference, or am it fà ¼ r you with difficulty too verstehen& gt; Pant, its right ingnorance töten… are thus careful you. Esp you are since the acceptance exist that the load from muck the democratic Respresentatives. Here are some reading fà ¼ r you. everything of these Aktivität is tatsächlich under bombardment today. If congress of the two parties Campaign Finance reform act were obvious in 2002, the law unclearly, on which effects it hätte on political speech in the Internet. The federal Election Commission interprets the right to say that the congress did not have the intention, the Internet adjusts, if it past BCRA. The bill of the sponsors in agreement, and the FEC in the courts does not sue it. One kà ¼ rzlich redress court decision becomes Kraft FEC to the conversion of the rule, the covering of Internet communication. If the congress it acts not now and makes clear to regulate that they did not möchten that the Internet, the FEC becomes a new rule to the adjustment Internet, and by passing on HR 1606, also OF admits Speech act, congress können to prevent as on-line Freedom that from this happening

Caffeinated Content