Sunday, March 13, 2005

 
The First Amendment Applies to EVERYONE: My boys at Rathergate.com are linking to an online petition to ensure political blogging is not restricted by the McCain-Feingold bill. You can sign it here.

Why this would even be considered? The last time I checked the first amendment did not say speech will not be restricted except that which is critical or disliked by politicians? Blogs are controversial in many respects. And there are a lot of people in the main stream media (myself included) who are still wondering how this medium will ultimately fit into the information age. But because some people are a little scared of bloggers' potential, or their current success, we shouldn't be running to limit what they can't and cannot do.

If that logic made sense, we would have already restricted people like the Communist Party from distributing leaflets and having meetings. And Michael Moore would have been muzzled long before "Fahrenheit 9/11."

What is wrong with getting more people involved in the debate? If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to (or in bloggers' case read) them. There clearly are some bloggers doing some good work that has proven essential in the search for truth. And there are others that are just using the Internet as a forum to spout their wild theories.

I don't have a problem with either. If we are not allowed to hear the good and bad speech, how will we be able to tell the difference? Political blogging is protected just like any other speech.
Comments:
diazepam diazepam
phentermine phentermine
valium valium
vicodin vicodin
tramadol tramadol
prozac prozac
hydrocodone hydrocodone
alprazolam alprazolam
fioricet fioricet
xanax xanax
xenical xenical
viagra viagra
ambien ambien
ativan ativan
lorazepam lorazepam
ativan ativan
phentermine phentermine
carisoprodol carisoprodol
valium valium
ativan ativan
 
Post a Comment << Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com