DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Bang the Drum is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Bang the Drum

politics and issues
Jump to original thread »
Author

Congressmen, Censorship, and Social Media

Started by Karoli · 12 months ago

Congressmen John Culberson (R-Tx) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) are on Twitter, and regularly send updates to Twitter directly from the House floor. Rep. Culberson in particular understands the value of interacting with others via Twitter and Qik, and has engaged me and others in some spirited discussions of issues coming before the [...] ... Continue reading »

3 comments

  • John Culberson

    12 months ago

    If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."

    This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.

    I am always the first to admit I am wrong when I can be shown I am in error. I am an attorney and I know what the letter says and what they mean with it. The people implementing this new rule may be benevolent and have noble purposes, but that is irrelevant. This violates the First Amendment.
    reply
  • Karoli

    12 months ago

    What I wonder is this: Do the folks who are promulgating these rules really understand what social media is? This letter seems to aim specifically at video, but has been drafted in such a way that sites like Twitter, Utterz, and Friendfeed all end up in the mix as well.

    As a citizen, I would much rather be engaging you on a real-time basis. It benefits Congress to be transparent and open with us. One of Obama's planks is transparency and open government. There isn't anything that's much more transparent than engagement of voters via social media. Obama uses it regularly -- Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, etc. (though his use of Twitter isn't what I'd like it to be).

    Is this ignorance? I think it is. The question is, how do we educate them before they try to push these rules through?
    reply
  • Ken Sheppardson

    12 months ago

    "Do the folks who are promulgating these rules really understand what social media is?"

    Of course not. It's barely understood by many of us immersed in it every day.

    Whether we're talking about how politicians communicate with their constituents, how constituents coordinate their support of politicians by forming 527s, how corporations infringe on the perceived privacy rights of citizens by tracking online behavior, or how citizens infringe on the perceived property rights of corporations by trading copyrighted material, we're dealing with the same fundamental problem:

    The system of rules and regulations we've assembled over the past 200 years or so can't adapt quickly enough to keep up with technological innovation. The law is a generation or so behind science.

    I'm skeptical that incremental additions and changes will every really be sufficient, and for the life of me I can't see what will be.
    reply
Please login to comment.
Returning? Login