Politics

Restricting Speech

Today, our office was informed of new rules proposed by House Democrats that would require all Members of Congress to only publish content on approved websites by the Committee on House Administration. What does this mean for our office and for others? The proposed rules will restrict Mike from using websites not approved by House of Representatives bureaucrats ultimately restricting the use of the newest free technology offerings on the web, and future technologies yet to be invented. This blog, the Congressman?s podcast on iTunes, and the YouTube site are at risk of being censored or permanently removed.
Proponents of the new rules believe that new restrictions are required to limit constituents from viewing advertisements and potentially misleading information from clicking a link outside a Members controlled page. The fluid and open environment that the internet has created makes it almost impossible from controlling what you want people to see. And any new rules that prevent to restrict this will no doubt work against a more open two-way dialogue between lawmakers and the people. The internet has fostered a conversation that has not been seen before in the history of a democratic government. Have we reached a point that we should restrict the growth of this conversation?
Proponents of the new rules also argue that more control over Members online use is needed to prevent electioneering online. There is no doubt a need to monitor the campaign activity of a Member?s online activity, and the time is right for Congress to review the franking and governing rules for online communication. Over the past two centuries, Congress has had to deal with rules in which a Member of Congress can use taxpayer dollars to communicate with constituents. The Articles of Confederation gave Members of the Continental Congress free mailing privileges to communicate with constituents and soldiers. Since that time, Congress has had a long history governing the use of taxpayer money to update constituents and has, at one point, banned franking privileges after its misuse during the Civil War. The regulations that govern franked mail in recent years have been put in place to reduce the cost to the taxpayer, not restricting the message delivered to the constituent. The internet affords Members of Congress with a much cheaper way to communicate with constituents where the delivery of the message is free or basically free compared to the current cost of postage, thus reducing the cost to the taxpayer.
New rules governing how Members of Congress interact with an online audience should not interfere with the open and free conversation that the internet has created. Please consider contacting the Speaker?s office (202) 225-0100 to let her know you oppose these new rules. Austin Weatherford- Special Assistant to Rep. Mike Conaway

Full post as published by Mike Conaway's Blog on July 09, 2008 (boomark / email).