Fairness doctrine redux

It’s really too bad that a Republican is promoting this sort of thing, though I suppose any politician might be tempted. It’s an idea as absurd as the Fairness Doctrine and McCain-Feingold. Free speech means free speech — it does not mean “free to the extent that we are comfortable with it”.

The question then is not “what is acceptable speech?”. The question is whether there should be speech laws at all. I say no...and I believe the First Amendment says that, too.

Declan McCullagh, the article’s author, has it right:

In other words, NJ.com is your average Internet discussion site with a lively community that's grown over time. Sometimes it's useful, and sometimes it's straightforward politician-bashing--which serves a useful purpose of its own.

That doesn't mean Biondi's bill is a good idea. It isn't.

Biondi wants to require that anyone "who posts written messages on a public forum Web site" be identified "by a legal name and address" that is either disclosed publicly or kept on file. The measure also outlaws "false" posts on the Web and permits anyone upset by such posts to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees.

This, of course, violates the First Amendment.

If the Star-Ledger wants to enforce some “civility” at their site, they are entirely within their rights. Mr. Biondi is not.

Look, I don’t care for the hostile, execrable, nearly Tourettic stuff that I see in the comment areas of popular sites on both left and right. A lot of it is really unhealthy. But it is absolutely necessary and is certainly not a threat.

My time in the blogosphere has also shown me just how messy politics can be. It is depressing at times; more often, it’s thrilling to see this level of democratization of ideas, and to join the fight. These emotions are inseparable.

In my upcoming “canard” series, I will take a look at some of the benign-sounding memes that are used to justify bad ideas. When it comes to the intersection of law and speech, you should be afraid of words like “fairness” and “civility”.

Cross-posted at California Conservative.

------

Update: All the more reason to join me this Friday.

Comments

[The Gentle Cricket]

I agree that this is a horrible idea. While I don't think it will pass (I have enough faith in the rest of the republicans to oppose him), it would certainly be found unconstitutional.

If a discussion forum, web-log, or other internet site wants to control their comments or restrict comments to verified people (such as your own, only republican), that is their choice. There is no need for, and should be no desire by the government to regulate this.