Free Speech and the Internet

The Daily Beast has an interesting article, "First Came the Drudge Link. Then the Death Threats.":

In October 2014, then-Federal Election Commission Vice Chairwoman Ann Ravel did what she often does: speak her mind about political campaign issues.

“A re-examination of the Commission’s approach to the Internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue,” Ravel, a Democrat, wrote in lamenting a deadlocked commission vote over whether an Ohio-based business group must include disclaimers on political ads it posted for free on YouTube.com.

But Ravel’s statement—just finding it on the FEC’s website in no small feat—didn’t disappear into the Internet’s bowels as bureaucratic missives often do.

Instead, in a sign of how toxic American politics have become, it spawned unbridled ugliness, including death threats that have drawn the attention of law enforcement. What appears to have initially prompted the torrent of messages targeting Ravel: an Oct. 25, 2014, banner headline on the Drudge Report: “DEMS ON FEC MOVE TO REGULATE DRUDGE.”

The article goes on to point out the kind of crass comments and death threats Ravel received. While I don't approve of these kinds of comments, I would also say Ravel deserves more than a little criticism for even considering government regulation of the internet. Where does the government draw the line in regulating speech on the internet? I doubt they would stop at "large organizations" like Drudge Report. They could prosecute me for my simple little blogging, especially if I say the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time, and it comes to their attention.

Even more importantly, just because someone spends money to promote or decry something on the internet, there is no guaranty people will see it. Even if they see it, there is no guaranty they will agree with it. People have the right to accept or reject ideas. I would rather protect someone's right to speak in whatever manner they like, even if it's offensive to some, than to hand control of speech over to the government. Even idiots who will go along with whatever they hear deserve to be protected from government control of speech.

Free speech is an ugly thing, but also a necessary thing. If the laws allow the FEC to regulate free speech, then we need to remove these laws.

(hat tip to MotiFake for the pic)