Today’s top story for blog-navel-gazers: CURRIE FOR CONGRESS: REPRESENTATIVE WATERS HAS FRIENDS IN AL JEZEERAH. Per Dean Esmay, one of the ‘sphere’s favorite milibloggers wants to unseat the Honorable Comrade Waters and is trying to blog his way to it.
Very exciting. Let’s hope we win. And, er, just who is “we,”, kemosabe?
UPDATE: Via Instapundit’s link (appreciated!), Mickey Kaus weighs in, logically as ever, to wit (you have to scroll down a little):
I do think it’s hard, under Supreme Court precedents (e.g. Buckley vs. Valeo) to stop people from blogging in support of themselves. That’s their constitutional right. If all bloggers become candidates for something, then–say, President in the year 2028- does that free them all from any threatened McCain-Feingold regulation? Arguably everything they say about anything would be in furtherance of their future candidacies, after all. … I must be missing something. …
I assume Kaus is being coy — of course we’re all missing something: Can we possibly suggest that there is more of a constitutional right to speak on our own behalf than on someone else’s behalf? Think of the implications! (All of them! – ed.) No, I meant the constitutional implications. Free political speech can’t possibly be premised on the “sound of my own voice” exception — unless, of course, Congress and the Supreme Court or, for that matter, anyone in politics has any say in the matter.
Originally posted 2012-03-12 15:41:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
One Reply to “Blogocracy”
I see your current story concerns an Americans politician involved with an anti-American website, that is heavily biased for Palestinians. I would think this thread would be locked on the Comcast forums. The user agreement does not guarantee free speech, and its moderators quickly censor any disparaging accounts of Islam or the obvious abuse of human rights the religion itself denies and wishes to inflict on others. I have been banned twice now for life. This is proof that Islam is now a protected species. Something very wrong here when the majority do not dispute facts just casll you names.
Comments are closed.