Congressmen, Censorship, and Social Media

July 8, 2008 · Posted in Congress 

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 House. He’s great at engaging and discussing the issues transparently, even if he is a Republican. :)
I view this as a huge leap in political communication. No longer constrained by the “official” responses, these representatives choose to directly speak to anyone who follows them on Twitter, and tell us what’s going on.

Unfortunately, there are some Democrats in Congress who take a dim view of any communication with voters that isn’t “official communication”. This includes video and text communication, evidently. Earlier today this came through Twitter from Rep. Culberson:

I just learned the Dems are trying to censor Congressmen’s ability to use Twitter Qik YouTube Utterz etc - outrageous and I will fight them

Based on the rules set forth in the document below, every communication any House member sent to Culberson would have to be vetted and disclaimed before it could be posted. Obviously that’s not acceptable.

Although I won’t go so far as to call them “Supreme Soviets” as Culberson did in a followup on Twitter, it’s obvious that the folks who drafted these rules have no understanding of what Twitter is, why it matters and why they cannot and should not attempt to squelch communication from elected Representatives to the people who elected them.

At this point I’m assuming that it’s ignorance and not malfeasance. But Culberson is right about this: If we don’t protest this obvious violation of the First Amendment they’ll succeed at silencing someone who is attempting to actually do what he was elected to do — represent the people in his District and communicate with them. The fact that his communication is in real time makes it more meaningful than any vetted and disclaimed statement would be.

I suggest writing Nancy Pelosi and Michael Capuano to let them know that the Congress should not be BANNING social media; it shoudl be embracing it.

Remember, the First Amendment specifically applies to speech in public places. I can’t think of a more public place than the floor of the House of Representatives.

(h/t Technosailor)

Capuano letter - Upload a Document to Scribd
Read this document on Scribd: Capuano letter

UPDATE: The GOP suggestion for added language to allow for Twitter, Friendfeed and other social media sites. Be sure to check Aaron Brazell’s post (Technosailor) for other updates.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus