As a blogger and avid user of twitter this news makes me pretty nervous. It sounds like older politicians who haven't kept up with technology are just scared.
bigguyd
· 1 year ago
Agree with you on this. Hello censorship.
Bob Schenkenberger
· 1 year ago
Democrats have been increasing regulation for over 40 years now, I'm not sure why it surprises you. Big Government requires big regulation.
However, to be fair, both sides of the aisle now are far more interested in preserving their positions than defending some little document like the constitution.
klecu
· 1 year ago
I consider myself a conservative because I believe in small government and keeping constitutional freedoms. But both "sides" of Congress are failing at preserving freedom.
The rule should be "publicize information unless it will immediately and directly endanger American lives." So much of what they try to keep in is already out there for the world to see. Why not provide that information in a reliable medium, cutting down on misinformation and rumors?
Can't wait until the election is over and we can stop hearing about politics for a few months.
Jeff Crites
· 1 year ago
Fair and smart analysis. In the end, I think this is a great. It'll have our elected finest talking about Social Media and other things they know nothing about. Hopefully, it'll ramp up education, adoption, transparency and openness. Hopefully. If not, a firestorm will continue to burn on the Web.
Check out a Hot Air post called Why Do Dems Fear Free Speech: http://tinyurl.com/6nxm3c Apparently, Senator Feinstein is trying to control use of social media tools even more aggressively than her colleagues in the House.
Aaron Brazell
· 1 year ago
You are not a liberal, Mark. Libertarian, yes. Liberal no.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Liberal didn't used to mean what it means today.
BrianMojo
· 1 year ago
A "liberal" government has always meant more government involvement, not less. I don't mean that in a derisive way, it's simply a matter of a definition of the word. "Democrat" and "Republican" may not have always stood for the same positions in America, but "liberal" and "conservative" have remained constant.
Will Johnston
· 1 year ago
"Representative John Culberson (the US House GOP leader)"
Culberson is not the GOP Leader; John Boehner is the House Minority Leader.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Sorry - that was a mis-print, and it's been corrected.
Andrew Feinberg
· 1 year ago
Rest assured, I am following this story and the DC press is aware of it. I will keep people updated as much as I can. Meanwhile, I have an article about it in this morning's Washington Internet Daily. Sadly, the website doesn't have the content...I'm working on it.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Andrew.
I have a feeling you and Robert are partly responsible for turning these parts of Congress on to our existence out here in the blogosphere, and for that I thank you.
Eric Eldon
· 1 year ago
Mark, as far as I can tell, you're badly mistaken.
Show me the part where this one guy Capuano (not "Congressional Democrats") wants to censor what House members say? Here's a relevant line from the document above:
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should be construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
It sounds like he wants an official site for House members to post press releases. Or maybe a House-branded video player. Maybe even an official site for posting Twitter and Qik updates. It's not at all clear, in fact, what this guy is even trying to say. My conclusion: Whoop. Tee. Do.
You should go re-read O'Reilly's post, Masnick's post and the second update on Aaron's post.
Last note: Your headline is ridiculous because it directly implies that "Congressional Democrats" want to censor *everybody* on Twitter and Qik.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
It's important to read between the lines and look at folks' motivations in this.
The very line you quoted back to me is the line that defines his motivations - he's trying to create a whitelist of what services congress can use - that's not loosening, that's tightening. If he was truly interested in loosening things up, he'd suggest that changes *should* be made, and that restrictions should be lifted, instead of ignored.
Do we need restricted access to our government? Aren't we supposedly living in some sort of representative government? How can they represent us if they can't communicate freely with us?
How this letter can be interpreted any other way is beyond me.
Mike Masnick
· 1 year ago
Mark,
I respect you and your reporting, but I'm afraid on this one you're just wrong. First off, I'm not being blinded by my bias. I am not a Democrat nor a liberal, so I don't see what makes you assume that my politics has any impact here.
The letter in question was clearly designed to loosen EXISTING rules. In other words, it's to make the situation better, not worse. It has nothing to do with Culberson's use of Twitter, but was supposed to FIX the issue with Congressional Reps not being allowed to use YouTube.
You have badly misread the letter, and bought into Culberson's false interpretation of it.
Mike
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Mike,
I respect your reporting a great deal, too, but I also think you're dead wrong. Loosening, to me, involves de-regulation, not increased enforcement of existing rules. That's what the letter calls for.
Mike Masnick
· 1 year ago
Mark,
I respectfully disagree. These rules that Culberson and you are complaining about are ALREADY in existence. It forbids Congressmen from using ANY commercial website to send out a message. The letter here is an attempt to loosen those rules. It doesn't go far enough, but it is not, as you claim, an attempt to make the restrictions worse.
Culberson is already breaking the rules by posting on Twitter.
The problem is the existing rules, which this is an attempt to loosen -- not these new rules.
The letter DOES NOT as you say, increase enforcement.
Mike
John Culberson
· 1 year ago
Heres how the House leadership will use this rule to control where and what I say and even exercise influence over your website/blog etc
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 be 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 ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. It is my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
JJ
· 1 year ago
That's crap.
You're not here in an official capacity. This letter addresses members of Congress using outside websites for in their official capacity. When the "Rs" were in charge, they were going out of their way to stifle free speech by imposing fees on our Internet travels. I'm sure you of all people have heard of Net Neutrality?
Also, I notice that for someone who is so concerned about your free speech and ours you voted FOR the FISA reauthorization. Where was your concern for our rights when this bill came down the pipe, Rep.Culberson? You know that this letter does not mean that, but that doesn't stop you from being divisive. Is it election year?
Ling
· 1 year ago
I think Congressman John Culberson is right. When I read the entire post by Mark, it didn't seem like a big deal. But when I read the Congressman's comment above, it does look bad, if they can't post stuff like this on any website they want. I mean, I've seen everyone from Obama to John Kerry make posts on Dailykos. What would they have to say if they found they were not allowed to do that?
tc1976
· 1 year ago
Sorry but I have to agree that this is a misinterpretation and sounds like playing politics. The letter is clearly stating the use of the technology is a GOOD thing and that currently it is 'not user-friendly or effecient' and that needed to change. They agreed that the use of third party sites is a good thing but only made the recommendation that they should be used within the rules.
When I go looking for information from a government official I want to know it is real and that any answer I get is really from that office. It makes me think of the Stephen Colbert issue that was all over Twitter. Is it him? Is it someone else? On the internet you can't know. Having official sites is important to make sure citizens have clear and reputable ways of finding answers. Honestly, the above post by the congressman could have been posted by anyone.
This letter was trying to encourage the use of new technology while continuing to offer a solid way for citizens to trust the information released through those channels. I think it is a great idea if Youtube and Twitter could come up with a special government account or something so that we know this is really baraks twitter or this is really the congressmans twitter. Otherwise it can't be trusted for anything official.
The reaction to this letter feels political. Especially with the heavy handed title.
Eric Eldon
· 1 year ago
Alright, guys, its time for me to write my own post about this.
Mike Germano
· 1 year ago
Wow another post from our favorite ultra right wing tech blogger "Rizzn". I do not enjoy the majority of "Rizzn" posts. I feel that his political bias always seem to get the better of him in every post. I hope Mashable takes him off any political topics.
LarchOye
· 1 year ago
Wow, you're actively promoting censorship- and um, to make things worse, you're advocating the censorship of anti-censorship writing.
SHAME ON YOU!
LarchOye
· 1 year ago
Censorship is the purest form of evil.
Do not underestimate it's terrible power.
(The reason free speech, etc. was guaranteed by the FIRST amendment, is because it is the MOST IMPORTANT)
Matt Baker
· 1 year ago
I'm somewhere between amused and dismayed by Mark Hopkins' claim that he can read minds and discern what people's motivations are.
If he can claim that, then I can claim that this entire post is mere linkbait. With equal validity -- because I have as much training in psychology as Mark.
Secondly, blaming all Democrats for this is like blaming all Republicans for GWB's idiocy going into Iraq. Extracting from this one action to a discussion of all actions by an ill-defined group such as "liberals" is totally inappropriate. For instance, you can't even get a definition of "liberal" that everybody agrees on.
Moving on, we should consider why the current rules exist, because at worst this letter is an attempt to enforce rules the current rules on new communications methods.
Members of Congress get a lot of resources at taxpayer expense. Those resources are supposed to be used to help them perform as Congresspeople.
They are not to be used to help themselves or their friends get elected, because if installed members of Congress can tap taxpayer money for political purposes, then it becomes impossible for privately funded citizens to defeat them. Soon you have an untouchable government not subject to the will of the people.
The Committee on Franking is the best answer anybody has come up with to enforce this. The idea being that if your opponents agree that a particular piece of communication isn't political, then it's cool to use taxpayer money to create it. But if it's political, then the Member of Congress needs to use campaign funds to pay for it.
Without that process, you'll installed Members using their taxpayer funded staff to blog about political issues, and Twitter about political issues, and etc, as new platforms appear in the future.
Would you, for instance, want a vehicle like the Daily Kos, (or whatever its conservative equivalent is), to be created by a bunch of Congresspeople using taxpayer money, with the express purpose of influencing elections?
I hope not.
s
· 1 year ago
I find your analysis to be a complete misread of that email.
It's not at all about thwarting free speech. It's about ensuring congressional leaders maintain propriety.
On news websites, you will notice political stories are always free of political ads. This is because it would be a conflict of interest to see a Mccain Story and a Vote For Obama Ad.
It seems that the democrats are saying in one respect that if they create a channel on a site-- like a youtube channel- they can ensure it is free of ads of a political nature, or an inappropriate nature that the congressional leader wouldn't endorse.
Secondly-- it never says speaking freely to constituents is wrong. The House does have guidelines though. All the letter seems to say is that the postings should notate that they are coming from a house leader so it is clear...
I am really disappointed with this article and I think you are terribly misreading the letter.. and misleading your readers.
myke
· 1 year ago
Don't you think that this could be in response to the RNC 'losing' a ton of emails pertaining to the justice firings?
Gabriela
· 1 year ago
Inspired by conversations like this, the Sunlight Foundation (ahem, where I work) was inspired to do something to rally citizens to ensure lawmakers can freely connect with us all online.
In that spirit, we are launching a new campaign, Let Our Congress Tweet, http://letourcongresstweet.org/ - an experiment in Twitter-based advocacy. You can express your support of a petition that tells Congress to "embrace the communication technologies that we already use" like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and MySpace.
On the site, you can watch who's tweeting to sign the petition. We'd love to hear any feedback on this experiment or on the broader dialog regarding congressional Internet use. Join us and tweet the petition!
bd
· 1 year ago
Is anyone non-partisan? Since most people involved in these discussions favor liberalism, of course you're going to get raided with negative feedback for this article. Even if Mark is right, liberals will have find a reason to disagree. The same goes for the other side.
All Comments
However, to be fair, both sides of the aisle now are far more interested in preserving their positions than defending some little document like the constitution.
The rule should be "publicize information unless it will immediately and directly endanger American lives." So much of what they try to keep in is already out there for the world to see. Why not provide that information in a reliable medium, cutting down on misinformation and rumors?
Can't wait until the election is over and we can stop hearing about politics for a few months.
Check out a Hot Air post called Why Do Dems Fear Free Speech: http://tinyurl.com/6nxm3c
Apparently, Senator Feinstein is trying to control use of social media tools even more aggressively than her colleagues in the House.
Culberson is not the GOP Leader; John Boehner is the House Minority Leader.
I have a feeling you and Robert are partly responsible for turning these parts of Congress on to our existence out here in the blogosphere, and for that I thank you.
Show me the part where this one guy Capuano (not "Congressional Democrats") wants to censor what House members say? Here's a relevant line from the document above:
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should be construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
It sounds like he wants an official site for House members to post press releases. Or maybe a House-branded video player. Maybe even an official site for posting Twitter and Qik updates. It's not at all clear, in fact, what this guy is even trying to say. My conclusion: Whoop. Tee. Do.
You should go re-read O'Reilly's post, Masnick's post and the second update on Aaron's post.
Last note: Your headline is ridiculous because it directly implies that "Congressional Democrats" want to censor *everybody* on Twitter and Qik.
The very line you quoted back to me is the line that defines his motivations - he's trying to create a whitelist of what services congress can use - that's not loosening, that's tightening. If he was truly interested in loosening things up, he'd suggest that changes *should* be made, and that restrictions should be lifted, instead of ignored.
Do we need restricted access to our government? Aren't we supposedly living in some sort of representative government? How can they represent us if they can't communicate freely with us?
How this letter can be interpreted any other way is beyond me.
I respect you and your reporting, but I'm afraid on this one you're just wrong. First off, I'm not being blinded by my bias. I am not a Democrat nor a liberal, so I don't see what makes you assume that my politics has any impact here.
The letter in question was clearly designed to loosen EXISTING rules. In other words, it's to make the situation better, not worse. It has nothing to do with Culberson's use of Twitter, but was supposed to FIX the issue with Congressional Reps not being allowed to use YouTube.
You have badly misread the letter, and bought into Culberson's false interpretation of it.
Mike
I respect your reporting a great deal, too, but I also think you're dead wrong. Loosening, to me, involves de-regulation, not increased enforcement of existing rules. That's what the letter calls for.
I respectfully disagree. These rules that Culberson and you are complaining about are ALREADY in existence. It forbids Congressmen from using ANY commercial website to send out a message. The letter here is an attempt to loosen those rules. It doesn't go far enough, but it is not, as you claim, an attempt to make the restrictions worse.
Culberson is already breaking the rules by posting on Twitter.
The problem is the existing rules, which this is an attempt to loosen -- not these new rules.
The letter DOES NOT as you say, increase enforcement.
Mike
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 be 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 ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. It is my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
You're not here in an official capacity. This letter addresses members of Congress using outside websites for in their official capacity. When the "Rs" were in charge, they were going out of their way to stifle free speech by imposing fees on our Internet travels. I'm sure you of all people have heard of Net Neutrality?
Also, I notice that for someone who is so concerned about your free speech and ours you voted FOR the FISA reauthorization. Where was your concern for our rights when this bill came down the pipe, Rep.Culberson?
You know that this letter does not mean that, but that doesn't stop you from being divisive. Is it election year?
When I go looking for information from a government official I want to know it is real and that any answer I get is really from that office. It makes me think of the Stephen Colbert issue that was all over Twitter. Is it him? Is it someone else? On the internet you can't know. Having official sites is important to make sure citizens have clear and reputable ways of finding answers. Honestly, the above post by the congressman could have been posted by anyone.
This letter was trying to encourage the use of new technology while continuing to offer a solid way for citizens to trust the information released through those channels. I think it is a great idea if Youtube and Twitter could come up with a special government account or something so that we know this is really baraks twitter or this is really the congressmans twitter. Otherwise it can't be trusted for anything official.
The reaction to this letter feels political. Especially with the heavy handed title.
SHAME ON YOU!
Do not underestimate it's terrible power.
(The reason free speech, etc. was guaranteed by the FIRST amendment, is because it is the MOST IMPORTANT)
If he can claim that, then I can claim that this entire post is mere linkbait. With equal validity -- because I have as much training in psychology as Mark.
Secondly, blaming all Democrats for this is like blaming all Republicans for GWB's idiocy going into Iraq. Extracting from this one action to a discussion of all actions by an ill-defined group such as "liberals" is totally inappropriate. For instance, you can't even get a definition of "liberal" that everybody agrees on.
Moving on, we should consider why the current rules exist, because at worst this letter is an attempt to enforce rules the current rules on new communications methods.
Members of Congress get a lot of resources at taxpayer expense. Those resources are supposed to be used to help them perform as Congresspeople.
They are not to be used to help themselves or their friends get elected, because if installed members of Congress can tap taxpayer money for political purposes, then it becomes impossible for privately funded citizens to defeat them. Soon you have an untouchable government not subject to the will of the people.
The Committee on Franking is the best answer anybody has come up with to enforce this. The idea being that if your opponents agree that a particular piece of communication isn't political, then it's cool to use taxpayer money to create it. But if it's political, then the Member of Congress needs to use campaign funds to pay for it.
Without that process, you'll installed Members using their taxpayer funded staff to blog about political issues, and Twitter about political issues, and etc, as new platforms appear in the future.
Would you, for instance, want a vehicle like the Daily Kos, (or whatever its conservative equivalent is), to be created by a bunch of Congresspeople using taxpayer money, with the express purpose of influencing elections?
I hope not.
It's not at all about thwarting free speech. It's about ensuring congressional leaders maintain propriety.
On news websites, you will notice political stories are always free of political ads. This is because it would be a conflict of interest to see a Mccain Story and a Vote For Obama Ad.
It seems that the democrats are saying in one respect that if they create a channel on a site-- like a youtube channel- they can ensure it is free of ads of a political nature, or an inappropriate nature that the congressional leader wouldn't endorse.
Secondly-- it never says speaking freely to constituents is wrong. The House does have guidelines though. All the letter seems to say is that the postings should notate that they are coming from a house leader so it is clear...
I am really disappointed with this article and I think you are terribly misreading the letter.. and misleading your readers.
In that spirit, we are launching a new campaign, Let Our Congress Tweet, http://letourcongresstweet.org/ - an experiment in Twitter-based advocacy. You can express your support of a petition that tells Congress to "embrace the communication technologies that we already use" like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and MySpace.
On the site, you can watch who's tweeting to sign the petition. We'd love to hear any feedback on this experiment or on the broader dialog regarding congressional Internet use. Join us and tweet the petition!