US law - bloggers and 500 people or more - Is it ilegal to speak about policy or will it be soon ?

Question

I asked a question earlier -

2 different people said - (one provided a clip)

That it is oing to be ilegal to speak to 500 people or more on government policy

That bloggers are going to have to report to Congress on thier activities and that they will be subject to arrest


-------------


I tried to look this up - Nothing that I could find -



-------------------


Is there any truth to this ?

Is this even remotely possible ?


Is this someone who just made it up and or is simply wrong ?

Answer 1

I suppose that is why YA are so reluctant to allow questions that are searching about Bush's policy to be broadcast here.

EDIT: having read GASPODE below, it is amazing that Lemmings of the head in the sand variety still maintain that their freedoms are not being impinged upon.

Answer 2

There was a big court case this year about a twenty year old kid that caught unruly (violent) behavior by war protesters on video. The FBI wanted to use the tape to help make arrests. The kid claimed he had the right to protect his sources - the FBI came back with a warrant - and the kid still did not release the tape. The kid claimed that since he was using the video on his blog he was entitled to the same protection as those more clearly defined by the term "freedom of the press." The courts put him in jail. It's a valid debate - is a kid with a video camera subject to the same protections (as defined by case law) as a journalist for The New York Times? If he is, then anyone with a camera and a website is protected . . . the internet poses some real questions about the definition of "press." These issues will have to be discussed and defined - I think the 500 plus issue is just a way of establishing a guideline for what is journalism or a journalist as opposed to an ordinary citizen.

Answer 3

First I've ever heard of THIS. But, IF there were any truth to it at all, my guess is that it's more to do with corporatist control of media than with any attempt to prevent sedition or free speech. Bloggers with wide readerships may be seen (by the Viacoms, Universals, GEs, and Murdochs of the world) as broadcasters without license, or even by Madison Avenue and Wall Street as a threat to channel (as in marketing) integrity.

This would be an utterly ludicrous basis on which to pass such a law - but as others here have pointed out, the direct constitutional affront could (one would hope) never stand judicial scrutiny.

But Congress and the White House protecting the corporatist status quo? Gee, THAT'S good for business, and therefore good for America! (please do note my sarcasm).

Answer 4

I found this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Which seems to make it clear that none of that can legally happen in the US.

Answer 5

Two recent "executive Orders", edicts from on high. One "allows" confiscation of your property without compensation if you support a group defined as terrorist, including some charities and religious groups.

The other defines you as a terrorist or a terrorist group if you or your group tell someone that their rights under the Constitution are being violated.

Do your searching under white house proclamations.

Answer 6

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would have to be entirely stricken, and since the anti-gun brussel sprouts, who have unsettlingly large numbers, have failed to get rid of the second one, I don't see who is going to ever be powerful enough to get rid of the first one.

Answer 7

If they wanted to make an issue of it I am sure it could be done. The word "terrorist" in the patriot act and in the executive orders given by the WH could be loosely translated.

Answer 8

Someone may attempt to pass that law...

However, it is a direct constitutional violation of 1st Amendment speech, 1st Amendment press, and 1st Amendment right to assembly....

Answer 9

There was another Elvis sighting last week, too. Think there's a connection?