Jay is working hard to keep focus on this issue, and I’m happy to help do my tiny part. It’s absolutely critical.

Regardless of what Congressman Bradley says (if anything), I will NOT give up my right to speak freely on politics — or anything else that I chose to, for that matter. I am torn between taking “Patterico’s Pledge” and willfully violating what I see as an unconstitutional action, or simply taking up two of my online friends who blog from other countries up on their offers to give me “guest posting” privileges. Regardless, I will not be silenced.

Congress is scheduled to take up 1606 and 4194 this week. Don’t let this slip by unnoticed in all of the excitement about Bush finally getting up off of the mat.

For more info, go to the Online Coalition.

Problems with 4194:

• It offers no guidance as to the treatment of group political activity, potentially treating all group websites that discuss federal candidates as political committees

• It would stifle technological innovation. H.R. 4194 specifically mentions “blogging”, but ignores such as already-widely used technologies like podcasting, wikis and peer-to-peer networks, let alone the technologies of tomorrow.

• Its alleged protection to incorporated bloggers offers no real protection. In comments filed before the FEC, supporters of H.R. 4194 have stated explicitly that those websites which endorse, expressly advocate, and urge readers to donate funds to the election of preferred candidates do not qualify for protection under the law. This would force bloggers that speak forcefully about politics to seek legal counsel – a complete disaster.

Tapscott:

The genuine article is The Online Freedom of Speech Act, H.R. 1606. Make sure your blog readers and your congressman know all the facts on the differences between H.R. 4194 and H.R. 1606. Your freedom of speech could depend upon their knowing the difference.