First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:
FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, ‘not done fighting’
by Paul Bedard
They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibly even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission.
You say the US government has tried on prior occasions to censor the Drudge Report? Yes. By the FCC as I wrote here on May 5th of 2015, and here on August 24h of 2015.
The FEC, specifically, tried back in 2014 as Paul Bedard, the author of this newest article above, documented here:
FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs
by Paul Bedard
Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.
The real truth is this — no more complicated.
“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.
When you cannot win the war of ideas, that is to say “the message,” then your only alternative is to shut down “the messenger” which, in these cases, translates to the internet itself and some sites specifically, like Drudge. Mine is next. So is yours.
(FEC Chairman Lee Goodman) added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”
That translates to, as I have said for quite some time: “No one is equal until everyone is equal.”
The history explained here, as well.
You can already see the Leftist social media giants shutting down free speech. But whose free speech? Those on the right. Leftist speech remains predominantly uninterrupted, undisturbed and inviolate unless it is so shockingly egregious that even the American Media Maggots begin to notice a bit. Even then, not consistently. Death threats against President Trump on Twitter, for example, tend to remain unless they are somehow brought to light. Massive light.
Then don’t forget about this aspect.
Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut off conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.
At one point the “fairness doctrine” — which is the precise opposite, of course — ruled in media. Its attempt, originally, was to actually ensure some semblance of “fairness” in broadcasting when media choices were extremely limited, the precise opposite of today.
I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.
Because, after all, everything is political now.
Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?
Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished.
Not difficult to figure out.
BZ
P.S.
Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.
Never forget.
The science of falling human flesh indicates that an average 200 pound human being, with air resistance, will eventually reach a terminal velocity of around 53 m/s (195 km/h or 122 mph). The Twin Towers were 1,362 feet tall. We know that 99% of the terminal velocity for a human will be reached at around 1,880 feet. Since we also know that Americans did not jump from the top of the buildings but, instead, some stories down, it would be scientifically safe to posit that jumpers reached between 100 and 110 mph at their point of impact with the metal or concrete below.
A common misconception is that many died mid-jump. That is incorrect. The bulk died upon impact; only those who were already suffering from traumatic burns or egregious wounds may — and I say may — have died enroute their impact sites.
And that, you recognize with finality, is the sum total of your life.
Turn or go forward. You go forward.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the 
Is this a harbinger of things to come?
This well and truly comports with the Second Amendment’s hurricane exemption.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the 
Tuesday night we had the special pleasure of having Dan Butcher of