« The Blogosphere Plateau | Main | 2006 Weblog Award Winners »

In The Blog's-Eye: The Blogs vs. John McCain

If you want to be president in the information age, it's probably not a good idea to get the blogosphere on your bad side. Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000, apparently has not grasped that basic rule of thumb yet.

Before the 109th Congress ended last week, McCain decided to introduce one last bill. The cause is one that most everyone would endorse: curtailing child pornography. But one means to that end -- punishing Internet sites that fail to report pornographic content on their servers -- does not sit well with bloggers who, thanks to an article in News.com, see McCain's bill as an attack against them.

From the left, Think Progress dubbed the measure "John McCain's War On Blogs." Even though the text of the bill never mentions blogs, Think Progress said it "would treat blogs like Internet service providers and hold them responsible for all activity in the comments sections and user profiles" and warned ominously that it "could deal a serious blow to the blogosphere. Lacking resources to police their sites, many individual blogs may have to shut down open discussion."

That tirade prompted John Aravosis of Americablog to write this: "John McCain is an arch-conservative Republican who wants the government involved in all of your business. Now he's concerned that political blogs are somehow refuges for child sex predators."

"Is there nothing these politicians won't pander to using the public's fear of sex offenders?" Jeralyn Merritt asked at TalkLeft.

McCain also incurred the wrath of the RedState directors on the right, who said the bill threaten "the very existence of the blogosphere."

"Bloggers could be forced to pay fines for not regulating the amount of spam on their blog -- any links that make it through the obscenity filters could spark regulation and punishment -- and in addition," the directors wrote, "according to the smart folks at the Center for Democracy and Technology, any membership-based site that allowed a sexual predator to register could be subject to penalties."

Another writer at RedState accused McCain of trying to censor the Internet.

McCain's staff tried to head off the brewing blog swarm by e-mailing Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, who earlier this year did a podcast with McCain, and insisting that the legislation does not apply to blogs. But Reynolds, a law professor in Tennessee, said the text "doesn't seem entirely clear to me that it doesn't reach individual bloggers, regardless of intent."

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway noted that the bill clearly is not aimed at the kinds of political bloggers who are itching for a fight.

"I scanned through the legislation to see if McCain had somehow hid an anti-political blogging section in the bill but could find no evidence of that," Joyner wrote. "... The requirement is hardly an onerous one, let alone a 'war on blogs.' Most of us monitor user comments and the like already. In principle, I have no objection to complying with such a law if it passes."

But bloggers and readers who want to believe the worst of McCain will continue to do just that -- though not necessarily because of his anti-porn bill, which died at the end of the Congress just days after it was introduced. As Reynolds noted, "E-mail from InstaPundit readers is universally mistrustful of McCain, which is indicative of just how much damage he's done himself with his support of campaign finance "reform."

Posted by Danny | 01:59 PM

Comments

Bloggers should not be expected to monitor their user comments for content. It is an unfair burden to put on bloggers with day jobs.

More importantly, it is an effort to attack freedom of speach. Not only does it set a precedent for censorship of blog comments, but it also tries to drive individual voices out of the blogosphere.

Corrupt politicians like John "Keating Five" McCain want all political discussion to be filtered by corporate media donors so they can control what we can say and read.

libhomo | 12.18.06 07:32 AM

McCain is older then dirt. An angry bitter man. Do we really need substantive criticism of the coot?

happyfeet | 12.18.06 03:10 PM

I'm John McCain, and I'm here to help.

Christopher Fotos | 12.18.06 03:14 PM

Ill bet McCain and staff never thought out the implications of his bill. When you offer legislation for publicity you forget the details and only care about what MSM say about you.

captaink | 12.18.06 04:20 PM

McCain is wasting his time and annoying people. His chances at the Presidency are laughable. Big Media liked him in 2000; journalists [loved] his "Bus of Truth" or whatever he called his shtick back then.

But remember that Big Media never object to Republicans being nominated; they only dislike them being elected.

Should McCain ever pose a threat to Hillary's coronation, the media will suddenly remember that the Keating Five was not a jazz quintet, and John M's past peccadillos will be exhumed, revivified, engorged, gussied up, and made to dance and yodel on every TV screen in the country. He will be toast in two weeks.

Person of Choler | 12.18.06 04:47 PM

"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." -- John McCain on the Don Imus Show.

I've been Republican since I walked precincts with my mom for Nixon in 1960, at the age of 2. Over the years I've given more than $100k to various GOP candidates and causes.

I will vote for ANYBODY but McCain. Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, ANYBODY.

Richard R | 12.18.06 05:13 PM

This bill scares me to death because it places the policing burden on people who may well have no clue what is going on in a particular forum.

For example, if you are a software vendor (like me) and you have forums for technical support, you could be driven out of business because one of your users - a "registered" sex offender - signs up to ask questions. Never mind whether he actually trolls for minors, the very signup places the vendor in jeopardy under McCain's bill.

If I know of a predator using a forum for illicit ends, then it is imperative that I report him for simple reasons of decency. But passing a law under which a blogger or other small entity suffers *even if they don't know* is sheer destructive insanity.

Wildmonk | 12.18.06 06:13 PM

McCain has lost it again. He somehow finds ways to turn what should be good legislation into terrible, and hurtful actions that make the world of today (read blogosphere) somehow responsible for all the evils.

McCain is self-destructive....without knowing it! He is too old in mind for the post of President. Please, do not support him!
Duke

Duke DeLand | 12.18.06 06:28 PM

McCain-Feingold. Pure disaster. Idiocy. That bill hurt us all, and badly; the depths of that lunatic's anti-constitutional antics have yet to be plumbed.

I wouldn't vote for John McCain for dog-catcher. Or anything. Ever. Regardless of the competition's ideology.

davis,br | 12.19.06 02:12 AM

I won't vote for McCain. I don't care who he is running against, or with. He could be running as vice president to Christ himself and I'd still vote for someone else.

He's flaccid on terror, and flaccid on Immigration. Inexcusable for a vet.

E L Frederick | 12.19.06 11:06 AM

Part of the knee jerk left -v- right atmosphere leads to really uninformed commentary as issued by John Aravosis "John McCain is an arch-conservative Republican who wants the government involved in all of your business..."

Arch Conservatives are ANTI-Government involvement in business! John McCain is interested nanisim and government regulation of expression (ala campaign finance reform which is anything but...)because he is a liberal! Not a conservative! So if John's quote was "John McCain is an arch-liberal Republican who wants the government involved in all of your business..." I would agree whole heartedly.

People need to better understand the philosophies of Conservative and Liberal as descriptions and do away with the demonization of either term. They are philosophical adjectives! And are not automatically redundant with their usually associated party.

Joe Lieberman was a Conservative Democrat
Jim Jeffords was a Liberal Republican
Valley Democrats (Reagan Democrats) are Conservatives.

I am a Conservative Republican, and I do not much appreciate politicians of either party wanting to quell free speech. However, if someone leaves inappropriate comments on my blog I will ban them from further commentary and if that inappropriate commentary involves something as vile as child pornography I will do what I can to report the perpetrators to authorities. Then let the government pursue the true predators, not my avenue for expression. Something has to be said for intent to violate statute!

JC | 12.29.06 06:01 PM

It pains me greatly to say it, but I'd vote for Hillary over McCain.

Neither is fit, and either would be a vastly damaging presidency of course. At least with Hillary, she's a devil of known dimension. With McCain I sense there are unknown levels of treachery I can't fathom yet.

Purple Avenger | 12.31.06 02:30 AM

Post a Comment