[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S1954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ONLINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, yesterday, I filed the Online Freedom of 
Speech Act as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill.
  This morning, the House Administration Committee will mark up 
identical legislation. We expect the House to act as early as next week 
to pass this vital protection of free speech.
  Thomas Jefferson once quipped that, ``Advertisements contain the only 
truths to be relied on in a newspaper.''
  But despite his low opinion of the press, he also observed that, 
``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government 
without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not 
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''
  From the earliest days of our Republic, freedom of speech and freedom 
of the press--be they anonymous pamphlets, celebrated essays, or local 
newspapers--were understood to be fundamental to the practice and 
defense of liberty.
  Without the ability to convey ideas, debate, dispute, and persuade, 
we may never have fought for and achieved our independence.
  Ordinary citizens--farmers, ministers, local shop owners--published 
and circulated their views, often anonymously, to challenge the 
conventional order and call their fellow citizens to action.
  Indeed, as Boston University journalism professor Chris Daly points 
out, ``What we think of as reporting--the pursuit, on a full time basis 
of verifiable facts and verbatim quotations--was not a significant part 
of journalism in the time of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. . . . 
In historical terms, today's bloggers are much closer in spirit to the 
Revolutionary-era pamphleteers.''
  And today, it is bloggers whom we now have to protect.
  There are some who, out of fear or shortsightedness, wish to restrict 
the ability of our modern-day Thomas Paines to express political views 
on the World Wide Web.
  They seek to monitor and regulate political speech under the guise of 
``campaign finance reform.'' They argue that unfettered political 
expression on the Internet is dangerous, especially during the highly 
charged election season.
  Needless to say, I stand firmly against these efforts to hamstring 
the Internet and squarely with the champions of free speech--whether 
that expression takes place in the actual or virtual town square.
  Free speech is the core of our first amendment. And the Internet 
represents the most participatory form of mass speech in human history.
  It is no accident that this technology was invented here in America. 
Freedom of speech is encoded in our DNA. It is what allows us to be 
uniquely curious, daring and innovative.
  And it is no coincidence that Americans, steeped in the tradition of 
inquiry and rebellion, would give flight to yet another revolution on 
behalf of the principle we value most.
  In an era where technology has made instant, unfiltered communication 
possible, I believe that the Congress has a fundamental responsibility 
to allow this new medium to flourish.
  As an amateur blogger myself, and soon-to-be private citizen, I am 
committed to ensuring that the extraordinary explosion of political 
debate in the blogosphere is protected from meddling bureaucrats and 
regulators in Washington, DC.
  I commented on this very issue on my own blog last week. Free 
political expression is not a narrow privilege but a fundamental right.
  Back in April of 1999, when observers and commentators were only 
beginning to glimpse the rich potential of the Internet, Rick Levine, 
Christopher Locke, Doc Searls and David Weinberger posted the 
``Cluetrain Manifesto.''
  In it they said that, ``A powerful global conversation has begun. 
Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to 
share relevant knowledge with blinding speed.''
  Since then, the conversation has only grown.
  While authoritarian regimes like Communist China struggle to control 
the information crossing their borders, millions of private citizens, 
typing away on their home computers, are engaged in millions of 
discreet and overlapping conversations, exchanging information, and 
circulating ideas.
  As Americans, we should be on the side of this dazzling development. 
As citizens of the 21st century, we should recognize we have no power 
to stop it.
  Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute points out that the Supreme 
Court has extended free speech to include nude dancing, online 
pornography, and cross burning.
  It seems only reasonable that free speech should include the humble 
act of posting a blog.

                          ____________________