Bill to Protect Bloggers Defeated in House

Posted on November 3, 2005

The Online Freedom of Speech Act (also known as the FOS Act) was defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives. Most lawmakers voted to pass the bill but there were not enough to get the 2/3 majority needed. The final decision was 225-182 (Roll Call). InternetNews.com says the bill failed because Democrats were concerned the bill would "open the door for more soft money in politics with the Internet serving as the primary conduit." A Slashdot entry also blames Democrats.

House Speaker and blogger Dennis Hastert blogged about the bill's defeat. Hastert says, "Today's action marks a sad day for one of our nation's most sacred rights: freedom of speech. The federal government seeks to control and regulate the Internet, but the last thing this Congress should be doing is trying to stifle public debate online. This bill would have kept the hands of the federal government off of Internet speech and protected the online debate that's underway. Our world has evolved and grown more technologically savvy. Lawmakers need to adjust to these changes. Unfortunately, opponents of online speech have decided to punish our changing technological world. It's especially unfortunate that Democratic Leader Pelosi voted no to free speech. This bill will come back under regular order, and I encourage all those who support free speech on the Internet to make their voices heard."

Many other bloggers are also posting about the decision. The Daily Kos has a post on the defeated bill. It says, "The recap: We lobbied; a flimsy subsitute was introduced at the last minute; Congress voted; we lost 225-182 (two-thirds was need); Reps. Pelosi and Waxman explained their opposition, but Markos isn't buying it."

Illinois Pundit said the bill "could hurt the ability of bloggers to voice their opinions without federal government regulation" and linked to Dennis Hastert's blog post.

Coyote Blog found some hope: "Politicians have again shown themselves ready to trash the Constitution in order to limit the speech of those potentially critical to themselves. Apparently, there is reason to hope, since bill sponsors are trying to bring the bill to the floor in a more routine process that would require only a majority vote for passage (which the bill appears to be able to garner)."

Despite concerns among bloggers that the bill will now never pass a ZDNet article leaves hope that the bill could pass in the future: "It may eventually receive another vote under a slower, normal procedure that requires only a majority."