Email This to a Friend
Congress Debates Muzzling Congressmen Online
Democrats want to restrict how members of Congress use social media tools and blogs. Think that will help their approval rating?
A bitter debate over the revision of arcane rules in the House of Representatives could set a precedent for how the U.S. Congress may try to regulate social media and the blogosphere in the future. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) ignited a storm of online fury this week when he announced on the microblogging service Twitter that House Democrats were poised to ban members of Congress from using social media tools or posting online without prior committee consent, and then only on designated “official” external websites.
Culberson referred to a letter of proposed rule changes by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) sent to Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA), chair of the House Administration Committee. In a press release, Capuano heatedly denied that his proposals would result in censorship, asserted that they were limited to the posting of videos and were a “loosening” of the old rules, and stated that his primary concern was preventing “commercialization” and revising rules “without selling the House of Representatives to the highest bidder.” In turn, Culberson disputed Capuano and claimed the rules as written would result in drastic restrictions on the use of social media by representatives, arguing “Congress often regulates what they don’t understand.”
Capuano’s rule changes received mixed reviews from experts in the online community. While defended by Techdirt’s Mike Masnick, who accurately pointed out that the existing rules were actually worse, Shlok Vaidya, a Washington energy security analyst and blogger, dismissed them as a prescription for a “Congressional walled garden.” Mashable.com ’s Mark Hopkins flatly derided the intent, stating, “The upshot is that Michael Capuano is for some reason uneasy or afraid of the shift toward openness in access to our nation’s legislators made possible by social media and … he aims to have it cut off at the head.”
Nor was one of the leading Web 2.0 experts, Clay Shirky, reassured either, writing at Open House Project: “They can enforce it the way we enforce parking rules, which is to miss most violations, and then bring in draconian enforcement of enough violations to have a chilling effect. This will also allow the Rules Committee to wield enforcement selectively as a stick.” Representative Capuano, who has described the internet as “a necessary evil,” would be one of the enforcers and he is part of a larger Democratic House leadership whose speaker, Nancy Pelosi, also supports a revival of the long-defunct “Fairness Doctrine” that made it unprofitable for broadcast networks to permit robust political expression on air.
There is certainly a legitimate and longstanding interest in preventing the misuse of federal employees or funds by prohibiting them from having any connection to campaign activities, a point on which Republicans and Democrats can easily agree. Furthermore, Capuano is correct to call the current rules “antiquated” and more restrictive, on paper at least, than his proposals. However, the old rules have been widely ignored by congressmen and have never been enforced, which left members of the House free to post online and engage in virtual interaction as they pleased. Enforcing the new, somewhat milder restrictions, as Capuano intends to do, amounts to a severe regime of prior restraint on speech.
More ominous still would be the precedent of the U.S. government designating “official” external websites — imagine having the power to select “official” newspapers — that would have to hew to House regulations and be as free as possible from political or commercial advertising. Given the ubiquity of blogads, most blogs, bulletin boards, and discussion forums would be shut out of the conversation with our nation’s elected officials. Essentially, Capuano is demanding that the internet adapt itself to the House of Representatives instead of the House adapting to the reality of the internet.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Mark Safranski blogs at Zenpundit.com, Chicago Boyz, and several other sites. An educator and historian, he is the editor of The John Boyd Roundtable: Debating Science, Strategy and War.
![]() |
![]() |
Podcasts | PJM Home |





PJM Home


Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Andrew Ian Dodge:How is this shocking? Dems don’t understand the entire process of exploring, drilling and refining oil. How are they expected to understand the nature of the internet and social networking?
Jul 14, 2008 - 4:15 am 2. Dodgeblogium » (Dems in) Congress Debates Muzzling Congressmen Online:[...] prior committee consent, and then only on designated “official” external websites. read more | digg [...]
Jul 14, 2008 - 4:17 am 3. Tom:The only openness in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania is the open wallets of taxpayers to fund corrupt politicians and their billionaire buddies. Check out the budget processes and the empty promises of reform.
Jul 14, 2008 - 6:05 am 4. MarkD:They hava a nine percent approval rating, and they are working on decreasing it.
They have long since forgotten that their job is to represent us. Heaven forbid that there should be any timely communication with constituents. They might have to keep a lobbyist waiting.
Jul 14, 2008 - 7:25 am 5. redhawk:What the Pelosi Reid Policy of Inept Non Leadership is their master plan to Socilaize everythinmg .. Oil refineries, Transportation, Health care and ( and these idiots have not “gotten it yet”) the Socalled FREE press…as well as our Individual Right of free speech …
Jul 14, 2008 - 8:44 am 6. JOHN:Any wonder for the 9% ratings.. BUT is the American public ‘ Getting it” ?
MAYBE IF CONGRESS SPENT LESS TIME ONLINE AND MORE TIME DOING THIER JOBS THINGS WOULD BE BETTER.
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:08 pm 7. Justin:@ JOHN
Doubtful. Frankly we are all probably safer if this congress just took a nice long vacation. Until they are thrown out of office.
Jul 14, 2008 - 2:26 pm 8. Steynian 198 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] CONGRESS Debates Muzzling Congressmen Online …. [...]
Jul 14, 2008 - 2:38 pm 9. keithacita:these fake marxists are determined to cripple the american economy. they’re mostly rich attorneys who have little understanding of business and science and don’t care.
Jul 14, 2008 - 5:31 pm 10. Rubicon:they’re always on another vacation. watch how they starting pushing their agenda against globalwarmingophobia. the will join arnold schwartzenkennedy and the mayor of san francisco who are pushing the death penalty for globalwarming deniers.
Whether it is members of Congress reaching out to constituents or talk radio speaking to those who chose to dial in their channels, free speech is free speech.
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:25 pm 11. Chris W.:Any attempt to deny or encumber free speech must be fought in the courts and forced to the Supreme Court quickly.
The “Fairness Doctrine” was not fair. It was designed to limit speech of any who those in power wanted to muzzle.
If we permit Congress to muzzle speech, we will see many more rights gone down the drain as this nation is sold out to the highest bidder.
I do not approve of the job Congress is doing, but I would rather hear what they are up to in up to the moment Internet postings, than to find out months or weeks after the fact when their schemes destroy my freedoms.
The Fairness Doctrine plans would be to silence Rush. Well, 30% of his listeners disagree with him, but they still listen. And just because liberal talk radio is ignored by the public, it is no reason to silence conservative talk radio. Perhaps they should get better talkers & policies the people want to hear about?! Liberal talk radio has as many or more big money backers as conservative radio does, so if they are failing, its their own fault, not the fault of conservatives.
Forcing Congress to speak only though approved venues, amounts to government control of the speech of elected representatives.
Some should be careful what they plan. One day it may come back to bite them hard!
Typical Demogods. If they stop long enough to look in the mirror they may start thingking hey, I am looking at the problem.
Global Warming is bogus and for that Fat Al Gore needs to humble him self and return the Noble Peace Prize.
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:53 am