Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
John Culberson
Is this you? Claim Profile »
12 months ago
in 2008/07/08/congress-censor-twitter-qik/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Heres how the House leadership will use this rule to control where and what I say and even exercise influence over your website/blog etc
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to be preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. It is my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to be preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. It is my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
1 reply
12 months ago
in House Committee Seeks to Tighten the Content You Can See in Government on Stay N' Alive
Heres how the House leadership will use this rule to control where and what I say and even exercise influence over your website/blog etc
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to be preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. Itis my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to be preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. Itis my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
- 2 points
- Jump to »
jessestay
Representative Culberson, very great explanation - I agree, this is
essential and will affect not only our government, but we as bloggers. I'm
proud to have people like you represent Texas.
essential and will affect not only our government, but we as bloggers. I'm
proud to have people like you represent Texas.
12 months ago
in Congressmen, Censorship, and Social Media on Bang the Drum
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always the first to admit I am wrong when I can be shown I am in error. I am an attorney and I know what the letter says and what they mean with it. The people implementing this new rule may be benevolent and have noble purposes, but that is irrelevant. This violates the First Amendment.
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov't/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always the first to admit I am wrong when I can be shown I am in error. I am an attorney and I know what the letter says and what they mean with it. The people implementing this new rule may be benevolent and have noble purposes, but that is irrelevant. This violates the First Amendment.
1 reply
Karoli
What I wonder is this: Do the folks who are promulgating these rules really understand what social media is? This letter seems to aim specifically at video, but has been drafted in such a way that sites like Twitter, Utterz, and Friendfeed all end up in the mix as well.
As a citizen, I would much rather be engaging you on a real-time basis. It benefits Congress to be transparent and open with us. One of Obama's planks is transparency and open government. There isn't anything that's much more transparent than engagement of voters via social media. Obama uses it regularly -- Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, etc. (though his use of Twitter isn't what I'd like it to be).
Is this ignorance? I think it is. The question is, how do we educate them before they try to push these rules through?
As a citizen, I would much rather be engaging you on a real-time basis. It benefits Congress to be transparent and open with us. One of Obama's planks is transparency and open government. There isn't anything that's much more transparent than engagement of voters via social media. Obama uses it regularly -- Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, etc. (though his use of Twitter isn't what I'd like it to be).
Is this ignorance? I think it is. The question is, how do we educate them before they try to push these rules through?
You're not here in an official capacity. This letter addresses members of Congress using outside websites for in their official capacity. When the "Rs" were in charge, they were going out of their way to stifle free speech by imposing fees on our Internet travels. I'm sure you of all people have heard of Net Neutrality?
Also, I notice that for someone who is so concerned about your free speech and ours you voted FOR the FISA reauthorization. Where was your concern for our rights when this bill came down the pipe, Rep.Culberson?
You know that this letter does not mean that, but that doesn't stop you from being divisive. Is it election year?