<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for John Culberson</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/cb4574c67ba6a1b871753c3017cf888d/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:56:27 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: House Committee Seeks to Tighten the Content You Can See in Government</title><link>http://staynalive.disqus.com/house_committee_seeks_to_tighten_the_content_you_can_see_in_government/#comment-842058</link><description>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&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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." &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;thanks&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;John Culberson</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Culberson</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:54:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Congressmen, Censorship, and Social Media</title><link>http://bangthedrum.disqus.com/congressmen_censorship_and_social_media/#comment-841975</link><description>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." &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Culberson</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:35:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2008/07/08/congress-censor-twitter-qik/</title><link>http://mashable.disqus.com/thread_53271/#comment-6010144</link><description>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&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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." &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;thanks&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;John Culberson</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Culberson</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:56:27 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>