In response to the H.R. 1606 bill that was sent to Congress for a vote, Steven A. Stehling wrote an article for Standards and Grudges that lamented the fact that the bill was unable to be passed. In his mind, this bill, which addressed the need to remove internet communication from the current Federal Election Laws, presented a chance for the administration to take a stand on the grey area of the internet. On the other hand, Tammy Baldwin and representatives from other states ultimately thought that the bill was attempting to fix a problem that did not exist and voted it down.

The problem that Stehling and other critics see is that these types of actions prevent the protection of freedom of speech that is granted by the first amendment to the Constitution. Instead, it will give the FCC more control and power over what is acceptable in the online world. As blogs and other forms of writing are clearly expressions of free speech, this action contradicts the basic right of the people. Even when applied to the boundaries of an election campaign, Stehling argues that people should be able to say what they feel and not be censored by the government. He sees the results of this type of process as changing the willingness of people to get involved in political activity and giving more control to the actual political parties. In fact, he goes so far as to state that the voting down of the new measure was in fact a coordinated effort by both parties to keep control of the political process and was more in their own self interest than that of their constituencies.

The basic message that has been sent from Capitol Hill is that free speech is no longer welcome when it comes to the arena of politics. Stehling’s view is that anyone with an issue about a political topic should be free to address the problem in the forum that best fits the situation. In many cases of electoral concerns, the best platform will be through the internet, either through blogs or other types of formats. Instead, these ideas are being called part of special interest groups as a way to limit the experience of the individual in the group and make it easier for federal authorities to block controversial topics or statements.

Stehling also wonders where the lines of the power of Congress to limit free speech will stop. At present, the line is at internet communication that deals with elections, but this could easily be expanded with a set precedent in place. The FCC could also decide that abortion or gun control are topics that should not be present in internet communication and take measures to limit the free speech of people that choose to talk about those issues. Stehling makes it clear that he believes the time of the Constitution protecting free speech is over as legislators are no longer keeping the best interest of the people in mind.

The new mindset of the American representatives is to serve the best interest of the party and not necessarily the one that will provide the most good for the people. In times like this, Stehling asserts that Congress must pick up the slack and pass laws that give the power of free speech back to the people. With the internet appearing in nearly every facet of everyday life, that freedom is more important now than ever. To protect the right of a person to speak on the internet, new bills will need to be created that address the unique set of circumstances that the online arena provides.