I recently added my name to the letter sent to the FEC by The Online Coalition asking that the FEC's exemption from rules for speech during federal elections be extended to cover online media and bloggers. I have been thinking about that decision since then and have gone back and re-read the letter several times. I have come to the conclusion that it perhaps would have been better if I had done this level of thinking before signing.

One of the primary concepts in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is the “Sanction of the Victim.” Essentially, this means granting the premise that the government has a right to regulate speech, and that for me to freely express my views I need their permission. Speaking in terms of business, the Objectivist Center describes the concept as follows:

How do the most productive individuals, those who are responsible for a society's prosperity, find themselves abused by politicians and dishonest businessmen and women? Rand sees the key in morality, and she coined the phrase that best describes the root of the problem: the sanction of the victim. If entrepreneurs accept the premises of those who would tie their hands or punish them for their virtues, it is they who empower their enemies.

The sanction usually comes because otherwise honest entrepreneurs are either confused or actually accept the wrong moral premises. {...}

Rand understood that it is essential for entrepreneurs to assert their moral rights. In this way, they remove the sanction of their persecutors.

Accordingly, I have written to the Online Coalition and asked that my name be removed from their letter to the FEC. (The letter is in the extended entry.) Instead I will continue on in the same spirit Patterico expressed so well.

Here’s what I mean:

Quite simply, I intend to go on blogging like I did before. Regardless of whether the FEC promulgates rules for political speech on the Internet, I plan to express my opinions just as I did before. If I need to link to a politician’s campaign web site in order to make my point, I’m going to do so. If I decide to endorse a candidate, I will. If I think my readers should send that candidate money, I will encourage them to do so.

I’ll do this during the next congressional election, and during the next presidential election. I will engage in this core political speech whenever I feel like it. And I will not change my behavior in the slightest, regardless of any FEC regulations.

For example, if the FEC warns me that one more link to a certain politician’s web site will not be permitted, but that link is necessary for me to make my point, I am going to include that link.

I am not going to sign any petitions asking for government’s permission to do this, and I am not going to seek out media credentials to obtain special permission to do this.

If we actually reach the point where my engaging in such core political speech might subject me to arrest – something I believed unthinkable before the BCRA was upheld by our spineless Supreme Court – then I’ll make sure that television cameras are there to watch the authorities slap on the cuffs. Let the authorities prosecute someone for telling the world that someone should or should not be President.

I would welcome such a case, because it would expose, once and for all, the fraud that is campaign finance reform. If the American public saw a citizen dragged off to jail for expressing his political views, maybe this insanity would finally end. Maybe even the editorial board of the New York Times would finally see the light! Since the Supreme Court is little more than a puppet of elite opinionmakers, we might get a ruling upholding our God-given right to free speech.

And if we don’t get such a ruling, maybe we’ll get a Constitutional amendment overruling McCain/Feingold.

I fundamentally don’t believe that Americans, who routinely fight and die for our basic liberties, are just going to stand by and watch someone imprisoned for expressing political beliefs.

I am a recent signatory to your letter addressed to the FEC regarding the possibility of campaign finance restrictions on speech being extended to the internet and bloggers. After giving the matter further thought I have decided that since I do not believe the government has the authority to regulate speech I cannot ask that they grant me an exemption to that regulation. I do not wish to sanction the assault on freedom of speech promulgated under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I believe that by requesting an exemption under BCRA your group is acknowledging the governments authority to regulate who can and cannot speak. That is a sanction I do not wish give.

Accordingly, I would like to ask that my name (#1210) be removed from the list of people who are supporting your letter.

Thank you. I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 11:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment