Details about the bill remain shrouded in secrecy. Clues available to the public suggest that the bill might be stronger than President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity proposal, which was released in May 2011. Reid said that he would bring the bill — expected to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — to the floor during the first Senate work period of 2012.

A classified meeting behind closed doors in October 2011 between key Senate committee leaders with jurisdiction over cybersecurity and White House officials, took place at the request of the Obama administration. Lieberman, in an interview with The Hill in October, said that past Senate cybersecurity bills were considerably stronger than the White House proposal.

Read more: /#ixzz1ljA7dbUO

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes responded to a query by The Associated Press by saying in a brief email that Brewer’s post was removed in error and that Facebook was sorry.

Noyes did not provide further details, including whether the removal of the post on Thursday resulted from complaints received from other Facebook users.

Quick! Someone call the Winklevoss twins! Ah, never mind.

You know Americans don’t know what’s going on and therefore the media can have their way with them intellectually

Great job Vermont for bringing this jackwagon to the national scene. You must be so proud of yourself!

Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will.

The timing of the meeting is already raising eyebrows. Some see it as a way to move the matter along before the GOP assumes the majority and while Congress is not in session to criticize the effort.

* Patrick J. Leahy — Vermont
* Herb Kohl — Wisconsin
* Dianne Feinstein — California
* Russ Feingold — Wisconsin
* Arlen Specter — Pennsylvania
* Chuck Schumer — New York
* Dick Durbin — Illinois
* Benjamin L. Cardin — Maryland
* Sheldon Whitehouse — Rhode Island
* Amy Klobuchar — Minnesota
* Al Franken — Minnesota
* Chris Coons — Delaware

It seems blatantly obvious to me that neither party learned their lesson from the November 2nd elections. Grassley unfortunately just won re-election. The rest of these phony Republicans need to be primaried the next time they are up for re-election.

Midwest Realty Management
(920) 426-2001
2990 Universal St, #A, Oshkosh, WI 54904

This company is forcing Army Veteran Charlie Price to to remove his American flag display in his Wisconsin apartment the day after Memorial Day, or face eviction! The wife of Charlie Price who is Dawn Price told Fox News that she received a call from officials at Midwest Realty Management early Wednesday indicating that she and her husband, Charlie, would be allowed to continue flying the American flag they’ve had in their window for months through the holiday weekend. The couple had previously been told they had to remove the flag by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials. As is typical for cowardly progressives like those in charge of this company, officials at Midwest Realty Management, which manages Brookside Apartments, where the Prices live, did not return several messages seeking comment. They did however release a statement saying that company officials said the policy was established to provide a consistent living environment for all residents. Yea, A consistent living environment for all residents unless you display the American flag I guess.

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

“It’s basically an extension so we can fly the flag on Memorial Day,” Price told FoxNews.com. “It does need to come down after that.”

Charlie Price, 28, served tours of duty as a combat engineer in Iraq and Kosovo, his wife said. To honor his eight years of service, she began decorating their apartment during Veterans Day in November. An American flag topped off the display, she said.

“I knew it made Charlie really proud to see that,” she said. “And this isn’t something new. This has been up for quite some time now.”

Veterans’ groups were furious at the realtors’ refusal to allow the flag to fly.

“As a veteran, it sickens me that the Dawn and Charlie Price’s building management company would imply that the American flag could be construed as offensive by their residents,” said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AmVets.

“We’re talking about our most revered national symbol. This is insulting to anyone who has defended our flag honorably, like Charlie Price.”

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no “condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association” may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

“This has been eating at us since Friday,” she said. ‘The best way to fight this isn’t getting an eviction and going after these people in court. That’s just going to cost us a lot of time, energy and money.”

Instead, Dawn Price said she either intends to place a curtain between the flag and the apartment window to block it from onlookers or will move it to a rear balcony come next week.

“We don’t want to fight the eviction,” she said. “We know we’d lose.”

Despite the brief reprieve, Dawn Price said her husband is disappointed by the flag flap.

“He actually sees it as a slap in the face to his service,” she said. “He’s pretty upset about it, especially right around Memorial Day.”

A Facebook group created by Dawn Price, “Freedom to Display the American Flag,” had roughly 2,000 members as of Wednesday.

“As a father of a son [who] is currently serving in Iraq this blackens my heart!!!!” read one comment. “These men and women sign a blank check up to and including their life!”

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

No legitimate justification exists for excluding media corporations from regulations on political speech applicable to other corporations, unless the goal is to gain the support of editorial boards funded by the New York Times Co.

The DISCLOSE Act would ban U.S. subsidiaries from speaking if foreign nationals own 20 percent of a company’s voting shares. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim owns a 7 percent stake in The New York Times Co.—yet the New York Times would not be restricted if other non-citizens owned 13 percent of the company’s stock.

The Times editorial board expressly advocates the election or defeat of candidates, acts of political speech worth thousands of dollars, yet it is exempted from similar regulations imposed on other companies wishing to speak out about candidates. The Times also writes unsigned, anonymous attacks, yet the DISCLOSE Act would compel the political speech and identification of nonprofit groups: a bulky, filmed disclaimer estimated to be 2-3 times longer than candidates’ disclaimers.

All this hasn’t stopped the Times and other dead-tree media outlets from enthusiastically endorsing the DISCLOSE Act. Perhaps the Times scribes wouldn’t be so rah-rah about these regulations if they realized they would give government the power to regulate political speech on the Web and determine which companies are “media”—meaning exempt from regulation—and which are “political”—meaning heavily regulated.

The House version of the DISCLOSE Act, expected to be marked-up next week, includes the definitions “communication” and “covered communication,” which differs from the term “public communication” adopted by the FEC in a 2006 rule exempting online speech from government control.

When McGinley and the Center for Competitive Politics pointed this out amid the Democrats’ rush to pass this poorly-written bill, “reformers” attacked the messengers. In a post called “Who would’ve known that the DISCLOSE Act calls for burning books, regulating the Internet—and even creates death panels?” Public Citizen lobbyist Craig Holman compared pointing out a serious consequence of sloppy statutory language in this campaign finance bill to “invent[ing] the myth that the [health care bill] would create the infamous ‘death panels.’”

This is outrageous in a land said to value and respect free speech. It seems they only want their cronies in the mainstream media to be free. The rest of us can go hang. Durbin and Feinstein. What should one expect from the likes of them?

If they get their way, these are the conditions that would apply, defining journalists and ensuring Federal protections were in place. But only under these conditions:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN )

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that—

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.

In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.

In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

(WASHINGTON, DC) – In an astonishing acceleration of the stifling of debate and transparency in the House, Democrats tonight voted to adjourn and gag the planned special orders speeches of U.S. Representatives John Carter (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA).

Carter and King had announced they would discuss Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) statement that the upcoming health care reform effort would fail if Members were required to read the legislation. House Democrats accordingly silenced floor debate on the issue by voting to close early.

“The Democrats are the majority – for now,” says Carter, House Republican Conference Secretary. “They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing assault against representative democracy.”

Arbitron’s Portable People Meter (PPM) provides the first truly accurate system for measuring radio listening. Because it is passive, rather than requiring a diary to be manually maintained, opportunities for cheating have virtually been eliminated.

So now, the Obama controlled FCC is putting pressure on the government to make Arbitron change its measurement tools to ensure PC results, according to Michelle Malkin.

On March 17, a Republican lawyer, quoting a confidential source for a Times reporter, testified to Congress that the newspaper killed a story last fall because it would have been “a game-changer” in the presidential election.

The charge, amplified by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News in April and reverberating around the conservative blogosphere, is about the most damning allegation that can be made against a news organization. If true, it would mean that Times editors, whose job is to report the facts without fear or favor, were so lacking in integrity that they withheld an important story in order to influence the election.

I have spent several weeks looking into this issue – interviewing and e-mailing those involved, reading transcripts, looking at campaign finance records and conferring with legal experts. In a nutshell, I think the charge is nonsense.

In his very first sentence Hoyt makes a careless mistake: it was March 19, not March 17 (St. Patrick’s Day), that the “Republican lawyer,” Heather Heidelbaugh, testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Other sites covering this topic:

Flotsam and Jetsam
Jules Crittenden
Jason Hayes – Musing
Cold Fury
Ace of Spades HQ
BitsBlog

While President Obama is on record opposing the return of the Fairness Doctrine, which is viewed by many as an attempt to squelch the free speech of conservatives in the media, these documents show that the FCC is considering alternative proposals that may also regulate free speech in the media under the professed goal of “diversity.”

For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new “localism” measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more “responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve.” These proposed measures, highlighted in a document entitled, “The Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Approved Rulemaking,” included a requirement that broadcasters, “provide 3 hours per week of locally-produced program,” and that licensees establish “permanent advisory boards (including representatives of underserved community segments).” The FCC noted that these measures would become part of the application renewal process to make sure broadcasters “meet their responsibilities.”

Problems with “localism” are highlighted in a legal memo written by Kathleen Kirby of the law firm Wiley Rein and submitted to Rosemary Harold, serving as legal counsel to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell. In the document, which was distributed internally at the FCC, Ms. Kirby advises that the Fairness Doctrine “would do well to stay dead.” Ms. Kirby then turns her attention to “localism,” advising that such a policy could represent a “stealth enactment” of the Fairness Doctrine. Ms. Kirby states: “Convene permanent advisory boards? Give aggrieved listeners ‘more straightforward guidance’ on ‘how individuals can directly participate in the license renewal process?’ That sounds mild. But then again, so did the Fairness Doctrine.”

“These documents are a useful insight into the internal debates at the FCC about the Fairness Doctrine and its cousin, ‘localism,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We’re going to have to keep an eye on this FCC. The last thing our country needs is bureaucrats in the Obama administration stomping on the First Amendment rights of conservatives.”

Today, at 2pm, the Senate will vote on two amendments with respect to the Fairness Doctrine.

- The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine.

- The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.

Here’s an article that seems to get at what Durbin’s amendment is about.

Senator DeMint will encourage all senators to OPPOSE the Durbin Amendment.

The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force.

Eternal vigilance is required.

***

Update 1:30pm Eastern. The DeMint amendment passes 87-11, but as Sen. DeMint Tweets: “Our ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But fight not over, Dems have attacked from back door on media ownership, localism.”

More from The Hill.

Durbin’s measure passed 57-41.

Here are the rolls for DeMint’s and Durbin’s bills; the latter, unsurprisingly, was party-line. Durbin himself voted for DeMint’s amendment, as did Debbie Stabenow — who, you’ll recall, was calling for hearings on bringing back Fairness as recently as three weeks ago.

The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is cosponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill…

Sen. DeMint stated: “I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.

“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”

But on the brighter side, Jeff Sessions tells Mark Levin: “Darned right we’ll filibuster the Fairness Doctrine”. WELL DUH! You’d better!