Now this is stupid:
[B]loggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines. The real question is: Would a link to a candidate’s page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution?
Waldo chimes in with a rebuttal:
The legal issue at question in the case was, pure and simple, free expression. It was with this in mind that, by a 5-4 ruling, the SCOTUS upheld the BCRA’s limitations on soft money contributions, upheld the limitations on attack advertising shortly before elections, struck down the limitations on self-funded campaigns, struck down the ban on contributions from minors, and upheld regulations pertaining to electioneering communications. Those two sections that were struck down were struck down because they stepped over the line of restricting free expression â€” the three that remained were judged not to restrict free expression, as the public seems to agree with.
Remember: the internet is decentralized international construct. That is why it is notoriously difficult to regulate.
What are you going to do – have my webhost shut me down? I’ll just go to a darknet. Or a podcast.
Meanwhile there’s no pornography on the internet and children are safely shielded by the V-Chip.