Dear United States Congress: You're Fired!

By M. David Peterson
July 9, 2008 | Comments: 3

Update: For a slightly different take of the situation, please see Michael Foord's (aka Fuzzyman) follow-up comment.

So what's really going on here?

[Original Post]
... at least that's exactly what's going to happen to each and every one of your lame a$$e$ if you make any attempt what-so-ever to follow through with your attempt to silence those in whom might disagree with your "Sponsored by..." "opinions":


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

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."

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.

I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.

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.


John Culberson

Thank you John Culberson for speaking out while you're still able.

To each of your constituents who are willing to support this obvious violation of the Constitution:

We don't work for you. You work for us. It's time for you to properly understand this.


Now might be a good time to begin considering a career change. I hear McDonald's is hiring.

You might also be interested in:


Well, it's not as clear cut as that. TechDirt is of the opion that Culberson is utterly disingenuous here.


Their stance is that officially the rules *already* forbid it, the democrats are seeking clarification of outdated rules, and Culberson is using it as an opportunity to sling mud.



/me is now watching from the sidelines to see how this all plays out.

This isn't mud-slinging, look at the proposed solution and it would only allow members to post on an officially regulated version of YouTube. Culberson has a point when he says that the franking commission is uninterested in liberalizing access to tools like Qik.

Mike Masnick at TechCrunch doesn't have the facts and he's reporting on TechCrunch as if he posed a direct question to Culberson. He didn't he twittered the congressman. The idea that we're going to confine members of congress to an officially sanctioned, non-commercial YouTube is an outrageous idea as it would preclude members of Congress taking advantage of newer services as they are made available.

the proposed rules are Orwellian, and the whole idea of the franking commission wanting to limit "official communication" to pre-approved venues essentially means that people in congress *would* have to stop using services likeTwitter (as they could be remixed and embedded in third-party sites with advertising).

Popular Topics


Or, visit our complete archives.

Recommended for You

Got a Question?