Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

There are forms of communication Congressional Democrats AREN'T aiming to censor? Scratch that, "Congressmen" aren't ... No man's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is safe while Congress is in session. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver

You guys should go re-read this post, along with the posts by O'Reilly, Masnick and Aaron Brazell (including his second update). Rizzn, I'm afraid you've wildly misinterpreted what that one guy, Capuano, was trying to say. - Eric Eldon

He's trying to enforce House rules with the intention to censor. He could have written a letter asking to relax these rules, but he didn't. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

Good read, thanks Mark. - Veronica

Heh. Thanks, Veronica. I tried to clearly mark the "boring" and "interesting" parts so that I'd have a better shot at folks making it to the end of the article. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

I don't get it. Currently the making of official posts (including videos) can only be on the government site. The letter proposes ways to allow posting elsewhere, but with care to avoid association with advertising and political material. So there is no addition of restrictions. They are proposing ways to relax the current ones for posting of videos. So yes, that is a knee-jerk post. - Dennis E. Hamilton via twhirl

I also believe that the blogosphere and especially Twitter were "played" by repetitious tweets that kept making the same mis-statement. - Dennis E. Hamilton via twhirl

Masnick has also replied, Mark. - Eric Eldon

I am rarely on Twitter and Culberson isn't on FriendFeed. I didn't see his repetitive tweets til much later. I got my news via back channel then saw Culbersons tweets. I read Techdirt and others including Mashable. I'm very much aligned with Mark on this one... While I don't believe it's partisan, per se, it's somewhat appalling that House leadership would go out of their way to squash the ability of Congressmen to talk directly to their constituency without throwing road blocks. That's my beef with it - Aaron Brazell

Did anyone read the letter? It was obviously supporting the use of these technologies to communicate with a constituency. It was simply stating that it should be done in a way within the rules. When a citizen goes to find information they want to know it is true and from the source they are seeking it. There is no guarantee the congressperson on twitter IS that person unless offically sanctioned in some fashion. That's the point! Use the tech but make it so citizens can know it is official. - aka Taylor

It's supporting them in a backhanded way. It's saying "let's create a whitelist." That's censorship, I'm afraid. That means there's a whole lot of places that won't be sanctioned, if the rules are enforced. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

No it's saying lets make sure there are official places where citizens to go where they know they are getting official information. Because I know I'd think twice about believeing 'GWBush' on Twitter when he tweets all apple fans are to be branded with the Apple logo. At least until I went to whitehouse.gov and saw we were to report to the rose garden at 8am. It's not censorship to create a place where citizens know they are getting something real and official. - aka Taylor

think of it like this...i can't go to the 7 Eleven to get an official drivers license. The one I buy from the guy there might have all the right information ... don't make it official...or real. - aka Taylor

What i'd like to see is the gov to invent a token or graphic or something that they can use on a site that denotes an official status. Owner of said site would be required to verify anyone using said token is the official they say they are but that way a congressperson could utilize in new and cutting edge sites instead of having to wait for a site to be "approved". A portable token would give officials more flexibility while still creating credentials...doesn't solve the advertising issue though... - aka Taylor

Here's a question: where does the private citizen end and the representative begin? - Andrew Feinberg

Ok kids, go crazy. But um...yeah.... research is a good thing. http://www.blogher.com/gop-rep... - Erin Kotecki Vest

It is, however, censorship to say that a private citizen (ie. a Congresscritter) can't speak officially wherever they please. If they want to speak officially on Twitter, that's their concern. If they want it likely to be recognized as such they'll have to be supported by authoritative sources as deemed by the audience. Mandating authoritative sources may be governmental, but it's a still a regulation of free speech. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver

HELLO! 1st amendment time... lame-O - Susan Beebe

House rules have a number of restrictions on the 1st Amendment. Private individuals cannot take notes in the House chambers. Members cannot disparage the motivation of another member for voting a certain way, etc. Some of this is related to the 'Speech and Debate' clause of the Constitution and the provisions that prohibit Members from being arrested for certain things while working. These House rules are designed to keep this unlimited freedom they have in some matters in check. - Andrew Leyden