You can now blog to your heart's content on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission says so. Yippee!

In a unanimous ruling, the FEC "gave" Internet bloggers the same "media exemption" from federal government regulation that newspapers enjoy. (You know, that "freedom of the press" loophole.) So, we can blog! We bloggers and little ol' net-surfers can write whatever we want to about politics and our generous leaders. Shout it from the rooftops of cyberspace!

And without being regulated by the government. We're not living in China, after all . . . where apparently the Chinese equivalent of the FEC went the other way.

One conservative blogger termed the FEC's decision "a tremendous win for speech." Liberal blogger Duncan Black posited that "This could have been an utter disaster, but it appears to have all worked out in the end." The Washington Post reported that any concerns we had for our freedoms, as the federal tribunal mulled over the fate of Internet speech, were "unfounded."

We are supposed to be very glad. Delighted. Tingly all over.

But don't be glad. Definitely don't tingle.

Why not? Because our rights — and let's agree that freedom of speech is a real biggie — come hard-wired. They're "inalienable," "endowed" to us by our "Creator," as the Declaration of Independence puts it.

Do you honor the FEC as your "Creator"?

Next thing you know, the Defense Department will announce, to much fanfare, that it won't be quartering soldiers in our homes. The courts will then declare that they're A-OK with continuing use of trial by jury.

Gee, thanks.

Congress Unbound

Over the last three decades or so, the federal government has launched an enormously successful attack on political speech. It's in this context that the FEC's declaration that it shall not endeavor to regulate or control bloggers (for now) is greeted as a stupendous victory.

This story begins with Congress, that collective of gutless wonders whistling past the graveyard . . . where our liberties lie buried. Our bloggers' rights wouldn't have faced the FEC knife had Congress not passed legislation allowing itself to regulate political speech in complete contradiction to the Constitution. Cleverly, Congress assigned the dirty work over to the FEC, so those same politicians can decry any unpopular restriction as a rotten regulatory application of their sweet-smelling law.

Not that law matters to today's career politician. After all, they ignore the ultimate law regarding speech, the First Amendment. This most important chunk of our Constitution specifically denies to the Congress any lawmaking role that would "abridge" freedom of speech. Today, when most congressmen hear the word "abridge," they of course think of "nowhere" and some of the all-time great pork-barreling feats. But the word actually means that Congress cannot in any way diminish or lessen our rights to speak freely.

Thus, for Congress to create a complex regulatory system for political speech — as does the McCain-Feingold statute, as do all the other campaign finance laws going back to the aftermath of Watergate — isn't even a close call constitutionally. They can't do what they've done.

Speech Law: a Many-Tentacled Thing

The Court chose not merely to uphold McCain-Feingold, it went on to encourage incumbents in Congress — whenever they see a need (read: feel threatened) — to clamp down in new ways and on any new form of communication. The Court recognized that freedom of speech is hard to squash and asked Congress to be ever-vigilant. Continued...