Dems Call For New Regulations And Fines To Force Sites To Crackdown On Suspicious Posters

960px-Amy_Klobuchar,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressOn Sunday,Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar joined the growing call for new regulation of Internet speech, including the imposition of fines on sites that fail to remove posters and comments of suspected “bots.”  While the true impact of the Russian trolls and bots is being hotly debated (and I admit that I am skeptical), Democrats are calling for measures that worry many of us in the free speech community.


Klobuchar said it would be “a great idea” to pass legislation that allowed for the fining of companies like Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. should be fined if they don’t remove automated accounts, or bots.

The “great idea” of fining sites and companies is an invitation for Internet regulation — something ironically that Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian figures have been pushing for years.  The fear is that, once the government starts to fine sites for failing to remove suspected automated or bot poster, it can start to target suspected paid trolls or, as in Europe, anyone viewed offensive or intolerant.

Klobuchar however said that this may not happen because “You need a Congress to act, and there are too many people that are afraid of doing something about this because we know these sites are popular.”  So is free speech.

106 thoughts on “Dems Call For New Regulations And Fines To Force Sites To Crackdown On Suspicious Posters”

  1. If you had gotten your wish , she would have won and none of the corruption that has been exposed despite deep state would have come to light . We need a purge of smugs teaching nothing but smugness in our law schools and producing unthinking “leaders” of the rapidly developing third world imitating govt!

  2. Off topic. Regarding mental patients who need to be patients. Trump is on TV right now and and he addressed the issue of civil commitment of mentally ill humans who threaten lives of other humans. Thank you Donald. Jeso. I am becoming a Donald Fan.

    1. Gee, I can’t help but wonder how the Trumpsters would feel if Russian internet bots cost him the election. Of course, since he’s taken BK so many times that US banks wouldn’t loan him money, he had to go elsewhere, like Russia. That’s why he never criticizes Russia or Putin, and why he’s into them for who knows how much.

  3. Why do politicians always jump on the ‘regulation’ bandwagon when civil liberties and freedom of speech is the underlying issue? Adding more regulation to the internet is just another way of controlling the message to benefit the privileged few. If they love regulation and restriction so much how about initiating strong TERM LIMITS on all politicians?

    1. Well said.

      Democrats are at their wits end. How are they going to continue to offer only monsters like Hillary if people can talk openly on the internet about what is in their best interest and not simply the interest of the corporate donor class that keeps the Democrats going.

      Republicans have the same problem and would be happy to let the Dems bend their arm over speech limiting legislation, but for the inconvenient fact that their public messages have to be different from the Dems even if their internal goals are remarkably similar. Otherwise, how to maintain the illusion that we need two parties? So if at least what is publicly said must be different between the two parties, then hammering people’s fingers for typing the wrong thing on the internet would always be to the advantage or disadvantage of one of the parties. Can’t have that or they risk loosing their corporate sponsors, never mind their base.

    2. They’re not just politicians, they’re also legislators, so it’s natural that that’s the hammer they would try to use. There’s obviously a serious problem to be addressed here. I don’t know that this approach is wise or would even work, but I have no reason to think that she’s not trying to legitimately address the problem. Not everything is a conspiracy.

  4. Well I hate to inform the elites of this, but if a comment is persuasive, it’s persuasive. It it’s not, it’s not. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. It matters what’s in it.

    I suspect the all-knowing soothsayer Vlad Putin knows as much about America as our elites “knew” about Iraq when they sent our fellow 20-sometings in there to make the world safe for Democracy — an act of arrogance supported by the last Democratic Presidential nominee.

    1. SR – the elites manufactured evidence knowing the average American would fall for it as it was linked to 9/11. Now they are trying the same tricks again against Iran and more subtly against Russia. I hope Putin wins again next month – he is at least sane and level-headed – another leader might have reacted very differently as NATO builds up on their borders.

      1. You better be careful Autumn. Amy Klobuchar’s about to claim you’re a bot. And who knows maybe you are. But I’ll deal with your comment on the merits, not by labeling you as something.

        And let’s not ridiculous about Putin all right? He looks like a typical autocrat to me. And I’m pretty sure most Americans see him that way.

        1. Steve, I am happily typing this from a dacha in Odessa =) definitely Putin is an autocrat but he has done some good things for Russia. How he runs his country is not of interest to me — just that he keeps a cool head and we don’t go into full bore Cold War 2.0 as the neo cons so desperately want.

  5. Direct Attack on free speech by the socialist fascist left. Another proof the left hates the Constitution.

  6. Lost in the discussion of Russian interference in the 2016 election is the fact that the Russians have been interfering in our elections for 100 years, since the establishment of the Soviet Union. Many other countries do the same. Some of them are our purported allies. We probably do the same to other countries.

    What differentiates the 2016 election from all of the others in which the Russians have meddled is that this time the Russians favored the Republicans. Rather than infiltrate labor unions, Hollywood, academia, the Vietnam anti-war movement and other pro-Democratic groups, this time The Russians used 21st Century technology to support the GOP. If the Russians had stuck to their time honored approach, few would utter a peep.

    1. VJ re: “We probably do the same to other countries”

      “Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Often covert in their execution, these efforts included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandanistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. All told, the U.S. allegedly targeted the elections of 45 nations across the globe during this period, Levin’s research shows. In the case of some countries, such as Italy and Japan, the U.S. attempted to intervene in four or more separate elections.

      Levin’s figures do not include military coups or regime change attempts following the election of a candidate the U.S. opposed, such as when the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, in 1953. He defines an electoral intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” According to Levin’s research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries.”

      To build his database, Levin says he relied on declassified U.S. intelligence as well as a number of Congressional reports on CIA activity. He also combed through what he considered reliable histories of the CIA and covert American activity, as well as academic research on U.S. intelligence, diplomatic histories of the Cold War, and memoirs of former CIA officials. Much of America’s meddling in foreign elections has been well-documented — Chile in the 1960s, Haiti in the 1990s. But Malta in 1971? According to Levin’s study, the U.S. attempted to “goose” the tiny Mediterranean island’s economy in the months leading up to its election that year.

      Much of the America’s electoral meddling occurred throughout the Cold War as a response to containing Soviet influence through the spread of supposed leftist proxies, the findings suggest. And to be clear, the U.S. wasn’t the only one trying to sway foreign elections. By Levin’s count, Russia attempted to interfere in other countries’ elections 36 times between the end of World War II and the end of the 20th century, bringing the total number of electoral interventions by the two countries to 117 during that period.

      Yet even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. continued its interventions abroad, including elections in Israel, former Czechoslovakia, and even Russia in 1996, Levin found. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine, Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, among others.”

  7. It’s good Klobuchar outted herself. She will be primaried for sure by Progressives. Unlike Dimtards we support free speech and understand the implications of taking down videos, posts and sites by those we disagree with.

    1. Amy should be primaried because she voted for the Trump budget which increased defense spending by massive amounts. She has compromised so much she has angered the left but she is not being primaried. She does not even have a republican challenger. She is in.

      1. so what the socialist progressively regressive left is always angry about something and it’s usually something they don’t like about our Constitutional Republic.

      2. Swarthmoremom said, “She has compromised so much she has angered the left but she is not being primaried.”

        It’s incredibly disappointing. What was Klobuchar thinking? She’d better not run for president.

  8. The FISA court has shown that the Fourth Amendment is already gone. Klobuchar’s bot call is just cover for going after the First Amendment rights of gun owners.

  9. I don’t live in her district, mine got rid of himself (thankfully). I might just move to her district and campaign against her.

    She is another example of being elected by name recognition.

    In 1999, she came to a light rail information meeting. I’m not sure how bright this one is. I wasn’t impressed.

  10. This is crazy! The dumbocrats are truly unhinged. Isn’t halting and stopping all speech except your messages something Putin enforces? I just don’t get get it……

  11. Most in da free speech community complained when da T rumpers ended net neutrality. Nothin was said by da Turley.

    1. I’ve speculated a relationship to bolstering advantage for the richest 0.1%. But, I’m open to a different explanation.

      1. I’ve speculated a relationship to bolstering advantage for the richest 0.1%.

        1. You’ve only speculated those richest 0.1% were in support of conservatives causes.
        2. You’ve never been
        open to a different explanation.

    2. Ken, dat’s because da so-called “net neutrality” was in reality a way to enable the guvmint to regulate da internet.

      (I tried to write this in Ken-ese, but it’s difficult to ignore all those years of education)

  12. Obviously what is “offensive and intolerant” to some is “real news” to others. Maybe we should popularly elect a person to make a judgement on what is real and what is fake?

Comments are closed.