Dems Want “Full Blown Regulation” Of ALL Political Content On The Internet, Openly Trying to “Intimidate” Americans Who Read Alternative Media

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


In yet another stunning example of the left openly floating the idea of using the government to stifle free speech on the internet, the former Democratic chair of the FEC has written a piece that essentially calls for the regulation of ALL political content on the internet while threatening the American people with lawsuits if they fail to comply.

Ann Ravel, who led the FEC under the Obama Administration and now is a lecturer at Berkeley, co-authored the piece with Abby K. Wood, a professor at the University of California, and a student at USC Gould School of Law, Irina Dykhne. The shocking proposal by the trio uses the purposefully undefined term, “disinformation” as the reasoning behind what would be an unprecedented crackdown on free speech by both the government and media platforms across the web.

In the proposal, government regulators would target Americans who shared stories that were deemed “fake news”, even going as far as to threaten them with libels suits if they shared the “disputed” content after a warning from the “acceptable speech overseers.”

The entire proposal is a must read but some of the more shocking segments include: (take note that this is indeed a direct threat to sue Americans who share content the establishment has labeled disinformation)

Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.

Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.

Ravel also makes clear that this isn’t just about highly produced political ads rather it includes free photo-shopped memes that any average citizen could post. On top of that, to enforce this draconian government takeover, these authoritarian liberals want to use the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

The money involved in online political advertising is more diffuse than ad buys on traditional media. Like traditional ads, some ads produced for the Internet have high production costs. Others, like memes, are free to create. Unlike television and radio ads, some online ads are placed for free. Posting an ad to one’s Facebook Page, or tweeting it into a politically active social network in hopes it goes viral, costs nothing. Advertisers might pay a platform to promote the ad and place it in certain users’ newsfeeds. They might also buy “likes”, “shares”, and “retweets” outside of the platforms, from “troll farms” and “sock puppets”, which are humans who create false profiles and boost content, or from “bot armies”, which are machines mimicking human behavior to boost content.

Finally, tracing the money involved in online political advertising is difficult, particularly when it comes from abroad. Our existing campaign finance enforcer, the Federal Election Commission, is not set up for complicated money tracing and data analysis. Any legislation that results from the current public interest in disinformation advertising should include an allocation of investigation and enforcement power to an agency that is better equipped to conduct the kinds of investigations that can trace money spent online and sometimes across borders, as well.

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) is an agency that has the expertise and capabilities necessary to enforce restrictions on disinformation advertising, though it cannot enforce in this realm without congressional authorization to do so. Congress should either authorize it to act or model a new investigative body on FINCEN.

Republican FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman immediately spoke out against the proposal, telling The Washington Examiner that, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the”

“A fatal flaw of Ann’s proposal is that it cannot define what is, or is not, ‘disinformation’ in a political message. Nevertheless, it proposes to tag threats of libel lawsuits and liability to thousands of American citizens who might want to retweet or forward a message that somebody else subjectively considers to be ‘disinformational.’ I call that the big chill,” Goodman continued.

Make no mistake, this isn’t actually about fighting foreign governments attempts at meddling in American elections. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt by the establishment to cut off the peoples access to independent news outlets that the powers that be have deemed “disinformation.” In other words, any news outlet willing to publish information that doesn’t strictly line up with the establishment narrative.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Alex Thomas of The Daily Sheeple.

Alex Thomas is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Alex’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • tscull

    Just let ’em try it! The 2nd Amendment was into place to protect all of the others!

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      The key word being, “individual.”
      Government – and, by extension, it’s Agents – have no rights.

      We are not bound to treat government agents as if they have rights.

      • SP_88

        The government has no rights. That’s why they have lots of guns. It’s also why they are so desperate to neutralize the second amendment.

    • 52brooklynn .

      tscull They are changing the internet as we speak! Never mind let them try it! They are already doing it!!! What are you going to do about it? rofl!

  • tonye

    Thought control… Now we shall progress to Newspeak.

    • Phil_Ossifer

      We already have Newspeak – it’s called Political Correctness.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    “The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) is an agency that has the expertise and capabilities necessary to enforce restrictions on disinformation advertising, though it cannot enforce in this realm without congressional authorization to do so. Congress should either authorize it to act or model a new investigative body on FINCEN.”
    Note the word enforce was used twice. Force is the only thing these people understand. It is the primary tool by which they achieve their ends. It is the only language that we must speak back to them-forcefully.

    • Phil_Ossifer

      Mao Zedong famously said that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. And freedom comes from the same source.

  • roger

    Posting an ad to one’s Facebook Page, or tweeting it into a
    politically active social network in hopes it goes viral, costs nothing.

    follow the damn money trail.

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      “The money involved in online political advertising is more diffuse than ad buys on traditional media. Like traditional ads, some ads produced for the Internet have high production costs. Others, like memes, are free to create. Unlike television and radio ads, some online ads are placed for free. Posting an ad to one’s Facebook Page, or tweeting it into a politically active social network in hopes it goes viral, costs nothing.”
      Those five sentences tell it all. They don’t want anti-establishment propaganda, aka the “official narrative”, to be challenged by a distribution network that costs their opponents nothing.

  • the demonic party is in bed with the NWO, in turn is in bed with the United Nothings in turn is in bed with the Buider Burgers in turn they are in bed with the committee of 300 with David Rothschild as the chairman who gives the orders through his devil worshiping organization which hate Donald Trump because he is a god fearing man, and Satan is pissed because his daughter the Hilda beast lost!!!


      There’s no difference between the repugnicant or the demoncrap parties, two sides of the same shekel.

      • Chuck Morrison

        Or, as I like to say, two wings on the same dirty bird.

        • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

          Two saggy boobs on the same dirty old whore…..Ok, mebbe not my best work. Deal w/ it. I have to.

      • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

        Two wings of the War Party.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      Let me guess – you aced Incoherence 101.

  • SP_88

    So these people want to sue people for exercising their right to free speech, if the speech isn’t in line with their agenda.
    The first problem with that is, what exactly is disinformation, and does it rise to the level of libel and slander.
    And the second problem with that is, who exactly is going to have the power to decide what is disinformation.
    Because there cannot be an unbiased arbiter of internet information, there cannot be an arbiter of internet information.
    In many cases, the information will be subjective and of course one side will say it’s fine while the other side says it’s disinformation, or fake news, etc.
    What they really want is control over the internet, and the alternative media. And the reason for this is because the mainstream media has been caught telling so many lies and spreading fake news that nobody watches them anymore. So many people have given up on the mainstream media and switched to alternative media. And since they cannot compete against the truth with their fake news and their propaganda, their only other option is to try and stop the alternative media from consistently making fools of the mainstream media hosts and their ilk.
    They have totally lost their ability to compete in the arena of ideas, so like a bunch of two year olds, they want to tip the board over and throw all the pieces so that nobody wins.
    Right now this seems like a ridiculous idea that will never happen. But we need to remain vigilant and stand against this obvious violation of the first amendment. Because they are not just going to give up. They will continue to push the idea until they have convinced enough people to that it is necessary.

    • jimmy joe

      The one aspect to all of this is, the fake/disinformation is actually coming from, the fucking tv, via main stream media!! Essentially, what these terrorists are saying is, they need to silence the truth/facts, not the other way around!!

      • SP_88

        Absolutely. This was never about fighting fake news or disinformation. This is clearly an agenda to silence the alternative media, which is making it impossible for the mainstream media to get away with their lies and propaganda.
        Obviously if the alternative media is constantly fighting their lies by presenting people with the truth, there isn’t really any other option for them other than to try and silence them. Once people see the truth, it is pretty pointless to try and lie to them. It’s not like the mainstream media can get their viewers back by lying to them some more.
        Once people wake up to the truth, the mainstream media has lost them for good. The truth is a one way street. So the mainstream media has only two options: either start telling the truth (pause for several minutes of hysterical laughter), or shut down their competition, the alternative media. Obviously they have chosen option number two.
        They are attacking the alternative media, their advertising revenue, and their exposure on the internet and in Google searches.
        I think they are going to lose the battle for the truth because people are going to catch on to their lies, and they are going to see through their attempts to shut down people who are providing honest journalism. It might not seem like a big deal, but all it might take is for enough people to see one or two websites shut down, ones that they know to be honest and who have consistently provided truthful information. And people will come to realize that only a dishonest group or organization would put so much effort into shutting down an honest website. It could be the tipping point that brings the end of the mainstream media and their stranglehold on fake news and information.
        I can hope anyway. Something has to give.

    • Cynical Old Bastard

      “so like a bunch of two year olds, they want to tip the board over and throw all the pieces so that nobody wins.”


      I’m actually going through a fifth amendment (and 14th) battle right now. Property rights. Even got me a little civil disobedience going on. The police chief and City Manager did not care for my little lecture on the Constitution, the oaths they took to preserve and defend it, and exactly how they betrayed their oaths and were now domestic enemies occupying my country.

      I had to laugh at the looks on their faces.

      Look, folks (not you SP) the Constitution guarantees your rights, but YOU have to fight to keep them. If you rely on others (especially government) to do it for you, then you have no rights at all and we are back to square one.

      Do you wait on others to mow your grass for you?

      To wipe your asses?

      To tell you to eat when you’re hungry?

      If you do, then your grass is too tall, you have a nasty ass, and your belly-button is cozying up to your backbone.

      If all you do is bitch and moan about it on the internet instead of actively defending your own rights then YOU, each and every single damned one of you are domestic enemies of the Constitution and this country!

      • SP_88

        It’s not until our rights are tested that it becomes apparent that we can lose our rights by becoming complacent. If nobody ever tried to violate our rights, the Constitution would be unnecessary.
        Our rights are being picked at bit by bit. These people make it so we look like nut pickers when we resist what appears to be “no big deal” when they infringe on our rights in some small way. The ways in which this happens are countless. Whether it’s property rights, free speech, the second amendment or any number of other rights, it always starts out as some small infringement that we should compromise on, usually for the greater good or public safety or some other supposed benefit. But we should never have to compromise on our rights. There is never any benefit to be had by giving up even a little bit of our rights.
        And no matter what compromise we make, it will never end there. The next compromise is never far away. And it will indeed continue until we no longer have any rights.
        The first and second amendments are prime examples of this. The first amendment has been under attack from the PC crowd for a long time.
        One of the most popular attacks on free speech is, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre”. It’s a totally false premise that appears to be a logical limit to free speech. But there is no law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre. There never has been. And since there is no law against it, it cannot be used as a foundation to build further restrictions on free speech. Any attempts to do so should be shut down right there.
        The second amendment is certainly no stranger to these incremental infringements. The endless calls for “common sense” gun legislation are nothing more than attempts to chip away at our freedom. It’s unfortunate that the second amendment has been successfully chipped away at so many times by “common sense” laws that have utterly failed to deliver what they promised. I would argue that the second amendment has suffered the most egregious violations of our freedom.
        And in this modern era of electronic surveillance, many of our other rights have been violated and infringed by an all seeing surveillance state armed with massive data collection, cameras everywhere, and a paranoid government that is becoming increasingly intrusive into our lives every day. The government is currently trying to collect biometric data on every person in preparation for a biometric authentication grid to be placed all throughout the country at some point in the future. As technology advances, the idea of personal privacy will be a sad joke. At that point the fourth amendment will be pretty much pointless, since the government will already know everything there is to know about everyone.
        My point is that doing nothing in the hope that nobody will test the limit of our rights is no longer an option. Our rights are going to be violated whether we like it or not. And the time to fight for our rights has been upon us for a long time already. And people need to wake up to the fact that this is not about public safety, stopping terrorism or fighting crime, but rather it’s about a government that wants absolute control over everyone. And the more paranoid the government becomes, the harder they will fight for things that violate our rights. Whether it’s boiling frogs, authoritarian creep, or death by a thousand cuts, the point is that this has been a long, slow process that takes advantage of the fact that people who aren’t paying attention won’t notice the loss of their freedom. And it’s especially effective when it happens over a period of several generations because the younger generation of people aren’t going to know how much freedom the previous generation had, so they won’t miss it when it’s gone.
        Fighting for our rights should not only include the fight against these incremental infringements on our freedom, but also teaching our children about how much freedom we had in the past so they can continue the fight against tyranny in the future.

        • Cynical Old Bastard

          Dead on. Not much to add. We already discussed the indoctrination angle.

          I did hear the word “compromise” a lot, but it was always me doing the compromising. I have repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that I will not compromise in the least way.

          I also heard “for the common good” and “in the interest of peace” thrown in there… and again, it was me giving up something which is mine… not them.

          We need a place where we can write, SP. Sort of an Anti-Daily Sheeple.

  • Phil_Ossifer

    If they try to implement this there is a simple way to fight back: civil disobedience. While the government has a lot going for it they won’t be able to handle the administrative burden of dealing with massive noncompliance. The operative word is “massive” as in “millions of people.” It’s a variation of Cloward-Piven: overwhelm the system to bring it down. And I would bet heavily that there are hacker organizations out there right now that would just love a fight like this. Remember, too, that the Second Amendment is there for exactly this sort of thing.


      There’s good reason why the founding fathers wrote them in that order. Freedom of speech and expression comes first. If that doesn’t work, then there’s the 2A to ensure the safety of the first.

      • Phil_Ossifer

        Arms are a great method of expression and are quite useful if the other methods (speech, press, and petition) are abridged.

        • Rey d’Tutto

          Soapbox, Ballot box, Jury box, and Ammo box. To be used in that order.

          • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

            Nice. Thank you, Rey!

    • Rift

      That’s why fema amassed that huge stockpile of ammunition a couple of years ago. It’s there solution too non compliance

      • tscull

        They’ll lose that fight, guaranteed!

        • Justin Thought

          After they try, there’ll be a great sale on (slightly) used arms. “Never been fired, only dropped once.”

          • tscull



    Ok, so only the fake lamestream media narrative would be.permitted? Let them try it. As I see it, this is as tyrannical as the anti BDS legislation being persued. Jewmerica…land of the (NOT SO) free.

  • Rumplestiltskin

    Aaahhh those poor poor women. Did they think that because they are women, Americans wouldn’t consider these proposals too draconian? Well maybe we men need to tell them exactly where they can go, LIKE TO HELL !

    Oh also, just because they are professors or students working on their Phds is no reason to believe they are any smarter than the rest of us. Those Socialist left leaning bitches aught to be taken out and hanged from the nearest snag. for even suggesting that they could circumvent our Constitutional guaranteed rights.

    But, just for brevity’s sake I’ll I’ll write it again here;

    Arrticle I
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    Article II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    These were written specifically because our founding fathers knew of idiots just like those ladies who believe they can use the government’s strong arm to force people to abide by their beliefs. This is heresy of the highest order and needs to be put down and HARD !!!


    Make no mistake about it. It is an idiotic tyrannical idea by idiotic tyrant wannabes.

  • blagostwin

    Good luck with that. It would be unlawful for any regulatory agency to put that type of protocol in place. You’ve got a snow balls chance in hell to get legislation like that passed.

  • magatastic

    good luck asshole!

  • hot pursuit

    The great and powerful OZ has spoken!

  • Howard Beale

    You can fool some people some times but you can’t fool all the people all the time, so now we see the light, we gonna stand up for our right.

    Get Up Stand Up

  • Poke

    It’s time to put the crooks in D.C. behind bars. Let’em join Big Bubba for a sleep-over.

  • Alleged-Comment

    THE communist Demoncrap. What else can I tell ya?

    What the uck are they even doing up there in control?? They have NO PLACE in America’s political structure or culture.

    What did their own alinsky say? Isolate them, ridicule them or whatever junior crap he said.

  • paul morris

    maybe the troika’s views should be deemed disinfo and they should be fined for trying to foist that leftist crap on everyone

  • old harry

    Typical government pattern of deciding what is best for the rest. Are we all living in an oligarchy? Hope not …

  • Mary Brown

    Article missed a key point… “third party LIBERAL fact checkers”

  • barbarakelly

    The dems can’t stand that the American people –NOW KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.!!! To damn bad, The people will always find a way to find out what is going on!!!


    These are not democrats! They are communists!

  • Brad Scofield

    Ain’t ever gonna work. The J-tards are out of control and forget that we see through EVERYTHING they do. They’ve HAD IT in America and it’s time for them to leave, and that means NOW !! GTFO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Laurence Almand

    If the DemoSocialists had their way, free speech would not exist. Indeed, the entire Constitution would be abolished, to further the Socialist agenda.