The movement to regulate blogs (also called "regulating Internet speech") is growing rapidly, as evidenced by remarks like this:

“The question is: What are the appropriate regulations on the Internet?" asked Kathleen Jamieson, an expert on political communication and dean of the Annenberg School for Communications. “It’s evolved into an area that we need to do more thinking about it. (Via Tom Maguire.)

As to the partisan nature of blogs, I read them anyway, depending on whether I'm interested in what the blogger says. If I read a blog, whether I agree with its philosophy is my problem, whether I like the style of writing is my problem; if I don't like either I might not continue to read the blog. But whether it's partisan? That's also my problem -- and it's my business (as well as that of the blogger). If a blog conceals its partisanship, hey, that might make it more fun to unscramble the mystery, and speculate about what is being hidden. I might or might not like it. Again, it's my business as a reader to make that determination, and I'm horrified by the idea of the government stepping in and doing it for me.

Partisan? Partisan about what? Are blogs about music partisan depending on what music is preferred? Kate at Reflections in d minor recently linked this discussion about whether artists are "on the left." A major focus of Kate's blog is music. Is she "partisan?" Does she "favor" classical music? And what politician might she be "for?" Should this be "disclosed" to government bureaucrats?

It isn't anyone's bloody business but hers and her readers! How dare anyone demand that blogs be measured, rated, disclosed? Really, how dare they?

If you don't like the blog, don't read it, and don't link it!

I don't care how big it is, or how small it is, it's a simple question, one called free speech. I or anyone else can start a blog on any subject, advocate or oppose any human, idea, animal, or inanimate object, and I don't care whether it gets 10,000,000 hits a day, under the First Amendment no one has any right to compel that it be regulated.

I don't have to disclose a damned thing to anyone, but at the same time other bloggers can say anything they want about my nondisclosure, and readers are free to come and go as they please. If a blogger's partisanship appears offensive or dishonest, the bare lie will shine through. The readers can still come and go as they please. It's their business; not the government's.

Where do these people get off, anyway?

This is like gun control; one of those unbelievably simple no-brainers so obvious that I can't believe I'm having to discuss it. What am I missing? Are we supposed to be protecting the stupid from their own folly?

MORE: In another excellent post, Tom Maguire opines that licensing of journalists is a bad idea. But it's been tried all over the world! Why not here? From the last link, a good line:

...if you ever want to get journalists on the side of gun owners, just require that any law requiring Second Amendment registration be constructed in line with laws on First Amendment registration.