What's most interesting is that it should be clear, this letter is a response to House members' complaints that:
* House.gov tools for posting video are not very user friendly.
* House.gov is out of disk space.
In order to continue responding to increased demand for video, House members need the ability to use other sites. Maybe they are considering big sites like YouTube as a place they can put content which would otherwise *have* to go on House.gov. A lot of candidates are using YouTube for official campaign videos, perhaps they just want the same simple forum for actively communicating with their constituents, so that we don't all feel they *only* know how to get and stay in office. Some of them write laws and, apparently, deal with issues that most slashdot users do every day, like filling hard drives.
I don't see that this in any way creates new restrictions or has anything to do with members of any party, or talk radio, or twitter, or blogging..
C'mon Slashdot, did YOU read the PDF? Please don't post political stories about documents without reading them, or at least change the title from:
"Nancy Pelosi vs. The Internet"
"Crazy Blogger makes up story about House.gov IT solution to full drives."