Politech mailing list archives
FC: IRS should not control what nonprofits do online --comments
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:15:22 -0500
*************The deadline for comments was today. Below are real comments from a real nonprofit organization that feared retribution from the IRS. Background:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01524.html Speaking of the IRS, some folks are in a tizzy over this today: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/churchIRS010213.html http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a893d0527fe.htm ************* ----------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM TO: United States Internal Revenue Service FROM: A Concerned Non-Profit Organization RE: Response to "Request for Comments Regarding Need for Guidance Clarifying Application of Internal Revenue Code to Use of the Internet by Exempt Organizations" Date: February 13, 2001 In response to the "Request for Comment" contained in Announcement 2000-84, we would like to offer guidance and clarity on selected matters addressed therein. Our answers are provided below. It is our hope that the Service will consider our responses as it examines, with thoughtful and informed reflection, all of the implications of crafting a new policy for Internet usage by charitable organizations. General Issues To what extent are statements made by subscribers to a forum, such as a listserv or newsgroup, attributable to the exempt organization that maintains the forum? Does attribution vary depending on the level of participation of the exempt organization in maintaining the forum? One of the unique and beneficial services provided by exempt organizations online is an environment where subscribers and the public can freely express themselves. Listservs, newsgroups, and message boards provide free speaking zones where people can exercise their First Amendment rights without worry of political persecution or other harassment. It would be unconscionable and unconstitutional for government to restrict the exercise of free speech by attributing to the host organization statements made by the public in these free speaking zones. This is true for two reasons: first, free speech is necessary for a free society and second, the proposed regulations would place an unreasonable censorship burden on non-profits. The Web is, by nature, interconnected, open, and pseudonymous. Because of interconnectivity, charitable sites might unknowingly link to partisan political sites. Because of openness, anyone can join discussion or chat areas and that could lead to unintended calls to political action. Pseudonymity makes the source of these calls difficult to identify. Forcing exempt organizations to take responsibility for the acts of third-party subscribers and the public at large would be to ask them to institute a policy of censorship so broad that it would lead the organization to either forego all links or to spend an inordinate amount of time policing links. This would hamper, if not entirely quash, web development for this sector. Think tanks, educational, and religious organizations routinely host events and forums where citizens can freely voice opinions and engage in discourse that the organization may neither encourage nor endorse. Attributing those utterances to the host organization would be tantamount to attributing the views of ordinary citizens to the local telephone company, or implicating a television cable company because of views expressed on public-access programs. Further, imputing partisanship to host organizations would result in a dramatic decline in expressions of free speech because organizations would fear that some unrestrained attendee may make statements putting their status in jeopardy. Exempt organizations often provide the only avenue for unpopular or different viewpoints. In their absence, government could not provide an equally objective environment for the discussion of such viewpoints. Political and Lobbying For charitable organizations that have not made an election under section 501(h), what facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether lobbying communications made on the Internet are a substantial part of the organization's activities? For this question, we urge considering technological neutrality and its benefits. Lobbying communications made in Internet space, pursuant to an election under 501(h), are indistinguishable from the same speech made in open air. The frequency and the duration of that speech, or alternatively the byte size of the same speech made in Internet space, could be factors in determining whether it constitutes a substantial part of the organization's activities. Therefore, a principle factor for determining the substantiality of such communications requires a mere exercise in mathematical conversion rather than fashioning a new regulatory construct for identical communications made in Internet space. The most reasonable course of action would be to avoid technology bias and abstain from fashioning alternative versions of existing rules in applying them to the exercise of free speech in Net space on host exempt organizations' web sites. For these and other reasons, the IRS should abstain from promulgating any new rules or attempting to fashion alternative versions of existing rules in applying them to the exercise of free speech on exempt organizations' web sites. Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on these issues. This communication reflects the close and personally held opinions of its authors and not those of the non-profit organization. Furthermore this is not intended to advance the interests of any specific party, but rather to illuminate key factors for consideration of each enumerated matter. ### ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: IRS should not control what nonprofits do online --comments Declan McCullagh (Feb 13)