Slashdot Mirror

If anyone had bothered to read the text instead of buying the PR piece by a professional lobbyiest that went up yesterday as news, they would have seen that the provision in question only applied to blogging for pay by a client. Not getting money for your ads or anything else.

So, how much did you get paid to post this?

The following is a comment I posted yesterday explaining why someone else was potentially wrong when they made the same assertion. As no one disputed the points I raised yesterday (in a comment rated +5, thus it was quite visible) I will consider them to be just as valid today.

This bill is about paid lobbyists. The only bloggers that will need to register are those that are being paid for their posts and have a readership of 500+. The article author didn't read the bill itself or at the very least misread it.

Oh yeah? FTFA:

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers."

Here is Section 220 of 2007 S.1. It says it modifies 2 USC 1602. Section 220 appends certain clauses to 2 USC 1602. You are somewhat correct in that appended to item 7 of that code is the line "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It also adds the following item: "GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This would SEEM to indicate that if you're not getting paid, you're not who they're talking about. But then you have to examine 18 (C) which is also appended to that section of the US Code, because it defines the meaning of registrant. I quote:

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

Thus if you speak on behalf of, say, a political party of which you are a member, you are a member of a registrant as well (because the party would be required to register.) Also if we look at both 2 USC 1602 and 2007 S.1 Section 220, which deal with definitions, neither one defines "paid"! Kind of a serious oversight there given that now we have to ask the supremes (eventually) whether ad revenues count or not. The closest it gets is the following text:

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

This is where the number 500 comes from. Incidentally, this particular item (B) is a particularly bad loophole in this law! It says that as long as you are not trying to influence more than 499 people at once, it's not a paid attempt to influence the general public. This is not good, not good at all.

Jump back to 2 USC 1602 for a moment with me and look at the government's definition of Lobbyist prior to any adoption of this bill.

Why would anyone want to say that the little guy who's writing a blog is somehow evil

Except that's not what this bill was about. It's not about bloggers, not even about big-time bloggers. It was about people getting paid $100k+ a year "in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter..." being required to register as lobbiyists. Which is what they are.

It appears that both submissions to /. on this have been inaccurate FUD, spin from the pro-lobbyist lobby.

For once, the provision in question was where it belonged: In the middle of a bill that helps expose lobbyists as lobbyists. See section 220-a-2, and the requirements before one must register: All of (Readership > 500, astroturfing for lobbying firm, paid at least $100,000 per year for it). The odds of a genuine blogger being impacted by this are between epsilon and zero.

So to answer your question, this was supposed to bring blogger-shills under the same requirements as other lobbying groups. Personally, I wish there had been a "Paid shills in question must prominently disclose that they are paid shills on the front page of their blog" clause.

(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--
(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

Here's a permanent link to the bill in question.

Under Senate Bill 1, AFA would have to report the issues, employees, contractors and dollars spent in what is called "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" (that phrase is not defined). This reporting requirement is triggered by two actions: (1) a lobbying "contact" - a personal or written communication with an individual in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government concerning public policy issues, from legislation to nominations; and (2) communications with grassroots (that's you) that "influence" them to contact the executive or legislative branches ("influence" is not defined, but it apparently doesn't even have to include a specific "call to action.") There is no minimum dollar spending requirement that triggers the reporting requirement by AFA for our efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

[How many of you know about the neo-GOP marching orders not to use the proper adjectival form for the Democratic Party?] Of course it's difficult to penetrate the veil of secrecy around the neo-GOP, but all of them going one way on any real issue clearly says that directions came from on high.

Why? Well, first guess time. How many bloggers could you hire for a million bucks? Hey, a million bucks here, a million bucks there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money a la neo-GOP-style campaigning--the only asset the neo-GOP has left now that McCain has joined (and chucked his principles) and Colin Powell has basically defected (apparently wedged by his).

1. An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients
2. Reaching 500 people
3. Being paid $100,000 a year

You can find the actual text here.

Interestingly enough, the AFA is telling its sheep that this will cause them to have less information about a bill. That just isn't the case. It's the exact opposite. The purpose of the legislation is to make the legislative process more transparent. For example, if a particular group is trying to influence legislation, you will know. That being said...

The second sentence down states the following: "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It follows with a definition of "paid efforts" and "grassroots lobbying". In other words, if your blog isn't the direct result of a group that raises money to influence political decisions (like the AFA), you don't qualify as a group that has to register. Further, the blog itself isn't necessarily what falls under this legislation, but rather the paid efforts behind it. Fearmongers who belong to those groups (and don't like the legislation) are spreading rumors that Joe Blogger is going to have to register his blog with the government, and that just isn't the case.

Unless you're being paid by an organization to run your blog, you don't qualify.

First, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search by "Bill Number" and search for "S.1".

So I'm confused. What then is the point of bringing the 500 people rule up? It certainly doesn't address my position on this bill...I'm not sure that I understand the comment's relevance if you're not disagreeing with me.

-FL

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(1

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

See the actual section of that section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110QVTqNO:e38473: It says when an organization or individual is "...paid by a client..." to create a "grassroots" movement (called "astroturfing"). I don't read it to mean it would affect bloggers at all...UNLESS they're paid to write about something and induce others to take political action. The language could be clearer, however.

are you sure you don't have to be paid and have a lobbying contract to have to register? This looks like it might be not all the article claims it is.

After reading the entire legislation, including section 220, several things become apparent to me:

1. This does not include people talking to each other, blogger, etc. about politics - "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying."
2. This bill does not affect unpaid citizen journalists. - "The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public"
3. This bill does not affect blogs that are directed towards members of an organization - except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

It seems to me that in the spirit of lobbying transparency, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, due to the vagueness of Section 220, with respect to several terms, and the fact that there does not appear to be an explicit exclusion for paid bloggers who maintain "official" blogs that are open to public viewing for organizations, I would recommend that anyone who is concerned about the freedom to engage in grassroots lobbying, to oppose section 220 until it addresses these concerns.

You can do this by contacting your senators and telling them to support the Bennett amendment to remove section 220 from S. 1..

If I have misread anything, please correct me.

It's worth reading the changes that S.1 Section 220 proposes quite carefully, because I think some of the criticisms here are off-base. Consider:

• If you aren't specifically retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients (the bill's phrasing), you're exempt. IANAL, but I don't think people buying click-through ads on your blog's web site because it's popular counts; they have to be paying you specifically to lobby on their behalf.
• If you aren't being paid $25,000 or more in any quarterly period, you're exempt. Meaning, you've got to be receiving/spending $100,000 a year to qualify.
• You have to specifically be encouraging people to contact Congress to take specific action on some matter.
• Communication from an organization to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders is exempt.

This isn't about going after bloggers. Rather, S.1 appears to be attempt to register astroturfers as lobbyists.

If you're a blogger, and some organization writes you a big fat check to post in your blog about how bad some particular Senate or House bill is and gosh we should all contact Congress and object to it, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can claim that you're not a lobbyist.

And although I'm still oscillating somewhat, I tentatively think that your being required to register your activities as lobbying is a Good Thing, because those who read your blog (or email, or whatever) might wish to know that you were paid specifically to influence people to take action.

I'm not saying you have to be an astroturfer to object to this bill. But based on the virtually-hysterical frothing I've seen from certain organizations, I think it helps.

If you do nothing else, read the changes that S.1 proposes, and decide for yourself: is S.1 an attempt to silence criticism of the government, or an attempt to drag astroturfers into the sunlight? Whose interests do those who are ranting about S.1 Section 220 have at heart—free speech, or their pocketbooks?

It's worth reading the changes that S.1 Section 220 proposes quite carefully, because I think some of the criticisms here are off-base. Consider:

• If you aren't specifically retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients (the bill's phrasing), you're exempt. IANAL, but I don't think people buying click-through ads on your blog's web site because it's popular counts; they have to be paying you specifically to lobby on their behalf.
• If you aren't being paid $25,000 or more in any quarterly period, you're exempt. Meaning, you've got to be receiving/spending $100,000 a year to qualify.
• You have to specifically be encouraging people to contact Congress to take specific action on some matter.
• Communication from an organization to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders is exempt.

This isn't about going after bloggers. Rather, S.1 appears to be attempt to register astroturfers as lobbyists.

If you're a blogger, and some organization writes you a big fat check to post in your blog about how bad some particular Senate or House bill is and gosh we should all contact Congress and object to it, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can claim that you're not a lobbyist.

And although I'm still oscillating somewhat, I tentatively think that your being required to register your activities as lobbying is a Good Thing, because those who read your blog (or email, or whatever) might wish to know that you were paid specifically to influence people to take action.

I'm not saying you have to be an astroturfer to object to this bill. But based on the virtually-hysterical frothing I've seen from certain organizations, I think it helps.

If you do nothing else, read the changes that S.1 proposes, and decide for yourself: is S.1 an attempt to silence criticism of the government, or an attempt to drag astroturfers into the sunlight? Whose interests do those who are ranting about S.1 Section 220 have at heart—free speech, or their pocketbooks?

The whole bill and everything is available on Thomas.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.000 01:

Do we have a paid grassroots operation here intended to send more people to the cbn.com website.

(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A),....
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
...
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that-- `(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and `(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

Sponsered by Senator Harry Reid(D) on 1/4

Cosponsored by: Bennett(R), Brown(D), Cantwell(D), Collins(R), Durbin(D), Feinstein(D), Lautenburg(D), Leahy(D), Liberman(I), Lott(R), McConnell(R), Menendez(D), McKulski(D), Salazar(D), Schumer(D), Stabenow(D), Webb(D). 17 cosponsors so far.

For those who didn't become politically aware until after the republicans gained power in 1994 and thought the democrats actually practiced what they preach about the First Amendment, I welcome you to reality. The Democrats will tell you anything you want to hear to achieve power just like the Republicans do. The only way to fix it is to scale the federal government back to its Constitutional powers and you can be damn sure that they will do anything they can to stop that from happening.

This bill is about paid lobbyists. The only bloggers that will need to register are those that are being paid for their posts and have a readership of 500+. The article author didn't read the bill itself or at the very least misread it.

Oh yeah? FTFA:

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers."

Here is Section 220 of 2007 S.1. It says it modifies 2 USC 1602. Section 220 appends certain clauses to 2 USC 1602. You are somewhat correct in that appended to item 7 of that code is the line "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It also adds the following item: "GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This would SEEM to indicate that if you're not getting paid, you're not who they're talking about. But then you have to examine 18 (C) which is also appended to that section of the US Code, because it defines the meaning of registrant. I quote:

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

Thus if you speak on behalf of, say, a political party of which you are a member, you are a member of a registrant as well (because the party would be required to register.) Also if we look at both 2 USC 1602 and 2007 S.1 Section 220, which deal with definitions, neither one defines "paid"! Kind of a serious oversight there given that now we have to ask the supremes (eventually) whether ad revenues count or not. The closest it gets is the following text:

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

This is where the number 500 comes from. Incidentally, this particular item (B) is a particularly bad loophole in this law! It says that as long as you are not trying to influence more than 499 people at once, it's not a paid attempt to influence the general public. This is not good, not good at all.

Jump back to 2 USC 1602 for a moment with me and look at the government's definition of Lobbyist prior to any adoption of this bill.

The term "lobbyist" means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six month period.

So currently if you receive any compensation for lobbying more than one person you are a lobbyist, unless your lobbying is less than 20% of the time spent working for the individual who hired you to lobby for them. That means they could pay you minimum wage for 101 hours; for 81 of those hours you sit on your ass and read the funny papers, the other 20 hours you

Here is the proposed legislation http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110K9FsGK:e38473:

It specifically is aimed at a person who is paid to cover a topic and encourage grassroots lobbying. Specifically if some corp pays for a talking head or blogger to cover an issue specifically to get people to lobby their congress critter, then the talking head or blogger will need to register themselves. The whole thing seems on the up and up. These people are using their bully pulpit to lobby congress by proxy. Why shouldn't they be required to register themselves?

The bill does not stop true grassroots efforts. So just because your blog has advertisements on it doesn't mean your content was paid for as part of a lobbying effort.

An example would be, all those bloggers who received laptops from MS might have to register under this bill if they tried to start a grassroots lobbying effort that is pro MS or it's interests.

That doesn't sound too upsetting to me. Paid for content should have to be obviously marked as paid for.

For those who would like the full text of this bill see here. The article is just a bunch of FUD. The actual text that has the author so concerned, about a readership of greater than 500 counting as paid, is actually being misread. The actual text is "The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public." (from here). This means that you can be paid for grass roots lobbying and not have to register if you have less than 500 readers, which actually protects your rights.

For those who would like the full text of this bill see here. The article is just a bunch of FUD. The actual text that has the author so concerned, about a readership of greater than 500 counting as paid, is actually being misread. The actual text is "The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public." (from here). This means that you can be paid for grass roots lobbying and not have to register if you have less than 500 readers, which actually protects your rights.

Huh. I thought it was only the Republicans who were after our 1st Amendment rights. But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again by trying to control who says what.

<sarcasm>Oh, never mind, they just want to make sure we have "our papers in order" before we can criticize them.</sarcasm> And we thought that they would be for our rights. But it looks like they are just interested in using the power to stay in power.

It's time to lose the naivte and realize that politicians (whether Republicans or Democrats) are only interested in one thing--getting re-elected.

• Arapesh - Males and females alike "gentle, responsive, and cooperative."
• Mundugumor - Both males and females "violent and aggressive, seeking power and position."
• Tchambuli - Distinct gender roles, women being "dominant, impersonal, and managerial" and men being "less responsible and more emotionally dependent."

Here is the text. (Shorter than the link, BTW.) My guess is that as it's part of the copyright section, not a communications section, the idea that it applies to freely distributable content is just FUD, but IA(obviously)NAL.

The comments in the Congressional Record do not make this as bad as it first appears:

The main idea is that ``a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.`` This would be if an internet radio station distributed stream ripping software that split tracks and labelled them accordingly.

``This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music outside of the statutory license.`` That would also mean that radio stations that have negotiated deals directly with their artists/rightsholders would be able to do this.

``In addition, if the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel, or time period that would still be permitted under the statutory license.`` So it's explicitly targeting streamripping that uses the meta data transmitted to split the tracks apart. Not to simple recording a broadcast, as pointed out in the next sentence:

``For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news station every morning at 9:00 a.m.; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00 p.m., a blues station every Friday at 3:00 p.m., and a talk radio show every Saturday at 4:00 p.m., that would be allowable. In addition, that listener could then use their recording device to move these programs so that each program of the same genre would be back to back.``

``What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and performers in the process.``. This is largely targeted at Sirius and XM who are selling devices that scan their channels and pick out the tracks that a customer wants to listen to automatically. Basically, a programmable stream ripper in the satellite radio receiver. Devices like the Sirius S50, which are being promoted as an iPod replacement that's automatically loaded with new music from Satellite.

Here is the irony for internet broadcasters:

Stream ripping is possible because the RIAA demanded that net broadcasters send the information on what track and artist is playing, and this got put into the DMCA. This is what led to stream ripping.

Internet radio broadcasters could simply turn off meta-data and prevent track-splitting type stream ripping. Simple solution.

So the issue is that we need to separate DRM from stream-ripping. We don't have to add DRM to stop stream ripping... and DRM would likely stop all stream recording as well.

This is the issue that needs to be presented to congress. DRM is not the solution to the problem they are trying to solve. Of course, the RIAA would love to trick legislators into mandating DRM, because the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to record ANYTHING.

The bill text is already available at pages S446 and S447 in Feinstein's remarks: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001: S00447

Will they be successful with helping scientists tag and catalog events in our universe? Will they defeat the monster and get the girl? And will they be home in time for tea? Find out next on GoogleTrek.

Seriously though, processing something the equivalent of 3/4th's of the LoC every night is nothing to be sneezed at. Over the course of those 10 years that's about 110 Petabyte (40TB * 365.25 * 10) of unprocessed data.

The data would already be in a database, and that could be converted pretty easily.

Where you get into the proprietary stuff is in the location databases: the databases which say that, say, Nicomachean Ethics is available in the Jefferson or Adams Building General or Area Studies Reading Rooms.p>But really, let's be realistic. The major OPAC package is Voyager, which runs on top of Oracle, so runs on anything that runs Oracle. Libraries that don't have Voyager are pretty much all just wishing they could afford it (and the Oracle licenses).

Thomas will tell you. Search on bill number for HR5252. Search on keyword for "neutrality" to find more; the one we want is HR5417

Thomas will tell you. Search on bill number for HR5252. Search on keyword for "neutrality" to find more; the one we want is HR5417

And how is this correct?

You cannot state it by fiat - try addressing the errors pointed out by many here - especially in case law, and in the fundamental reading of the Amendment itself:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

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.

Note the PROPER punctional at the Library of Congress - the extra commans after "Militia" and after "Arms" are rmoved, as they are absent in the proper rendering of the Amendment (LOC is authoritative on this).

Now its obvious that "milita" has to do with the security of a free state - but the "rights of the people..." are clearly what "shall not be infringed". Obvious.

As for "well regulated" - the proper meaning is from its usage at the time of the amendment:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. That means for a militia, each individual is properly armed. And further in the Constitution, "militia" back then meant what we mean now by "citizenry"

So where do you see the DC lawyers being a "correcct" reading - it blatently contravenes the quite obvious meaning of the law as written. So no - as I have pointed out (and you lack any presentment of evidence to back up your bald assumption) their reading is NOT a "correct" reading at all - its egregiously wrong. And so is your assumption absent any proof to the contrary.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./tem p/~c1091d9OrP::

As a coder - I say read the source and you'll understand the program better.

From the Library of Congress:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

"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."

The problem for you and 99% of the posters here is the extra commas in your citations - they are simply wrong and mislead you.

As seen above, they were NOT part of the original bill of rights - and you should take them OUT. The "well regulated militia" can be seen clearly above as a justifying clause (i.e. reaons for this amendment), and the "right of the people ... not infringed" is clearly seen as the establishing clause (i.e. the law).

Plus, you misconstrue "well regulated". That terminology in those days had nothing to do with law or organization - but with it being functional - i.e. properly equipped for its function.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

In the case of the [unorganized] "militia" (all otherwise unburdened full citizens of proper age) that means "well equipped and competent" - that is "properly armed".

If you translate that into modern usage, the 2nd Amendment becomes much more clear:

A properly armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now where does that allow for handgun *bans*? Nowhere. However it does allow for limitations on the "proper" armaments available for the citizen. So no howitzers or machine guns or chemical weapons. No sawed off shotguns or claymore mines. But Knives, nun-chucks, mace, properly functioning pistols, shotguns and rifles are reasonable.

Why are people so thick headed about this?

Its a huge stretch to see it characterized this way for gun control. It would be requiring petition for grievences to only be legal if they were assembled directly at the peron in government to whom you were petitioning - so no rallies, etc.

Aside from that, if you want to rouse the really hard conservatives from their slumber that Bush has put them in, this is a sure fire way to get a very large number of well monied and highly motivated one-issue voters out there and run the Democrats out of office in 2008. It worked back in 1994. I think Newt Gingrich is probably cheering these foolish lawyers on - I know Rove coulndt ask for more if he wants to fire up his base. Come on Democrats, smarten up! This issue is a political loser - and on top of that, in the bigger scheme, its not all that important compared to other social justice issues that can and should be taken on with the time and talent at hand.

To mitigate the asshattery of the latter, I endorse a sensation of searing pain until they stop acting like asshats.

Amendment 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. US Constitution

Who, exactly, gets to decide if they're being asshats (to use your vernacular)? If they're protesting the president's actions? If they're marching for civil rights? If they're protesting against the WTO? Obviously if they are using violence then they have forfeited their right to assemble, but if the government has this weapon, don't doubt for a single second that it will not be abused.

Ok, so I just pulled up the text of the TREAD Act and I do not see any mention of RFID or any other on-the-move uniquely identifiable law-mandated technology. Perhaps I am missing something. Anyway... Heres a link to the act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:5:./tem p/~c106P3ZfKY:: .

Otherwise, I thought USA is governed by President, Representatives and Senate. The only Library that had government power was in the japanese anime "Read or Die" and that was the British Library. Who is a library to decide what can be hacked? That is a matter of legislation, reserved for the authority of elected officials only.The Library of Congress houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Thus, the current Librarian of Congress had the Copyright office pass the following regulation: Exemption to Prohibition against Circumvention. They did so with the authority given to them in Title 17 of the US Code Section 1201(a)(1)(C). So yes, they were within their legal bounds... too bad it only lasts for 3 years though.

In this case, as well as the one you stated, Expost Facto certainly applies. Expost facto being latin for "After the fact". In the United States, you cannot arrest someone for breaking a law, then change the law to include them.

You can now! Well, you shouldn't be able to, but it was done. Nevertheless ex post facto has zero to do with this case or the parent's suggestions.

If they have even halfway decent attornies, they should realise that their convictions are null-in-void. The situation you named follows the same standard. Cant arrest someone for something that isn't yet in the books, or go back and arrest them after the fact, as it was legal then.

First off, it's "null and void." There's a reason we choose the words we use in phrases. It's not to remind people of the sound they heard on the TV the last time some sitcom character used it. In any case, what are you talking about? The fact someone was convicted illegally does not automagically void their conviction. The conviction stands unless a defendant's appeal succeeds in proving to a court that the conviction was unlawful. None of this has to do with ex post facto. Ex post facto is a limitation on the powers of the legislative branch. It means "after the fact" as you said, and it does mean that you cannot apply a law passed in the future to actions taken in the past, but that is not what was done here. The law in question was on the books when the defendant committed his crime. No new law was passed. The judges interpreted the law as one intended to outlaw the actions taken by the defendant. If you have issue with their ruling that is one thing (I happen not to since the ruling reads as being on the up and up), but ex post facto this is most certainly not.

And to be clear, IANAL

You have made that abundantly clear. No one should mistake me for a lawyer either.

The U.S. was a federation of states briefly under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Under these Articles, each state made its own decisions; only projects that had support of the representatives of the people got funded and supported. This made central governmental control impossible, as well it should be in a confederation of states.

The federation of states was dissolved by the treasonous congress of representatives--that body who was responsible for upholding the Confederation, but who wanted to wield that central control--who with their unchecked power to make law, conquered every member nation at a stroke by betraying each: creating a centrally-controlled republic instead. In the words of the dissenting minority ...the new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states."

The "We the people" rhetoric--that's all it was--didn't last 20 years.

Several of the former states about 70 years later--for some good reasons, some reprehensible ones--withdrew from the "union of states" that was anything but, and again formed a federation of soverign states, each responsible for its own affairs. However, each of its member states was later invaded--conquered and annexed by force--by that same centrally-controlled government that had previously called each of the bodies "States" and indeed continues hypocritically to do so.

Nothing seems to have been historically learned from this, and the process is repeating itself with what one would hope would be alarming similarity--for example, in the referenced article, the phrases "independent, democratic member states" and "confederation of independent states" appear prominently despite the body's ability to pass binding federal law upon member "states."

Although Scott Adams may be the best political and business parodist/cartoonist since Dave Barry, he hit upon a serious deficiency in American Politics: Most voters don't know what the job qualifications for President are. The President is supposed to be a leader and executive, guide the country in resolving problems (if possible), but his main job is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (It's in his oath of office.) This has nothing to do with his religion, gender, party affiliation or appearance, but those are the qualifications upon which the voters seem to select our politicians these days.

Which brings up problem number two: Most Americans don't know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, and are probably not qualified to vote. The Declaration of Independence defines the principles upon which this country was founded and the Constitution defines the process by which we govern ourselves. It is embarrassing that I meet so many foreigners who know all about the Constitution and the Declaration, but I seldom find an American college student who can even tell me what's in the Bill of Rights.

I hope some of you are feeling guilty... http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html http://www.amazon.com/Hold-These-Truths-Mortimer-A dler/dp/0020641303

YouTube and Google Video *are* full of copyrighted material. They *should* have some liability.

"Should" and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Just as one should have the right to purchase DRM defeating devices for purposes of fair use, perhaps Google should be liable. However, it's still illegal to to create a DVD CSS descrambler, and it's Google legally has zero financial liability. You can thank the DMCA for both. Specifically under Title II of the DMCA, so long as Google is generally ignorant of the infringement and moves promptly to remove infringing materials when information, they're scott free.

Besides, do you really want sites that host user submitted content to have to act like police; to increase their costs by hiring a bunch of people to screen incoming video; to delay posting material while it happens; to have legal content occasionally incorrectly blocked? In practice this will destroy great services with lots of legal and good uses. Of course this won't just apply to video, it applies to podcasts (goodbye iTunes podcast service), the millions of blogs (goodbye LiveJournal, MySpace, Blogger, Blogspot, and more), host user home pages (goodbye every free website), and more. The DMCA is a deeply evil law, but the safe harbor provisions are a really good idea that allow service providers to act (sort of) like common-carriers: the provide the service, the user is responsible. Indeed, suing Google over something a user uploaded is just as ridiculous as suing the company I pay for webhosting at because I've uploaded something infringing onto my own web site.

The server campaign has been a long and hard fought campaign. MS was far from blindsided. This is a fair and honorable victory. For a long time, it seemed like they were winning, now it finally looks clear that the tide has turned. This 'win' will provide an important bridgehead for the next stage in the war, but the war is definitely still on.

This is not going to be a short war. "I'll Be Home For Christmas" and "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" are two songs that were sung in the European and Pacific theatres for many a year before the soldiers finally made it home.

Yeah, I was mostly playing devil's advocate there on the voter qualification thing. In all honesty, I have a lot of faith in the electorate, and think the truly clueless mostly stay home. I also favor a voter id requirement. The Supreme Court decision temporarily reinstating Arizona's voter id requirement (which I voted for) has some good arguments for it. It quotes the 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims decision: ""[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

Sometimes I worry that people get too much of a one-sided influence from the media, though. FactCheck.org looks like a great site. I gave up trying to discredit all the misleading campaign rhetoric a long time ago. I generally avoid traditional media and ignore campaign ads altogether, and prefer to get my information on a candidate's platform from his or her own website, facts on voting records from unquestionably impartial sites like thomas.loc.gov, and balance opinions by visiting both rnc.org and dnc.org, for example.

"I have no idea who alex jones is, but as far as something other than what we were told being a part of 9/11, I just have a simple question; where did the planes GO that crashed in PA and the Pentagon?"

sounds like somoene has been drinking the french koolaid.
Heres a picture of the PA crash site . All it took was google images to find one of many.

Let me guess jews flew missiles into the WTC too right? the corporate media used computer graphics to change all the images to fool the people and help start bush's oil war on behalf of israel and the jews.
Does that cover all the bases? let me know if i missed any other "fact". I cant believe there are people like you around. can you logically prove that sentence is wrong?

Many of the arguments stated in those articles lack evidence or credibility

I think the Internet is fine as it is.

Only if you're tried. Note that you have no right to a speedy trial http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e2789: , Sect 948b(d)(A). Maybe I've just missed it, but I see no procedure in the law to challenge a determination that one is an alien unlawful enemy combatant.

Here's the passage about habeas corpus:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e116515:
Section 7(a)'(e)(1):
[i]No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]

The government arrests a U.S. citizen, claiming that they're an alien unlawful alien combatant. They can't challenge that decision, because no court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The government has no obligation to charge them.

Only if you're tried. Note that you have no right to a speedy trial http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e2789: , Sect 948b(d)(A). Maybe I've just missed it, but I see no procedure in the law to challenge a determination that one is an alien unlawful enemy combatant.

Here's the passage about habeas corpus:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e116515:
Section 7(a)'(e)(1):
[i]No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]

The government arrests a U.S. citizen, claiming that they're an alien unlawful alien combatant. They can't challenge that decision, because no court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The government has no obligation to charge them.