Slashdot Mirror
FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet
m_d_j_00 writes "Cnet has a story about Federal Election Commission plans to extend election laws to the Internet." From the article: "In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. 'The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines' the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote." This may include regulation of bloggers and mailing lists linking to or forwarding campaign website URLs.
I'd like to see them try to "regulate" foreign servers.
I'm dutch, so I don't know what the FCC is or isn't allowed to do, but my gut tells me that this is not one the things they are allowed to do.
Can anybody elaborate?
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Oh, that's refreshing.
:/
I'm damn sick of getting spammed by candidates. Oh yeah, and pre-recorded messages on my answering machine.
The part that sucks the most is when both of the leadng candidates spam, which means that I can't use it as a way to simplify my voting decision process.
Gentoo Sucks
This may include regulation of bloggers and mailing lists linking to or forwarding campaign website URL
because it won't be hard to stop someone in belgium linking to the campaign site or anything now will it, noooo
that every link I make is a contribution to a campaign? Where can you honestly draw the line? From what it looks like, this is a contribution.
A quick goole turns up this link:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/kotelly-bio.html/
Appointed in 1997, she certainly has had enough time to grasp the nature of communicating through the internet.
By it's very definition, the first amendment protects political speech. It is fool hardy to believe that it is appropriate to prevent someone blogging from posting a link to a contribution site.
Should you not be allowed to dontate to whom you choose?
What about Foreign web servers?
Who is going to filter this?
If it is not filtered, then which one of the thousands of people will be fined, and how would the FCC draw the line on this.
My friends, welcome to another slippery slope.
A move against bloggers would likely be stopped by the Supreme Court as a violation of free speech rights. Blog = Speech
My concern would be that they place the onus on ISPs for blocking those sites on their routers.
Let me get this straight... they want to crack down on political speech on personal websites?
How is this different from Iran?
I've read the article, and it sounds like the door is being opened to start treating links to a site as a financial contribution to a campaign. While this could be used to fight astroturf campaigns, the actual implications are staggering. This all boils down to how much a link can raise for a candidate, and assigning a dollar value to links. The secretary sending letters example is a good one, and outlines the kind of muddy waters this is marching into.
I don't see how this can work effectively. Marketing Driods have been trying to assign dollar values to links and impressions for ages to no avail.. I see this becoming a muddy mess of conflicting and inconsistent enforcement. The Internet just isn't in a state where this can be monitored and enforced effectively.
Look at how links impact search engine rankings. For example, the Google Bomb of linking "Miserable Failure" to The Shurb's biography. Would these links be considered a campaign contribution to Kerry in the last election? If so, what would their value be? Of the links on Slashdot, who would be responsible, the web site itself or the people who made the posts?
What if a BLOG gets flooded with BLOG SPAM linking to a political site, using terms like "How to Save Social Seurity" for the links? IS the BLOG admin responsible under these laws? The hosting provider? The person who made the posts or the person whose BLOG it is? None of this is addressed. All the discussion in the article seemed focused on the notion that the person whose web site has the link was the person who created the link and is authorized to create the link.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Dammit! I just started my own political blog yesterday too, but that brings up a question.
Since this is the Federal Elections Commission, I assume that it would have no bearing on Governor, State (Senate and Assembly), Township, and County races, is that correct?
This is so stupid. They are regulating speech -- and political speech at that! The supreme law of the land says they can't do that.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines' the campaign finance law's purposes
Unless the campaigners have a ton of bloggers on staff that aren't asking for one damn dime, this should still be something that is costing them money. Website administration can still be a costly business. While people that aren't directly involved with the campaign aren't costing the politician any money by linking to their sites, the politician has to initially invest money to get the word out to such sites.
This feels far too much like a public squelch.
And, like I've seen posted already, what's to stop people from hosting their sites on servers based in other countries?
Besides all that, its arguable that the person that benefitted the most from the web this past election is the one that LOST. So how much of an impact is the web making, and what is it exactly undermining?
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
For your own safety, refrain from commenting on this story here. It could be seen as contributing to the future presidential campaigns of either CowboyNeal or Cthulhu.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Yet another argument for public-financed campaigns, I think.
Me? I'm a Radical Moderate.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
It's not really a "they", more like "some people". So the question really is, who?
It's a little easier to hide under the veil of anomymity using the internet. Having candidate (a) hire a spammer to spam for candidate (b) just before an election comes to mind. Or how about if a non-endorsed fan of (a) just decides to do so?
It might help, but it opens up new problems as well.
The FEC is addressing the conflict between sponsored publications and unlimited campaign contributions. When combined, they don't give the truth a chance, and money controls elections unopposed. So the FEC, complicit in the corrupt travesty American elections have become, regulates the press - websites - rather than regulate the campaigns. Obviously the FEC must ensure that money can't overwhelm debate with press saturation, especially on the less- accountable Internet. But their regulations should control their actual jurisdiction: political campaigns, their management and finance.
--
make install -not war
Does this mean the end of all search engines during an election ?
Or will they define what makes a link a contribution?
(which by law would mean that a search-engine can not have a political bias, which would make it biased since it would have to evaluate results, and would result in a restriction of free speech.)
I better give up thinking about it before I get a headache..
Yup, my bad. Still not used to this linking business on Slashdot. Bit of a bad habit, depending on forums to autolink HTML for you.
Scumbag politicians remain unaffected, while everyone else has to jump through hoops. Typical.
Everyone's favorite congressman, John McCain, and his buddy Feingold already got that awful Campaign Finance "Reform" law passed, which effectively abridges free speech.
But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!
Earn a free iRiver
This sort of thing undelines the basic problem with McCain-Feingold: it undermines free speech and until it is overturned (preferrably by Congress) it will continue to do so.
Who decides who gets funded in publicly financed campaigns? The people already in office. Unless you want everyone who decides to run to get several million dollars in advertising. At which point the elections would make the California Gubernatorial process look serious.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
So, suppose I support my favorite candidate on my blog. Those are contributions. Then, what if I flame him on some other page that isn't readily accessible, do those count as negative contributions?
may include regulation of bloggers
FUD FUD FUD. I bet you a gazillion dollars that my first amendment right to speak for or against a candidate would not be infringed by FEC regulation of candidates' use of the internet as a communications medium. What it will do is prevent candidates themselves from using blogs in an unregulated fashion. It's like saying that FEC regulation of TV as a campaign communication medium prevents you from ranting on your cable public access channel, which it doesn't.
If I'm wrong, prove it, don't tag it to the end of an article submission.
Campaign finance laws violate free speech and always have, maybe now the bloggers and other Internet dwellers will realizes this. The only way out is if we are all declared (by a judge the ultimate power in the universe) media when we publish a web site.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
They're trying to prevent a candidate's opponents... especially non-major party candidates... from having any kind of impact on their reelection.
By it's very definition, the first amendment protects political speech. It is fool hardy to believe that it is appropriate to prevent someone blogging from posting a link to a contribution site.
Tell that to Senators McCain and Feingold, and their attempted Incumbent Protection Act, er, Campaign Finance Reform. (Inability to talk about the incumbent's record within 60 days of the election.)
Should you not be allowed to dontate to whom you choose?
One would hope so.
What about Foreign web servers?
Unenforcable without permission from the owners of the web sites, the various national governments, etc.
Who is going to filter this?
Symantec? (Library filtering software they mentioned here a while back.) Some other company? Who knows. I would think this would be generally unenforcable from a legal standpoint... not that the government won't try.
If it is not filtered, then which one of the thousands of people will be fined, and how would the FCC draw the line on this.
Ooooo.... money... draw a line? Why? It's up to the people to stop this one.
My friends, welcome to another slippery slope.
It just seems like yet another speed-up point on the much larger slope we've been on for a long time.
OCO is Loco
If I'm a consultant that normally charges $100/hour and I volunteer to work on a political website, does this mean that I'm only allowed to volunteer 10 hours ($1K/contribution limit)?
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
And the internet means change. Not only does the internet provide leverage to 3rd-parties that have no current power, it provides progressives and conservative groups to ability to effect the major parties in new ways.
That is the design of the awful McCain-Feingold "reforms." They are designed so the current gatekeepers remain in full control and this new scary thing called the internet has no chance to move the political process in new directions.
What is the dollar value of talking to your friends about the election? What about standing on the street corner plugging your candidate? Those signs that people love to have in their lawn, how much is that advertising space worth?
If you wanted to be a complete prick you could assign a value to wearing a button and wearing a t-shirt with candidates names on them.
This is just another prime example of how we are losing our rights slowly.
Could a competing campaign (say pro-candidate A) purposely create content (i.e. blogs) that was pro-candidate B with the sole intent of effecting FEC fines that could hurt the target candidate/party's ability to run the current or future campaigns?
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
What if the Dutch guy just likes the said candidate and spams without permission? Is the FEC going to fine/punish the candidate without proof of involvement?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
While I am an opponent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, I think that we need to consider the actual effect of this ruling. Already, the 527 organizations (like MoveOn.org) are allowed to support or oppose a candidate and certainly are allowed to run as many TV spots as they want. Why should independent bloggers be any different?
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
This is not directed at spam. It is directed at webpages. Not so much those of candidates, but of independent organizations like moveon.org.
In a recent enforcement decision, wisconsin right to life was reprimanded for posting a link.
W RtL is a corporation, and the FEC decided this was a prohibited corporate contribution. www.fec.gov.
I'm concerned about that.
In 2000, I and 1200 other people wrote the FEC to ask them to keep hands off the internet, and they were doin somewhat ok with that, until this decision last fall in the Shays v FEC case.
They received another 1200 comments and are in the process of adopting regulations.
Shays is on appeal.
Amicus briefs supporting an unregulated internet would be welcome.
In 1992, when I saw John Gilmore hand Glenn Tenny a several hundred dollar contribution to his internet-based run for congress, I thought the internet would someday have a big impact on campaigns. In 1994, with the de-foley-8 america PAC, it did, but it was this last election cycle where the net became maybe more important than TV. Dean's fundraising and moveon.org and blogs were real players, and the usual suspects are calling for regulation and censorship.
Votelaw.org, electionlawblog.org and electionline are some good places to follow these issues. In contrast, ballots.blogspot.com, my election law blog, is not as good.
The fight against internet censorship has usually focused on smut and indecency. I've been trying, without success, to use political speech cases to make the same points.
John McCain is a hypocrite, whose constituency is the media (which can editorialize all it wants without being affected by campaign finance laws):
from http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/mccain_vs
Back in 2000, John McCain appeared in commercials sponsored by McKelvy (of Monster.com) promoting gun control referundums.
In every election, regardless of the level, the Federal Elections Commission must "certify" it in the very end in order to comply with a clause in the Constitution that every [subordinate] government [in the Union] must be a republican (note lower case "r") govornment.
If the FEC do not certify it, then that means the Federal Government refused to recognize those elected and thus that particular government (state, city, county, etc.) has lost its powers and federal funding. So, no, it does affect State and other local government to at least some degree.
Torture seems to work for Jack Bauer! Nothin' like shooting a guy in the leg to make him talk!
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
RTFA:
Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory process now is under way.
And just so you know, Bush and many conservatives were opposed to McCain-Feingold. Not everything is a neo-conservative plot.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
This is Slashdot. We're supposed to hate Scalia.
the Sixth -
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This is dead. Supreme court has ruled you DO NOT have the right to a jury trial if the sentence has a maximum of six months, PER CHARGE.
Combined with the patriot act, and the inability to confront witnesses I'd say the sixth is toast.
The Third -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The patriot act shredded what was left of this.
Add to this the fact that Juries are NOT informed that they are allowed to judge the MERITS of the LAW as well as a person's guilt or innocence.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Mod parent back up, this is not a Troll. It's rather insightful.
So if I'm, say, Bush, I could have my "Swift Boat Veterans" group, or the equivalent, SPAM in a deliberately offensive way 'on behalf of' John Kerry.
That's basically what Nixon used CREEP to do with paper materials: he had fake campaign literature to hand out at Muskie rallies, distorting Muskie's actual positions. (It's also what Karl Rove did in college; he describes that now as a "youthful indiscretion.")
Near as I can tell, though, SPAM isn't the issue. The abuse we've seen like this has been equivalent to the Swift Boat Vets' efforts -- like the Bob Jones University e-mails implying that John McCain had fathered a mixed-race child out of wedlock during the 2000 primaries. That kind of poison you want to target to a receptive audience, not SPAM to the world. So, back to building address lists...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Are political donations tax exempt in the US?
All it will take to minimize the value of these things is for people to "donate" a few billion dollars worth of tax deductions.
Election Regulation SHOULD BE:
Stop digitizing elections so the people's vote actually counts. Like use Paper.
It cost's less.
Remove the electricity from voting
Ban Digitized Data from voting
Ban Networks from voting
You've already lost many rights.
Why are you suprised.
They're going after everything.
A Senator in Alaska want to pass legislation to ban Cable TV shows like mine.
(We are talking paid cable subscription service he wants to make like broadcast TV.)
So, The war goes on.
Nobody can verify the vote when it is electronic!
? Inquiring minds want to know.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Is caricature the only way to sustain your beliefs
Nope, it's just a fun way to express them.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Typical leftist commie-symp logic; "you must give up your first amendment rights to combat this evil organization which advocates for second amendment rights!"
Well, enjoy your unintended consequences, dumbasses.
Did Bush veto McCain-Feingold? If not he supports it.
Seems the people with points today dont understand the concept of sarcasm..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He DOES INDEED want my Public Access Cable TV Show shut down.
Yes but she overturned the ruling now not in 2000.
But if the server is moved off shore then there is nothing they can do (as previously stated), but... the FEC can say the politician is using an off shore server.
If I were a politician I would just say that my opposition were trying to get me in trouble.
This is a huge morass, and might be the single straw that breaks the back of McCain-Finegold.
There are tons of collaborative political sites out there on both sides, who aren't associated with the parties or candidates yet strongly support their causes. They deserve the freedom they had through the 2004 elections.
And then there's the blogs like the pro-Thune blog in S.D., where the bloggers were paid for their blogging efforts by the campaign itself. They don't deserve crap under McC-F.
But the law doesn't distinguish - it only tries to gauge the value of an effort. How ugly can it get?
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
slashdot may be nearing the end of its usefulness.
The First Amendment refers to freedom of speech for the People, not the Corporations. Scalia's not defending us, he's defending Swift Boat, and the people behind Talon News, and the GOP. Yes, PEOPLE should be allowed to criticize the government. Corporations are not people and should not be given the same rights.
Well my understanding from a cable programmer's point of view is that a Senator up in Alaska want Paid Subscription Cable to fall under the same rules as Broadcast TV.
So when you fill out that playback request form, there won't be any 'indecent' checkbox, or 'adult' checkbox.
Is that clear enough?
If those boxes are gone then MY SHOW is gone.
This may be flamebait, but at least it's insightful flamebait.
Read the law that allows the FEC to do this. You will quickly note many other areas where freedom of speech is infringed. This law has already stood in in the supreme court.
In short, it is too late, you don't have freedom of speech.
Now I'll grant the freedoms lost are ones most people don't care about, but it is still a loss.
To recap...
No 'indecent' or 'adult' checkbox on the playback form!
senator's decency cruft
espo
No, he did not veto it. But his signature was very reluctant. However, you also have to look at the fact that the person strongly opposing this is a Republican, and the other 2 Republican commissioners are opposing the ruling as well. It's the Democratic commissioners who refuse to support an appeal. RTFA:
One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very effectively in the last campaign.
The McCain-Feingold Act was an outrageous usurpation of our first amendment rights.
Whether you're left or right, liberal or conservative, fascist or capitalist, if you can read you can understand the plain meaning of the first amendment.
What part of "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." don't they understand?
Insert witty sig here.
Does this mean that people aren't allowed to mention candidates on thier blogs within 60 days of an election?
So how exactly implemented? Do I get paid millions of dollars every four years to run for president if I feel like it? Or does it mean that only people approved by the government can run for office?
I am not in the pay of any campaign and I assert my right to continue to say whatever I want on the Internet. This law had better not impact my first amendment rights.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
"But his signature was very reluctant."
I don't remember the gun pointed at his head.
No one put a gun to Bush's head. He signed the bill, therefore he is responsible for it becoming law and the fault lies upon him for not having the balls to defend the 1st Amendment.
WTF?? The parent is not a troll.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Do you know anyone personally who has been jailed without any process or a hearing or allowed to speak to an attorney? What are their names and where are they incarcerated?
"Do I get paid millions of dollars every four years to run for president if I feel like it?"
If you can prevail upon the people who participate in the process, in enough places, then yes, you do.
Good luck developing that broad base of support.
If an old lady can't defend herself against a purse snatcher, then she deserves to have her purse snatched?
Third is the "no quatering of troops in people's homes" one. But I agree with your overall sentiment: the bill of rights is rapidly becoming meaningless.
It looks like the "money isn't speech" chickens are roosting at supersonic speeds.
Disclaimer: Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
the value is in their ability to enforce it when they or their friends are being slandered. sedition laws reborn.
You speak of both "slander" (defamation) and "sedition". The difference between sedition law and modern defamation law is that there are some important defences to defamation in most democratic republics, even those that do not explicitly recognize freedom of speech. These include "justification", that a statement is provably true, and "fair comment", that a statement is the opinion of a reasonable person based on true facts. Sedition law, on the other hand, prohibits making even true statements against public officials. However, expansive laws against sedition no longer exist in most democratic republics; even as early as two centuries ago, when the United States was young, the sedition provisions of the Patriot Act of 1798 were thought to violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This article is getting a lot of play in the blogosphere.
Instapundit, Hasen, Bainbridge, Michelle Malkin, Josh Claypool, at least a dozen others.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001654.htm
Either that'll die out in a day or two, or build into a firestorm that makes the major media.
Last time this happened in 99, it led to a round of FEC inquiry and public comment. This time it may give some legs to the first amendment restoration act, or other congressional action, or more litigation. I said above that Shays was on appeal but that seems to be wrong, at least for this part of the suit. Any one of us could have intervened in the suit and filed an appeal once the FEC deadlocked and did not appeal. But we didn't. I'd welcome hearing from anybody who wants to work constructively on the issue of protecting anonymous internet political speech.
Though the ingredients leave something to be desired. Mmmmmm... dimethylpolysiloxane...
http://www.dietriot.com/fff/mcd/mcd.html
Fish Filet Patty:
Pollock or Hoki, bleached wheat flour, water, modified corn starch, yellow corn flour, dextrose, salt, yeast, cellulose gum, natural flavoring (vegetable source). Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or corn oil). TBHQ and citric acid added to help preserve freshness. Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an anti-foaming agent.
... that torture isn't even effective. It's pretty generally recognized that you can't depend on information you get out of torturing someone, as they'll say anything to get you to stop.
So even if you put aside all the moral reasons why torture is a bad policy, there's no reason to do it.
Sean
that every link I make is a contribution to a campaign? Where can you honestly draw the line?
Remember, the entire story here consists of some offhand remarks being put forward by Brad Smith, the Republican chair of the FEC, to a CNET reporter. And he is well known not to be a fan of McCain-Feingold, so a Chicken-Little scenario (they'll outlaw political speech on the Internet!) is only to be expected from such a person. But the idea that links will become illegal, like in the 2600 deCSS case, hasn't been substantiated at all. The rules for the Internet could merely turn out to be that bloggers receiving regular paychecks from candidates (as several blogs did in 2004) have to disclose the existence of those paychecks in their blogs (which they didn't).
You can argue whether even this sort of restriction on political speech infringes on the First Amendment. I happen to think it comes very close- but a blog that's on a candidate's payroll is taking part in speech that is partly commercial.
I don't think this will do anything to increase the overall integrity of the system. The problem is the money - HUGE sums of money being spent on campaigns, much of it being accepted from various special interests in the business sector. They buy the candidates, and we get to vote for whomever that happens to be.
Harry Truman 1948
untaken_name excluded Truman: "Have you heard of a poor Presidential candidate in the last 50 years?"
Not elected representatives.
So what? I reeled off a list of all the others, who proved his assertions wrong. Truman happens to be the best example, just over 50 years ago. Is there some magic to the exactly 50 year cutoff that's relevant to the provenance of presidential candidates?
--
make install -not war
Not that the FEC cares about RedCat19's livejournal opinion on Senator Kerry, but what about sites like Eschaton which for a long time had tens of thousands of readers knowing the owner only as 'Atrios'? Duncan Black didn't reveal his real name because of his employment. Certainly many bloggers don't want their employers to be able to search their political (or any other) opinions. How could the FEC regulate internet political content without forcing people to reveal their true names? Would they add people's blogs to those searchable databases of political donors? (Guess we'd finally be able to find out what percentage of bloggers are unemployed.)...
If I come up with a flash ad in favor of the next Libertarian and send it out to other libertarian bloggers to post on their blogs, then we are running unsupported ads for a candidate under the law. If I blog in favor of them and link to statements that they make on their blogs, I can get in trouble. Finally, this isn't about regulating the candidate's blog, but about regulating outsiders who come in to support them through media help from ads to commentary in their favor.
This wouldn't bust Dean for his blog, this would bust the blogger who linked to Dean's campaign blog and posted pro-Dean, anti-Kerry ads. Oh and btw, once again you are completely wrong. The FEC jurisdiction does include cable tv ads.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Err, Scalia is in favor of ALL those freedom of speech restrictions.
>virtual child pornography
Yeah, great. Got a dating sim on your computer or some Evagelion porn? Guess what? That would be a felony as those images would be considered "virtual child pronography." Does that virtual girl look virtually 18?
> tobacco advertising
Inconsequential? One of the most addictive substances known is being sold over the counter and in every gas station with ads that used to (until regulation and other people got together) deny the dangers of smoking and that it was addictive. Hell, they used to hire doctors to say good things about tobacco in the 50s.
>sexually explicit cable programming
More on Scalia's hangup with people being able to view porn or anything with a nipple or not Jesus-centric. This guy would love for the FCC to step in and sanitize all media and I seriously doubt he'll say "Oh and we'll give the internet an exception."
Yes, this is a bad ruling, but Scalia as a defender of speech is fairly ridiculous. Watch him rule yes on using tax monies to buy ten commandments and other Xtian monuments in the next couple of days for more laughs.
I received this open letter from Trevor Potter, a former FEC commissioner, who disagrees with the Declan/Brad Smith article. /. sometimes.
It provides a different perspective on the issue.
Potter has his own axes to grind, and is not neutral, but it's one indication the article may have been overblown. I hear that happens on
RE: Declan/Brad Smith article on Internet regulation by FEC hasen
Trevor Potter
to me, election-law_gl
More options 5:45 pm (7 minutes ago)
Commissioner Smith's interview does a good job at providing
misinformation on the subject of the Internet and the FEC, as it was
obviously intended to. Under the FEC regulations supported by Smith last
year, PAID Internet advertising was not considered a 'public
communication' and therefore could be paid for by soft money without
limit or disclosure. The same applied to Internet Advertising by State
political parties. NEITHER OF THESE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH BLOGGERS OR
AVERAGE CITIZEN USE OF THE INTERNET!
After a Federal judge threw out these Smith-supported exclusions for
paid advertising on the Internet, the FEC was ordered to open a
rulemaking on the question of advertising on the Internet. The
Commission has NOT yet even put out any options for consideration--when
they do so there will be opportunity for lots of public comment. The
Commission will have plenty of opportunity in the course of the
rulemaking to distinguish between political candidate or party Internet
expenditures (which should be subject to federal campaign finance law
like any other expenditure they make, or which is coordinated with
them), and completely unregulated activity by bloggers, Internet news
services, and citizens acting on their own.
There is NO REASON AT ALL that this FEC rulemaking should attempt to
regulate bloggers, Internet -based news entities, or average citizens
sitting at their PCs, and I have great faith it will not. I personally
have represented several Internet-based groups in the past several years
in obtaining Advisory Opinions from the FEC making it clear that their
activities are NOT covered by federal election law.
What Brad Smith is trying to do (along with other opponents of campaign
finance reform on issues like 527 legislation) is scare people into
thinking the sky is falling, and stampede everyone into objecting before
the FEC rulemaking has even begins. Particularly telling is his urging
Congress to over-rule the federal district court opinion on paid
Internet advertising. Having had his (and the FEC's) unsupportable
exemption for paid advertising repudiated by a federal court, he now
wants to do an end run around that Court decision.
My suggestion is that those of us who care about keeping Internet
political activity free from intrusive regulation but ALSO believe in
the campaign finance reform effort to keep soft money and corruption out
of politics PARTICIPATE in the FEC rulemaking, and ensure the FEC gets
it right this time.
For more information on the history of FEC regulation and deregulation
of the Internet, see my Chapter in the Brookings Institution's New
Campaign Finance Sourcebook at
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/sour cebk 01/InternetChap9.pdf
Trevor Potter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:o wner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of arbitrary
aardvark
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:16 PM
To: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Declan/Brad Smith article.
This morning Rick linked to
this
article at news.com.
The article raises civil liberties concerns about FEC regulation of
bloggers, who may not qualify for the media exception, and about
treating linking as a contribut
Moderation -1
40% Redundant
30% Interesting
30% Overrated
TrollMods like monopolies, whether IT or governing party.
--
make install -not war
And DailyKos, and Greenpeace, and the AFL-CIO. And everybody else who wants to criticize the government for any reason.
Unlike Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg, who thinks it's allowable under the First Amendment to broadcast things close to kiddie porn but don't think political criticism of incumbent power is.
Remember, it was the Democrats that really pushed for CFR, along with camera-hog McCain (who, BTW, has pulled a real snow job on all you "progressives" - McCain has a voting record that would do Ronald Reagan proud...)
All you dumbshits who supported Campaign Finance Reform because it would "stop those evil corporations and lobbyists from buying our politicians" can now take a bow.
Sometimes you get what you ask for.
I thought it was commie free speech that was banned in universities? Who would listen to a right winger in college anyways? Who let the redneck in?
Because it doesn't affect anyone I know personally, its OK?
Does that mean you won't mind if I go around shooting random people as long its not someone you knew personally?
Wouldn't Indymedia be an example of what this decision is trying to stop?
Teresa Heinz Kerry -> Tides Foundation -> $365,000 -> Indymedia, and overnight an entire network of "independent" news web sites published by "journalists" open up worldwide that appear to have a coordinated opinion about the 2004 election.
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
Ah, the Constitution only says that every is guranteed a republican form of government. But ultimately, the details is left to the secretary of state of each state. I stand corrected.
Does no one remember the FEC threat against the owner of ... what was it, gwbush.com ? ... circa 1999? I haven't seen it mentioned here, but maybe I just missed it...
You remember: It was the FEC action that was the follow-on to the aspiring dictator's attempts to shut down the parody site?
Iirc, the sound byte was something like "There's gotta be some limits to freedom." I've got the MP3 of it around here somewhere.
When Dubya's slightly premature edict didn't take hold quite as effectively as he demanded (the site stayed up and his lawsuit was tossed out), then suddenly and mysteriously the FEC stepped in and "fined" the owner of the domain something like $25,000...
Anyone who didn't see which way the 2000 "election" was going to fall at that time was just deluding themselves.
Anyone who remembers shouldn't be surprised to see the FEC moving again on behalf of the Regime to consolidate Power.
Wow. The courts first threw Dubya's lawsuit out, concluding (apparently) that Speech was protected - even if the subject of that Speech was a fortunate son who wannabe da prez. Amazing how things can change in 4 or 5 years, isn't it?
This latest from the FEC is just one more stone in the wall of Suppression of Dissent that the Regime has been building since Day One.
And does anyone recall Doonesbury during the reign of Bush I?
"The Internet is made of cats."
Therefore, I posit that unpaid bloggers wishing to protect their speech from regulation would "only" need to get thee down to the local printers or repro shop on a sceduled basis to print digests. Slap a Volume and Issue number on the header, drop some copies at the local bar, make cheap paid subscriptions available from your web site, and you're a "real" publisher.
Sure, this is more hassle than planting your ass in front of your terminal, but if/until Congress cleans up the after affects of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling, I'll rationalize that it's healthy to get out of the house a little more often.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
This is precisely the kind of bullshit that we said would happen if McCain-Feingold was passed. We were called paranoid. We were called kooks. Hell, maybe we were, but we were also right.
ANY obstacle to free speech and exchange of ideas will be abused by those who wish to silence those who want to say unpopular things.
A good example is modern Germany. You can be prosecuted if you deny the holocaust. Personally, I think it's a no-brainer that it really happened. I've known holocaust survivors and avoiders, but I think you should be able to say that you don't believe that it happened.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano