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)
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
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 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.
Too bad there aren't any third parties you could pick from instead...
Because it is. Don't ask them to explain how it's different, it just is. You're not supposed to think like this. That's free thought and that's dangerous.
It would be like asking the question: if Syria is on the list of nations who use torture to try and extract information from prisoners and we (the U.S.) object to such treatment, how come we (the U.S.) send suspected terrorists to Syria for interrogation?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
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
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.
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.
Yeah, but you're losing your rights because you're not willing to fight for them.
Thirty years ago, Lenny Bruce fought tooth and nail against indecency laws, though it cost him everything he had. He died bankrupt. But thanks to him, other entertainers enjoy a lot of freedom.
The RIAA is pushing people around in lawsuits that would substantially hurt those individuals financially if they were to fight. None of those cases are going to court because it's cheaper to settle.
To quote Parker and Stone, freedom isn't free. It is hard won, and costs people their reputations, their standing, their money, their careers, and even their lives in extreme circumstances. If you want to keep your freedom, you have to be willing to sacrifice for it.
Otherwise, you're just bitching until someone else pays the price for you.
Why make points when you can make jokes?
I'm a libertarian. I'm stating that up front, because I'm going to piss off Republicrats and Demopublicans alike and I want any claims of partisanship to at least correctly identify my party.
When did public political discourse devolve into outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol? I know it's been like that among politicians for quite a while, but I can rememebr a time when that was the exception in public discourse, not the norm.
Look, people: just because someone holds a belief that you disagree with, that doesn't mean they are evil or stupid. I highly doubt that the average Republican agrees with CFR or this measure. On the other hand, I would guess that almost all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation, agree with both. Not every issue has only two sides, and not all issues with only two sides can be split along repub/dem party lines. The kind of discourse you are engaged in will only appeal to those with whom you already agree. While that can be rewarding, is alienating people with whom you disagree really what you want to do? Would you not rather convice them of the correctness of your argument? It seems these days that no one wants to actually convince anyone else. Maybe that's because in order to get someone to listen to you, you must also be willing to listen to them. Everyone wants to be heard these days....but is anyone willing to listen?
http://xkcd.com/386/
"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."
Well, you are starting from the same premise that the FEC and Congress started, that we should regulate campaigns, so you are going to end up at the same point they did. A campaign is not like a corporation, it is not a well defined legal or financial entity. You cannot say that these regulations apply to only one person and not another they have to apply to everyone equally. So, since these regulations apply to the content of speech, they apply to anyone who is supporting or opposing a candidate. So, you have to choose, either you regulate and restrict everyones' political speech or no one's. If you try to restrict the speech of only certain persons such as the candidates themselves and those they pay directly it will be innefective.
The problem isn't with the execution of campaign finance "reform", the problem is with the goal itself.
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.