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.
Good job!
is that (Extending Erection) Regulation or Extending (Erection Regulation)?
Nigerians or Pfizer? That's not a hard choice.
Woo boy, she's tough. Bill is still smarting at the slap on the wrist she gave him.
If you're only considering "leading candidates" then I think your "voting decision process" is pretty damn simple already. McDonalds or Burger King, big choice.
burger king has fish. mcdonalds has chicken.
As the inventor of the internet, shouldn't Al Gore be exempt from this?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
who gave that idiot an insightful 4 for his post?
mcdonalds has something that has fish in the name. Doesn't that count?
Hell, we'll stay out of your campaigns when your leaders stop describing themselves as "leader of the free world".
Until then, you will just have to live with it.
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
Now, while we are supposed to be the good guys, good guy interrogation tactics actually aren't that effective. What, precisely, are we supposed to do to interrogate them? Stick them under a hot light and keep asking questions over and over and over and over, until they get sick of us asking and talk, just to get us to shut up? That's practically begging to get fed a line of BS.
It's a Catch-22. If we be the white-hat and don't use torture, we're either not going to get anything useful, or get fed outright lies. If we do use torture, we're using the kind of things that the "bad-guys" do, the kind of thing that, being the "good-guys" we're not supposed to do.
Do you have any better ideas for getting information out of suspected terrorists that is likely to work?
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Now, while we are supposed to be the good guys, good guy interrogation tactics actually aren't that effective. What, precisely, are we supposed to do to interrogate them? Stick them under a hot light and keep asking questions over and over and over and over, until they get sick of us asking and talk, just to get us to shut up? That's practically begging to get fed a line of BS.
It's a Catch-22. If we be the white-hat and don't use torture, we're either not going to get anything useful, or get fed outright lies. If we do use torture, we're using the kind of things that the "bad-guys" do, the kind of thing that, being the "good-guys" we're not supposed to do.
Do you have any better ideas for getting information out of suspected terrorists that is likely to work?
Don't you think that there is a possibility a tortured prisoner would give false information to end the torture as well? Torture has a much tendency to get people to talk, but there is no greater certianity about the validity of their information (it could even be less reliable).
But what catagory would Burgerville, Wendy's, or Carl's Jr fall into?
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
I love the quote at the bottom of my slashdot page.
Youth of today! Join me in a mass rally for traditional mental attitudes!
"and for what it's worth the US economy is not the strongest in the world" Yes, it is. Unless you count Europe as a country, which it isn't.
i agree, torture can potentially be VERY VERY affective in getting people to talk, if you are good at it, but it only retrieves the information that the torturer wants to hear which may have little or no bearing to the truth.
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.
Mod parent back up, this is not a Troll. It's rather insightful.
You don't pay our taxes, so don't screw with our politics. Your option is for your government to work with ours diplomatically.
They pay levies for trade. It's certainly their right to show an interest in the politics of other countries. The United States has made a living out of manipulating the governments of other countries, so it's a bit of a kettle/pot deal.
Besides, you're seriously suggesting the restriction of free speech of people in another country when it comes to talking about the US. It's all about control. Just look at the words you used: don't screw with our politics, your option is. You seem to enjoy telling people what they can and can't do and restricting their ability to do anything about it by removing the fundamental part of any defense: speech. What if the US were to up and decide it wanted to invade a sovereign nation and occupy it for an undetermined amount of time? Would it not be the right of that country's people to take action to prevent that from happening? Can those people not voice their dissent? Should all work be done exclusively through diplomatic channels? Your answer may be yes, but reality may take issue with that.
Grow your ecomomy and military might to ours, then we won't have the most powerful president in the world.
It is the right of other peoples to grow their economies and militaries however they see fit, including by going on the Internet and saying "Frist sucks, Obama oh-eight."
If you want to influence our politics, you should at lease do so within our legal framework.
The US violated international law by invading and occupying Iraq, and you want to talk about doing things by the (that is, your) book? We're talking about free speech here, freedom of expression, freedom of life. Your argument sounds more and more like "Things would be perfect if only everyone would do things the way I think they should be done."
Remember these words the next time you trash China's human rights record or North Korea's human rights record or Sudan's human rights record or complain about Iran seeking nuclear weapons or complain about the French and their hairy women. Many of those countries don't allow such dissent, so why aren't you following their laws? Why do you have to persist with this massive grass-roots world-wide condemnation of rights abuses when you're clearly not doing it through diplomatic channels? Write your ambassador, don't encourage dissent by word of mouth. That's crazy free-speech talk.