Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech
InklingBooks writes "Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet. It would have been a 'regulatory minefield for bloggers' and may yet return." CNet has a view of this earlier language as well. It's important to note that the regulation has changed much since the initial draft. The FEC began consideration of more developed regulation language on Thursday. From the article: "So, the original attempt to regulate started with the premise that everything was to be regulated except that with limited distribution or on password-protected sites."
To know they would even CONSIDER such a thing is disturbing.
threaten to kill the president on your blog and see how much "freedom" and "free speech" you have in America then ?
you keep using that word , but you do not know what it means
Speech on blogs shouldn't be regulated. However, the public has a right to know when that speech has been funded by political organizations. The law should require such contributions -- of any amount; blogs are so low overhead -- to be made public.The blogger doesn't need to reveal it, the info just needs to be available so other bloggers can find.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
do you ever get the feeling that we should be the ones runing the country?
A rule was thought up, then within days reversed. Happens all the time. If it was actually enforced, a lawsuit would have resulted in it being ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is WHY we have a constitution. So when the government does stupid stuff, lawsuits can force them to back down.
Preventing rich people from buying an election is good. Preventing free association and communication is bad and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Summary: this IS the system working like its supposed to. And people being selfish and/or stupid like the founders knew they would be.
The system does not depend on suggested drafts of regulations being perfect!!! We have to debug OUR work, why can't people realize regulators have to debug their work?
I only need a license (class III) for fully automatic weapons. Also, States issue concealed carry permits (unless there are laws saying they are not needed, or Vermont where open carry is the law). At 18 I could buy any rifle or shotgun I wanted to. I can buy handguns this summer at 21. My father is giving me his 9mm Rugar and I am getting my concealed carry permit.
As Patrick Henry said, "the great object is that every man may own a gun. Everyone who is able may." Whether you "need" it to not isn't the point. The point is you might some day and it's better to have it than be sorry. the 2nd amendment in this country isn't about hunting or "keeping king george out." It's about personal defense, of the family and home, as well as the ultimate check and balance on the government.
A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all. Sure, some crimes will happen, but fewer. Legally owned firearms are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Criminals will always have them and its better that law abiding citizens do too than that only criminals have them. You cannot count on the police. In fact, they are probably more dangerous to liberty than conducive to safety.
But like I said, Europe is different. I'll bitch and complain about government health care here because it's not what this country was founded on. You can stick "HRM" in front of whatever you do and that's fine and in keeping with tradition. I really don't care.
Rick Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor who argued in court in favor of the BCRA, said that the "FEC's first stab at writing new rules raises as many questions as it seeks to answer, and we must remain wary of both intended and especially unintended consequences."
The system only works to the extent citizens get involved. Don't believe those in power when they do anything to limit participation in the process.
Britian and America are two very very different things but right now we're both in the same shit hole.
..I see this post haunting me again after the election.. mostly because the political state here is no better. It's all "God I hate Labour! They fucked up everything! We're all fucked... but I don't know who else there is...".
We're looking at a police state within ten years and you fuckers vote the bastard back in!
Take a hint people, look for the guys not throwing shit at each other and you might find a guy who might just do his job because he didn't win threw a popularity contest
I like muppets.
Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy
The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial.
And it's actually not rooted in philosophical foundations, but rather a response to challenges to the relativistic "laws can be interpreted to mean whatever we say they are" order of the Federal (and increasingly, state) judiciary.
America's 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) pushed a power grab that was unprecedented, particularly in the court system. FDR was concerned (and rightfully so) that his nationalizing very large parts of the economy would be successfully challenged in the courts (note: FDR's programs shouldn't be confused with any financial necessity as is often rationalized in school textbooks. Most economists overwhelmingly agree that FDR's efforts prolongued, not shortened the depression. World War II was the vehicle for economic recovery, just as Bush's war in Afghanistan and Iraq had similar benefits the past several years).
FDR's solution for a certain judiciary rejection of his nationalizing efforts? Take over the court system. FDR stacked lower courts and used numerous mechanisms to push out opposing justices. When faced with a hostile US Supreme Court, he attempted to dillute his opposition by expanding the court to twelve justices (an effort that failed, but FDR's lengthy stay in office caused him to outlive most of his opposition's careers).
The pinnacle achievement of FDR's judiciary efforts? The landmark Wickard v. Filburn (1942) case. While usually studied for its total reversal on Federalism thinking, it was equally notable in disregarding 150 years of Constitutional law and creating a foundation for new interpretive, "living document" approaches to law (living document discussions are akin to predicting human behavior by skull size and shape; it is a bogus argument, all in the room know it is bogus, but the fools on the street buy it without challenge and serve as useful fools). The Wickard case was critical to FDR's judiciary expansion in both areas. Filburn was a farmer who grew a little bit of extra wheat to feed his cattle (under strict FDR production quotas determined to exact political control of the agricultural classes). He argued that he was exempt on his farm from Federal law due to the Constitutions Federalism provisions; grain grown, harvested and consumed on the farm was solely intrastate and not a Federal issue.
FDR's Supreme Court found otherwise, essentially under the highly flimsy reasoning that the grain, if not produced, would have to be purchased elsewhere. And even though Mr. Filburn would be most likely to buy it locally, there was a rare chance he could have gotten it from another state. Ergo interstate commerce was found, and Federal jurisdiction to impose controls over the highly conservative farmers was confirmed.
It has been very much downhill ever since FDR's deconstruction of the constitutional government. The judiciary has not been accountable to the process ever since. Any legal scholar (who will admit the corruption of his own field) can affirm that uncontrolled medical costs, unaffordable medical insurance, out of control product liability costs, absurd class action abuse and other excesses are all a product of an unchecked branch of the government exercising power to the maximum.
FDR was remarkably insightful, however. He created a dependent class that continues to defend the power of the priviledged elite legal class. By promising their dependencies either protection or the riches confiscated from the middle class, his system has been remarkably successful in retaining power longer than any other political system in the US.
Being informed is your duty as a citizen so don't be a slacker (yah, I know someone will consider this Flamebait - more your problem than mine).
. pdf).
Proposed rule is attempting to define where it should set the line as to what to "regulate" - and "regulate" does not mean "stiffle".
The target from my reading of the proposed rule is "expenditures for communication that have been coordinated with a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party"(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2005/mtgdoc05-16
IMO that is a good thing to know about a blogger who voices strong opinions and is being PAID for them. Where it gets confusing is defining how to focus on who/what/how/where - and the FEC tried to define it based on economics (site and related costs of $250). I consider this ridiculously low, but the intent to allow individual bloggers below that amount a BLANKET EXEMPTION was IMO of good intent.
What remains is for folks to make considered comment - which they requested (respond to internet@fec.gov today!).
Do make it considered. Point out that a non-professional blogger can spend $100 @ month on his "hobby" (?hobbyhorse?). None of us wants the burden of having to determine if we need to respond as regulated, while we do want the obvious politico's and their hacks to be so required.
Now, is that really flamebait?
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
I never liked the speech regulation parts of McCain-Feingold, but what does this phrase mean in the context of a blog? How do they know how many people read my blog unless they demand my log files?
That Wall Street Journal had an even better editorial on Monday.
According to the article, the campaign finance "reform" movement to limit our first amendment rights did not have broad-based politcial support. Instead, McCain-Feingold was the product of a secret $123 million astroturfing conspiracy run by the Pew foundation and seven other foundations. Like the super villians in a James Bond spy novel, Sean Treglia of the Pew Foundation, could not stop himself from bragging about how brilliantly was their evil scheme succeeding.
I know, at first, that sounds like crackpot stuff, but the WSJ seems to have its facts in order here.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Whether your comment is true or false does not affect your parents comments' validity. If you are going to be raped or murdered on the street, carrying a firearm would certainly be useful (protection and deterrent). Its probable that if a significant fraction of the population was carrying a firearm, then rape and murder would have to occur somewhere safer for a criminal, like inside a house. In that case, carrying a firearm would certainly be useful for protection and deterrent.
Ok, I call bullshit on this. I've had 6 people attempt to assault/rob me on the street in the last 5 years. The only time I got hurt (badly cut) was the one time I didn't have a gun. The other five times I drew a pistol, made sure the bad guys saw it, and they ran away. Also, I'm pretty damn good with a gun. Certainly better than most cops I know. 1000 rounds a week will tend to have that effect. Criminals aren't all stupid, most will run once they see the .45 come out.
The viewpoint seems typical of how foreigners view Americans. You list dozens of ways in which our country (I'm an American) is "broken" and then allude to a conspiracy of the American media to protect the right-wing politicians of this country from the negative side-effects of their evil policies. You (and many others like you) seem to conclude that Americans are just idiots whose time is nearing an end...
Let me let you in on a little secret: Americans are quite aware of everything you think they ignorant of. Everyone knows about Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi prisoner abuse. Everyone knows that thousands of civilians have died in the Iraq war and that popular opinion of US abroad is in the toilet. Everyone knows that our school system could use some improvement (more on that later) and that everyone knows that the Patriot Act in some ways compromised civil liberties for security. Everyone knows that Bush's attendance record in the ANG was spotty and that Oh, and everyone knows that Republicans want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and prefer archaic sex education.
In short, Americans are well aware of all the issues that you seem concerned with, yet about half of them (myself included) disagree with you on just about every point. Did you ever stop to think that just possibly, it could be you foreigners who aren't getting a complete and unbiased representation of the issues as the pertain to American politics? Just a thought. I get my news from a variety of sources ranging in ideology from DailyKos and NPR to yes, Fox News. I am 100% confident that I have heard every shred of information that you have heard about American (and then some) yet I have come up opposite views. The selectiveness of the media abroad would explain a lot of your opinions, but there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way as you so there must be other factors as well. Obviously the culture plays a huge part in this as it is culture and morality and weight the importance of different facts to when forming a viewpoint. For instance, everyone I know thinks the actions of a handful of prison guards at Abu Ghraib were abhorrent - but that they were not more representative of Americans as a whole than the act of the 19 hijackers were representative of the Muslim world as a whole.
While I would love to waste my evening challenging each of your opinions point-by-point, I have a few pressing house chores so I choose just one: your comments about our educations system.
education: something which is fundamentally broken in the US (unless you have money) and which the government is in no hurry to fix ('no child left behind' is just making matters worse)
I don't know what you think No Child Left Behind actually does,... but there were virtually no critics of the law until the run-up to this last election. The states taking federal money for education for years with next to zero accountability. NCLB demands that the states actually demonstrate that federal funds are being spent well, by requiring student assessments, improving the quality of teachers and that school systems use "scientifically based research" for teaching methods. You show me any other federal program that doles out billions of dollars but doesn't require any sort of proof that the money is being used effectively. Schools that under perform are given increased funding.
Lots of people are resisting this law for a number of reasons. Obviously, poor performing teachers and administrators don't want to be assessed for fear of being (rightly) put out
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
"I think you're trivialising your country's problems."
Exactly, MY country. By the people, for the people. Everyone has had an equal opportunity to change what they feel is problematic, %99 of the country thinks that stops at the voting booth. Despite the rampant corruption and bribery abound in our great nation's government, it is still the system that has enabled us to thrive for so long and probably will not fail us in the near future.
Half the problems you mention are ones that we brought upon ourselves and are just as capable of fixing. The beauty of democracy is that if the people want it, the people are going to have it. We are in the middle of a period where the corruption and bribery hasn't yet got to a point that the american people are going to demand change over. But that day will come. One day, the corruption and lack of representation on behalf of the people will become a major concern. When that day comes, MAJOR reforms and investigations will occur.
The US of A has been in this boat before, twice as a matter of fact. Do you honestly think the depression in the early 20's was caused by the market? Hell no. You really think the most effective war of the past 4 centuries was caused by a genuine interest in independence? Of course not.
The blood of the rightous shall cleanse the tree of the wicked, and the cycle of liberty shall be renewed. That same cycle is the only reason the Union survived the war of 1812. The will and accomplishment of the people of a nation united for the cause of freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is impossible to destroy outright or even oppress in any notion.
You're right about our system being broken, but what you don't realize is that the system can be repaired, and has been before.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
http://www.nationmaster.com/
r i_ca p&id=OECD
Is a great stats page. A quick summary of several graphs (all per-capita, the only fair stat)
(UK + USA #/1000) (rankings based on OECD countries)
Burglaries
UK: 13.91 (rank 5)
USA: 7.23 (rank 11)
Murders
USA: 0.04 (rank 3)
UK: 0.01 (rank 15)
Murders with firearms
USA: 0.02 (rank 2)
UK: 0.00 (rank 16)
Total crime (including drugs+rape+assault) (all of which USA leads in vs UK)
UK: 86.04 (rank 4)
USA: 81.55 (rank 5)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_c
So it seems the USA leads in rape, murder, assault, drugs, and a few other categories. But somehow the USA is lower in "total crime", despite all this. How much you wanna bet a fair number of those "murders" are foiled robberies?
I would also like to point out that the differences in crime rate between US cities and US rural areas (where gun prevalance is much higher) is phenomenal. It's like comparing Mexico (high crime) with Finland (no crime).
People living in rural areas tend to own more guns, vote Republican (well, at least a 55% ratio do, compared w/ less than 20% in cities), and suffer fewer crimes.
The very fact that more people own guns means that it's less likely they'll need to use them (in the self-defence way).
(and since when was ANY police force effecient enough to deter crime....certainly not in the UK)
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)