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."

Comments

Yikes

[mboverload]

To know they would even CONSIDER such a thing is disturbing.

Re:Yikes

[smchris]

Disturbing? I think the phrase you are looking for is "a predictable certainty".

I quit reading dead tree news about 1999. TV news is far worse. A fecal mass of "human interest" fit for a teen gossip rag and the money shots of propaganda. If you find it an amusing use of your time, look for the editorial qualifying phrases that pay for so-called broadcast "news": ...the Italian journalist, WHO WAS SHOT ACCIDENTALLY, ...social security, WHICH IS IN TROUBLE, ...extending tax breaks [primarily for the rich], WHICH WILL STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

That's why "news" exists -- to make these OPINIONS the de facto foundation of public consciousness. Americans seem more naive about this process than people in some other countries. I doubt that citizens have been as uncritical reading Pravda.

Something like the web comes along and it isn't a problem. Until it comes to the awareness of a critical mass of people that there might be some genuine news available here. That citizens can actually reinsert their voices into public consciousness without an editorial gatekeeper. Then power predictably has to act to destroy the threat.

The only interesting question is whether something as global as the internet can be coopted instead of trying to imitate the Great Server Wall of China here. It is American tradition to at least maintain the pleasant illusion of intellectual freedom.

Re:Yikes

[ikkonoishi]

So are you criticizing the current administration, the local governing policies of the District of Columbia, or the overall policy decisions of both parties?

I think the whole campaign finance reform thing was a scam so the big money could control who could contribute to politics.

Frankly I think we should go all declaration of independance on both parties and the horses they rode in on, but then again I'm tired and cranky from being at work for twelve hours. It just seems sometimes that the goverment no longer works for the people, instead it just works for the goverment.

Any problem that comes along can only be solved by creating another branch of the goverment to deal with it.

It raises taxes to pay for the subsidies on the incomes of the people who can't afford to live on their income because their taxes are too high. It robs the rich to give to the poor and defines the rich as 90% of the population.

Meanwhile I know hardworking people who would have a higher income if they stopped working and started receiving welfare checks. (So long as they match the racial profile of the people who vote for the welfare supporters, you understand. We couldn't have racial equality in the eyes of the law, that wouldn't be fair.)

I know I've gone off topic a bit here (and ranted), but something has to be done about the current governmental trend, and I just don't know what.

Re:Yikes

[bryanp]

Specifically, the NRA, despite being one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America, has done nothing to try to preserve and protect the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Actually the NRA fought the so-called "campaign finance reform" acts which are making the main subject of this story possible, citing the 1st Amendment as their reason.

The funny thing is that both the left and the right in this country pick and choose from the Bill of Rights depending on the issue. I find it highly amusing that the left is now trying to circumvent the right by citing the 10th Amendment "States Rights" provisions which they derided for so many years. Of course we have the right wing using the federal govt to hammer on state govt which is something they railed against for so many years.

Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[JeffTL]

How do you define a blog, then, and separate it from a regularly updated website?

Political organization backing should need to be disclosed anywhere by anyone at any time.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

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.

WTF Does "limited distribution" mean on the web?

[lseltzer]

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?

Re:B.S.

[Keebler71]

Slashdot is somewhat unique in that there are such a large number of foreign readers who have very well informed and intelligent opinions about the politics of a government other than their own. While it is tempting to say "mind your own business" like another poster, I realize that American politics is the world's concern given that the US is at the moment the economic and military super-power.

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

Re:B.S. - US vs UK crime stats

[DisKurzion]

http://www.nationmaster.com/

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_cr i_ca p&id=OECD

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)