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

[mboverload]

Jumping ahead 50 years to a train tour of the Easy coast... On the left you will see North Korea, which as been towed all the way from the Pacific Ocean to Washington DC because we just felt there was no longer any difference.

Re:Yikes

[Spruitje]

Well, there is a simple solution.
Move to Europe.
Or keep your blog on a server outside the US.

Re:Yikes

[daniil]

No, it's not. It's a perfectly natural reaction to the growing popularity of political blogs. They saw the potential in blogging and they saw possible danger in it. And now they want to regulate it (so that, say, one political party couldn't secretly fund a blog slinging mud at their opponents). There's nothing suprising there -- except for maybe the harshness of the proposed regulations.

Re:Yikes

[eraserewind]

I'm not American, but can you please explain how moving to Europe is a solution to the erosion of American civil liberties? Seems it would only make things worse to have people who oppse a government leave.

Even if you reduce the issue to an issue of your own personal rights (the rest of America can go to hell), just by moving to most European countries you would be giving up many rights. The right to vote (you are not a citizen), the right to work (unless you can get the required visa), the right to free speech, many states (e.g Germany for neo-nazi stuff) have government imposed restrictions on what you can say, and will put you in jail for breaching it, the right to use encryption for personal communications (france), the right to bear arms (varies, but most countries are significantly more restrictive than the US). I'm sure there are probably others.

Re:Yikes

[bobbuck]

I'm glad this gets a negative reaction but I still remember how glad everyone was when Russ Fiengold and John McCain passed a law that said free-speech doesn't apply to politics. Political free speech is going to need more protection, either from new judges or another amendment.

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

[mbaciarello]

While I agree with other posts mentioning less freedom of speech in Europe, there's one thing we should remember.

Curbing political speech at election time (i.e., a week or more before the actual vote) may not always be bad, at least in principle.

Consider the case of a party having substantially more economical resources than their opponents. The sheer power of money may lead to their victory thanks to advertising barrage and intensive canvassing. The U.S. may not feel the problem, at least at the moment, as both parties usually enjoy substantial campaign funding. A more typical example of this is Italy, where a media mogul has been allowed to participate directly in politics without being forced to give up control of his empire.

There's always a certain percentage of the voting population who can't perceive the different stances of parties, and are undecided. Those people are an easy prey for spin doctors.

Curbing campaigning in the eve of the election may somewhat alleviate the problem, at least by giving people a little time to think it over.

Italy does have restrictions on political speech starting a few weeks before elections. Does this solve the problem? No. Would it be worse without such regulations? Possibly.

DISCLAIMER: This is all pretty utopistic, I know. Just thinking that a person would be in charge of actually deciding what is political speech, and what is not, would lead to significant bias when enforcing such laws.

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

[Funksaw]

I'm planning a move to New Zealand soon.

The truth is that the most fundimental right is the right to know what your rights are. America's rights are codified in the Constitution, but they are not respected. The enforcement of, for example, right to trial, has now become arbitrary.

To me, a government exists as a social contract - and I'd rather deal with a government that acknowledges fewer rights but keeps it's word about the ones it respects. That's not what's happening in America.

I understand that by moving to New Zealand, I will lose the right to vote (until I earn citizenship, which is not an undue requirement. I waited 18 years to vote in America, I can wait 3 to vote in New Zealand.) New Zealand actually has a greater respect for free speech than America does - check Reporters without Borders if you want the skinny on that. I mean, "Free Speech Zones?" That's not the America I know.

As for the right to bear arms - the problem with the right to bear arms is that those who bear arms then have a responsibility to monitor the government, and when it encroaches, attempt to change it - hopefully through non-violent means.

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. Indeed, by supporting Republicans, the NRA is undercutting the "other 9 amendments that the 2nd is supposed to protect." If you're not going to fight for your rights when doing so is a bloodless, painless excersise, then why would I believe you to fight for them when it means risking your neck and your family's neck?

The truth is, in order for the 2nd amendment to preserve freedom, it needs not just an armed populace but an educated and motivated one. We don't have that in America.

The truth is - and we see this around the world - that a motivated and educated populace is MORE likely to overthrow a corrupt government than an armed one. Look at the Ukraine. Look at Lebanon. These were not victories won by gunpoint - these were victories won standing up to a gunpoint.

The problem is, in America, if you oppose the government, you're in the minority. Most Americans really do want a government that they feel protects the safety and social mores of the majority at the expense of minority rights. Fascism, to them, works, just so long as it's *their* fascist in power.

And that won't go away anytime soon - Jeb Bush will be the next President of the United States because the Republican primaries and the national elections will be held on black-box voting machines. I really don't think, in America, we have the right to vote - and that's the one fundimental right in a democracy.

If there was hope for things to get better - one, tiny, little shred of hope that things were going to improve - I would not be going. There is no hope and the difference between those who stay and fight and those who leave is that the latter have realized this.

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.

Re:Yikes

[Math, The Ancient]

"Everytime I see"..."I flip em off and run them off the road."

That's what was acceptable to those that wore their "jew badges" with pride.

"get used to the idea that half of this country is really into bringing back the good ole days of Hitler and Gerbils"

which half is it?

Re:Yikes

[Omnifarious]

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Re:Yikes

[magarity]

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

This is just another version of campain finance "reform" like McCain-Fiengold. Are you so disturbed about that? I am, but I'm not acting like this is a suprise.

Re:Yikes

[TheKidWho]

Read this

http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

Took this from a friend
"We're a schizophrenic people. On the one hand, we are proud of the fact that we are undeniably the richest, most powerful nation in the world. On the other, we are ashamed of it -- we're the kid on the playground that hates being called 'rich.' There's a duality in the American spirit that's more notable than any other developed nation's. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it's true.
"

Re:Yikes

[Wavicle]

As for the right to bear arms - the problem with the right to bear arms is that those who bear arms then have a responsibility to monitor the government, and when it encroaches, attempt to change it - hopefully through non-violent means.

Wow... A bunch of people with guns should go up to the government and say "Uh, I think you're going a little overboard."

It is the responsibility of EVERY CITIZEN to monitor the government regardless of gun ownership. There are already non-violent means of changing government: Dialog with those in power and voting new people into power.

I'm all for keeping the 2nd amendement, but the notion of "you have a gun, go intimidate the government" is ridiculous. Fix the system from the inside... or move to New Zealand if you're not going to help.

Re:Yikes

[khallow]

I think that a lot of the people "escaping" the US are the kind that got us into this mess. Ie, they are "US liberals" who support strong central governments (for humane things like welfare and alternative energy). Unfortunately as we're finding out, a strong central government that can feed the poor people of the US or manage Social Security is also a government capable of invading simultaneously multiple countries worldwide or potentially of imposing a theocracy, fascist state, or both.

Re:Yikes

[InvalidError]

It is not going to change any time soon.

The only way to do it in a civilized manner would be to get a "people's party" to power with overwhelming majority and start anew.

Since elections are a publicity stunt and getting listed already costs quite a bit, getting >300 people listed, known and elected would cost a fortune. In a world of mostly narrow-minded idiots, it is highly unlikely that a party of "average" people ("average" because truly average people mostly do not care and would not get involved) would get to power.

Re:Yikes

[LnxAddct]

Wow your making out all these issues to be so much more then they are. As a typical citizen my life hasn't changed one bit as far as politics go for at least two decades. The changes being made in law rarely affect many people. Regardless, the situation is anything but hopeless and there are still alot of good folks in Washington that do indeed fight for our rights, you just rarely see it reported on slashdot.

Your view on America seems to come from all those crazy extremist magazines that hate everything America. If you look at the whole picture, the situation is pretty good. Sure George Bush isn't the best, but America's core principles are pretty impenetrable and it would take a hell of alot more then GWB to bring it crumbling down. Personally, I think in 4 years Hilary Clinton will be president... but thats off topic.

If you have ever studied history you'll see things like the current state of America fluctuate very much like a sine wave. Every couple decades we more or less dig ourselves into a little hole, then somehow we always rebound whether its from a kick ass president or because of some global scale war where we go in and save the place. The fact that your not willing to stick around long enough to see America do this again implies that you scare easily and your weak. At the first sign of trouble you run, but I doubt you can seriosuly say your life has actually been impacted by any recent legislation. For this, I hope you love NZ, I know a few folks there, its a nice place. Please don't ever step foot in this country again , if your not man (or woman) enough to stay when it gets tough we don't want you in 20 years when everything is bright and shiny again. (This isn't a flame)
Regards,
Steve

Re:Yikes

[dnoyeb]

"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."

No, I don't understand. Please expound.

Re:Yikes

[OldManAndTheC]

You need to start voting Libertarian

As long as elections are "winner take all", a third party has little chance of winning any contest at the state or national level. It would be more effective to change the election system, or join one of the two major parties (it doesn't really matter which one) and militate for change from within.

Re:Yikes

[Anonymous Coward]

The REALLY sickening part about our country is that people like you consider your opinions to be "well thought out" and such - but what you really can't seem to understand is that you've just fallen for the same crap that they have been expounding to the masses for years and years.

Firstly, WELFARE, in and of itself, is not a very expensive program. CORPORATE WELFARE, however, IS. Look it up yourself - for every 5$ sent to welfare through taxation, the vast majority of it goes to maintaining american corporations on the brink of bankruptcy.

Now we can move on to the more disturbing and ignorant part of your post:

"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."

Oh, but you're not done there. Not only do you have the nerve to say that the government is "ROBBING THE RICH" (which, according to you, is 90% of the American Citizenry), you have to pull the race card:

"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 call bullshit on your entire post. Not only do I think you're just railing on the same shit that Hitler did in 1930 in order to gain power (yes, he started out by standing on the tables in bars and screaming about how 'the jews' had taken away the hard-earned money of the 'aryans'). Your opinions are not only irrelevant to this thread, they are offensive to anyone who despises the American political system. People out there have REAL reasons for precipitating change, but ignorant people like you keep making this fight a "racist" or "welfare" one - or maybe even a "second amendment" one - which is complete crap, and really, in the end, doesn't matter.

Free Speech in a liberal society is essential, and in my opinion the FCC for a long time now has stood in the way of the pursuit of personal freedoms in our society - and needs to be done away with.

Re:Yikes

[croddy]

honestly, I feel it would probably be worth the death or repression of millions if we could quickly clean the internet of bloggers.

Re:Yikes

[jadavis]

I don't think there's any magical political platform that all the "average" people are going to agree on. I have pretty common political views, but I disagree with enough people that I know it would never work.

Re:Yikes

[myowntrueself]

"That's why \"news\" exists -- to make these OPINIONS the de facto foundation of public consciousness."

Jean Baudrillard, 'Simulations' circa 1983;

"Therein lies the secret of mass representation. It is no longer necessary that anyone produce an opinion, all that is needed is that all reproduce public opinion..."

Re:Yikes

[ImaLamer]

What scares me is that the first amendment reads:

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.

I think its crazy we already have law that says I can't say "vote for" or "don't vote for" a candidate. If we can't talk freely about this very fundamental idea, we've already lost. I run a political blog (which is on a little break, we are still trying to put the election behind us) and we would never respect one law created to stifle our free speech rights.

Face it, the Right controls the legislative branch. If you want to fight this type of legislation at this point you only can take it to court. Break the law, go to court and fight it... follow the rule of law.

Re:Yikes

[geekee]

"Or keep your blog on a server outside the US."

You've missed the whole point. It's not a free speech issue, it's a money issue. Campaign finance reform is about making everyone "equal" in terms of funding. So your blog counts as part of your contribution to a campaign. I have no idea how they'll evaulate the worth of your blog. Anyway, having your blog offshore doesn't help you if you're still a US citizen. Not that I agree with this bs, but most people on /. were for campaign finance reform because the evil corporations were buying the govt.

Re:Yikes

[geekee]

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

But campaign finance reform was meant to protect govt. officials from coruption by the evil corporations and their money. Oh, now you don't like it when the same laws are applied to you.

Re:Yikes

[Keebler71]

Nice post... I read it once,.. then read it again with the music from Team America in the background..."America... Fuck yeah!!! la la la..."

Re:Yikes

[flechette_indigo]

We would not need to organize a huge number of people to impose our will upon the political landscape. Some tiny proportion of, say, the US population, would do. .001%? .00001%?

It wouldn't take much.

All we need is a forum where all concerned can communicate and come to a consensus about what to do. What if 50% of all slashdot readers stopped eating fast food? What if 50% of all slashdot readers voted Green? What if 50% of all slashdot readers stopped purchasing CDs?

I think that the corporations would respond. They'd fold like an accordian. The masters would soon become the slaves.

All the corporations have on us is ORGANIZATION. That's it. All of their power stems from that. And what's hilarious is, they aren't even that organized. Just more organized than the rest of us.

Re:Yikes

[grammar fascist]

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

This is one of those times when I wish it were possible to mod someone up past 5. I can't believe that, on the whole first page of comments, only this person and one other properly identified the source of this crap idea.

It was your precious McCain-Feingold act, the one that so many Slashdotters thought was such a wonderful idea, which was supposed to keep big money out of government (and hasn't) that has necessitated this garbage. Did you all reflexively disbelieve the right-wingers when they told you nothing good would come of it? Is that why you all missed it? I mean, nothing Rush Limbaugh says can possibly be true, right?

McCain-Feingold has got to go, if only for this.

More reading material is here. It's from a right-wing perspective (which is, as far as I know, about the same as Libertarian on this issue), so it tends to be more honest than the stuff from the fiscal moderate and left which only blames the FEC.

Re:Yikes

[ikkonoishi]

I don't understand either.

I think it has to do with the people who say non-white people are inheritly inferior and need government assistance. You know, the Democrats. The party of old money, and actors.

I personally think each case should be decided on the merits of that person's needs, not on the color of his skin. That the content of his character would determine if he gets a job, not some government quota, but I guess thats only a dream of mine.

Re:Yikes

[kf6auf]

For the first sentence, he's saying that the politicians reward those who vote for them. And for the fairness part of the second sentence he forgot his tag.

Re:Yikes

[samantha]

Let's see. They naturally want to regulate frre speech concerning polical candidates by supposedly free people. Hmmm. there could be thousands of mud slinging sites without there being any good reason for such regulation. Everyone is free to start counter sites. Where exactly does any party get an unfair advantage or decome somehow beholden to bloggers who write in support of its candidate? This should have been the first question asked if this little regulation fest was remotely above board.

Re:Yikes

[samantha]

I wasn't remotely glad. It was pure repression and is murder on third party campaigns.

Re:Yikes

[Rob_Bryerton]

Please don't ever step foot in this country again , if your not man (or woman) enough to stay when it gets tough we don't want you in 20 years when everything is bright and shiny again. (This isn't a flame)

Who the fuck are you? Who the fuck is "we"? No only can this person do as they please, they can "step foot in this country" whenever the hell they want. Now go watch some more Jerry Bruckheimer-style "entertainment", so you can learn some more "history". Ignorant asshole.

Re:Yikes

[LnxAddct]

Nothing was ignorant about my post, perhaps you meant to say that you simply disagreed with it. I assume you also meant to say that I shouldn't have generalized "we", but I'm pretty certain it was clear that "we" consisted of those in the same mind set as me, not necessarily "we" as in "we the people". Regardless, the fact remains that you managed to bring this thread down to a whole new level by randomly and senselessly using vulgarities. It says quite a bit about your personality and your own ignorance which you seem too self contained too realize. Here I am simply countering a man's argument with my own oppinion and you verbally assualt me for using my constituationl rights. It is a good thing that we live in a country that lets us say what we have without having to worry about any kind of government discipline.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Yikes

[eraserewind]

Those who stayed to fight in Nazi Germany ended up dead without changing a thing.

While this is a valid point, Nazi Germany is not the only event in history, though everyone seems to love referring back to it. Even today in the assorted former soviet republics you can see the effects of people who care about democracy staying and demanding change. You win some you lose some though of course everyone has to make a judgement when it has got too hot for themselves to justify staying. However nobody ever got their rights recognised by running away. I think that the USA is still largely democrastic country that respects the rule of law within it's own borders (shame about outside them...). Leaving at this stage doesn't show much stomach for a fight, and is driven more by petulance than a real fear for your safety.

Re:Yikes

[Silentnite]

In one post you both deride the man for posting his thoughts on our current government and basically deriding HIS freedom of speech, and then when someone comes back at you, You flip out and quote the first amendment. Hypocritcal a little maybe??

Our rights are going down the tube, and the government is growing more Orwellian by the minute mainly because of people like you.

There is a saying that if you throw a frog into hot water, he will try to jump out. But if you slowly turn the heat up then he will sit there contentedly. While you slowly kill him.

Or, put another way. If you establish a totalitarian regime overnight, the people will revolt. But if you slowly erode a set of freedoms your country was founded on then people like you will just complain a little about how the political water is getting warm. All the while those of us who can sense the change realize we're getting cooked.

Re:Yikes

[Jason Ford]

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.

While it might be amusing, it is also very predictable. I would argue that the Federal government had the duty to intervene to force integration in the schools. I also believe, however, that the Federal government ought to keep its nose out of assisted suicide or drug de-criminalization efforts.

Hypocrisy? I think not. I'm for the Federal government intervening to enforce those laws with which I am in agreement. I don't, however, try to convince people that I am a categorical states-rightist.

Re:Yikes

[bryanp]

Or, to put it more succinctly, you believe in the protections of the 10th amendment when it's convenient to your beliefs.

Not that it matters. The 10th has been effectively gutted by excessively wide interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. That, and using highway funds as a club. "Do what we want or we'll take your gas taxes and not give any of it back to you." And yes, both sides are guilty of that. Reagan and Clinton both used that tactic to get what they wanted.

Re:Yikes

[Jason Ford]

Or, to put it more succinctly, you believe in the protections of the 10th amendment when it's convenient to your beliefs.

Essentially. I think it would take a bit of time to fully articulate my views. I'll make a brief attempt now, though.

I feel that protecting minority rights is very important in the face of the tyranny of the majority. I do not believe in the 'separate but equal' doctrine. If the overwhelming power of the Federal government was required to enforce integration of the public schools, then I would have supported it.

However, I do not support the efforts of the Federal government to reduce the amount of freedoms that the people in the individual states have chosen for themselves.

I think it really boils down to the definition of the word 'freedom'. I do not think of the word 'freedom' when I think of young black students being denied entry to public schools. I do think of the word 'freedom' when I think of someone consuming marijuana for medicinal purposes.

In general, I favor local rule with protections for the minorities against the masses.

Re:Yikes

[bryanp]

You keep using racism as an example. That is covered by other parts of the constitution IMO. The 14th Amendment in this case. The 10th does not trump other constitutional protections.

Re:Yikes

[Jason Ford]

You are correct. I was responding to your original post, where you wrote,

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

I'm not intentionally referring to the 10th Amendment in my posts, although I never explicitly stated otherwise. My point was that many people misidentify nuance as waffling, and that it is important to maintain the distinction between them.

I was also trying to say that it is possible to be honest about one's motives, instead of bandying about such lofty notions as States' Rights.

Re:Yikes

[Funksaw]

You're absolutely right. It should be the job of every citizen to do so. But as a citizen, I have less lobbying power than the National Rifle Association.

Specifically, since the NRA justifies their gun ownership stance mostly through the prevention of tyranny, you would expect them to speak up (not shoot up -- at first) when things like right to trial by jury come up.

If Charlton Heston and Wayne La Pierre would come out and say: "Although the NRA respects the work the Republican party has done in the past towards preserving gun rights, we grow increasingly concerned about the abridgements of speech and due process occuring since 9/11. Starting in 2006, we will have to take a long hard look if we want to continue our relationship with the Republican party and consider alternatives," you'd bet your ass the orange-jumpsuited prisoners in Gitmo would get their asses in front of a judge and pronto. The NRA wields enormous influence within the Republican party, and therefore the government, and while I like the idea that there's a large, armed populace protecting our freedom by acting as a deterrent to tyranny, the point is that most NRA members think the Patriot act is a good idea, thinks a "Diebold Machine" is a type of tractor, and supports the war in Iraq.

And while the Democrats aren't exactly superheroes, the difference between the two parties is one that blithely ignores the fire in the kitchen and the other one pours on kerosene. The American people voted for kerosene.

Re:Yikes

[srussell]

I think it has to do with the people who say non-white people are inheritly inferior and need government assistance. You know, the Democrats.

Last time I checked, you didn't have to be an ethnic minority to collect welfare. Oh, that's right... the majority of welfare recipients are ethnic minorities.

Maybe you're talking about equal opportunity. Nobody needs that, because everybody knows that even if you're born into a poor family and attend crappy schools, you've got just as much chance of getting good SAT scores and those scholorships as anybody else... so laws to level the field aren't needed.

And, heck... just because women are still earning only 76 cents for every dollar a man makes in the same job, they don't need equal opportunity laws either. The market will settle down to equality (at the current rate, in another 30 years).

The party of old money

This is a myth, perpetuated by borrow-and-spend Republicans. ;-)

and actors.

Oh, you mean like Ronald Regan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

--- SER

Re:Yikes

[AoT]

If you knew your history you would realize that welfare is the least of the constitutional violations about which to worry.

Re:Yikes

[ikkonoishi]

See the problem with Hollywood is that you can make a list of the Republican actors, and count them on your fingers...

Actually the party of old money comment was made about a survey of congress that had the Democrats with an average of 1.7 times the total wealth of the Republicans and with something around 80% of it coming from inheritance as opposed to the Republicans who made it through investing.

I wish I could find the chart now.
This is part of the raw data.

Re:Yikes

[geoffrobinson]

I think many didn't want to be demagogued and trusted that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional as it is. Whoops.

Others considered it an incumbent protection law.

Others, like McCain, are sadly genuinely for it.

nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:nothing new

[Migraineman]

I can't believe someone modded that "Interesting. " Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to threaten someone, any more than the right to bear arms gives you the right to discharge your firearm anywhere you please. Calling the President either "a patriot" or "an ignorant baboon", however, is just an expression of your opinion, and should be perfectly fine (note: there is no "threat" in either statement.) If you expect to exercise your Freedom of Speech, you should understand the concept (and the potential implications) before you do. Ignorance is not a good foundation for a political platform ...

Re:nothing new

[northcat]

What if that guy was mentally retarded and actually wanted to kill the president? After many 'tragedies' I read that the guy who made that tragedy happen "wrote things on his website" which indicated the nature of the person and the impending disaster. Sure the government won't take action if the threat was against some ordinary person, but this is the president of your country - they can NOT take any chances. And once they found out he was harmless, they let him go without any charges. Fair enough.

Re:nothing new

[Turn-X Alphonse]

how about stop being a fucking retard? It's a fucking blog, I've put several times "man I want to kill that fucking [name]" and gave reasons why they pissed me off. I'm not going to though, it's fucking retarded to think they would..

This is the sort of bullshit that happens in China, not "the free world" as Bush likes to claim. When the secret service starts making house calls because some guy said he wanted to kill Bush jokingly on a public forum theres something wrong with the world.

Re:nothing new

[EvilIdler]

Not much freedom in Europe, either:

http://killhim.nu/

Re:nothing new

[Badanov]

When the secret service starts making house calls because some guy said he wanted to kill Bush jokingly on a public forum theres something wrong with the world.

The federal courts have well defined what constitutes free speech and what is an abuse of it. It happens that threatening the president is a restriction.

It has always been Secret Service doctrine to make house calls on anyone who recently made public death threats against the president. What they do is prudent and often necessary in a civil society.

What it doesn't mean is that such an activity by a government agency charged with protecting the president is somehow new or over the top. The secret service has been doing this since the 60s, since the death of JFK.

Re:nothing new

[Turn-X Alphonse]

well I'm saying thats bullshit. It shouldn't happen because it's fucking ridiclous. Saying "you have free speech but you can't say..." is like going "every mans equal" then repatedly raping women and keeping slaves..

I live in the UK, you can find out my IP if you want it.

I'M GOING TO KILL GEORGE BUSH WITH A RUSTY SPORK NEXT TOMORROW MORNING WHILE HE'S LOOKING AT PORN!

hint fucking hint -.-

Re:nothing new

[Khyber]

"Ignorance is not a good foundation for a political platform ..." Unfortunately, that's what our government is breeding. Total ignorance. This way, thy can get control. After all, the more ignorant people get, the more "guidance" they need.

I bet the next step in the government's "guidance" of it's people will be something akin to Martial Law.

Re:nothing new

[northcat]

Who the fuck modded parent as insightful? If you were the cheif of secret service and it was brought to your attention that someone made a threat of killing the president of USA, would you do something or would you sit with your thumb up your ass? And BTW, free speech does not protect making threats - even if you don't act out upon the threat.

theres something wrong with the world.

No, just USA, if anywhere.

Mods: just because you too have a blog doesn't mean doesn't mean I'm isulting you. Dont worry, I'm not saying you're inferior, have some fucking integrity.

Re:nothing new

[northcat]

Oops, slashdot doesn't log IP addresses, only hashes of the IPs. I'm sure you didn't know that and you were genuinely displaying your bravery and simultaenously making a bold statement.

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

[October_30th]

I don't quite see how a blog - even one set up by a political organization - would be that effective a campaign tool for influencing peoples' voting behaviour and as such would warrant any kind of regulation.

Firstly, the voter would have to find the blog and this, unlike a tv or radio advertisment, requires active participation. Most people are too lazy and won't bother. Then the voter would have to keep reading it, which most people wouldn't do unless they already agree with the contents. Finally, in order to effect a change in a voter, the information and discussions on the blog would have to be overwhelmingly convincing - almost too much to ask from any internet site.

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:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

The danger is not so much a blog "set up by a political organization" but one with an already established readership. If the author of that blog is paid by a political organization to slant his or her posts on a subject, readers who trust that blog need to know that.

This is particularly true since many people claim to get most of their news from blogs. (That strikes me as rather like getting all your news from the editorial pages, letters to the editor, and advertisements.) Add to that the tendency of people to continue reading only blogs that reinforce their own opinions and you have an easy opportunity for political money to buy dishonest bloggers.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

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

I've no reason to disagree with that.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[frostman]

The problem lies in defining "political organization" and "contribution" -- particularly because blogs are, as you say, so low-overhead.

For example, if I work for Fox News (say, as an editor) and I have a blog, and my boss knows about it and approves of it, is Fox "contributing" to my blog? What if the boss tacitly lets me take an hour off work each day to blog? And is Fox News a "political organization?"

In that case I think there's no way you could make Fox disclose its involvement, since it's not officially a political organization and the support is entirely under the table. But all the same, I'm receiving financial support from a Republican party activist (Murdoch) for my right-wing blog. (I assume here that I'm a right-wing blogger, since my boss at Fox approves of it...)

I think anybody with a little more brainpower than the GOPUSA folks (Gannonites?) would be able to spin it in a similar way, so that I as a blogger of a certain slant get no demonstrable financial support from any political organization.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[drinkypoo]

I would go so far as to require that information to be present when any web page is produced. Furthermore, I would even say that it should be present on the web server or in a directory as appropriate and in a standardized, machine-readable format so that my web browser can avoid or at least flag websites affiliated with organizations with which I want no part. That's just why I want it, though. :) It makes good sense that if someone has received money from any organization to write about them, it should be fraudulent not to make this information available.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

The problem lies in defining "political organization" and "contribution"...

Those would be whatever the relevant legislation says they are.

At a minimum, I'd include any elected official at any level; any agency of any government; anyone employed by, financially affiliated with, or related to, any elected official or government agency; any registered lobbyists and anyone employed by, financially affiliated with, or related to a lobbyists; ditto for public service organizations,....

You get the drift.

Using your example, Fox isn't contributing to your blog because you made them aware of it. An argument could be made that, if you tend to the blog on company time, they do, in fact, help support it. And, no, by my standards Fox is not a political organization. But, they can certainly engage in political activity. E.g., by lobbying for favorable legislation. So, if they give you $100k to write favorably about a piece of legislation they want, they ought to be obligated to disclose that. You, in essence, have become a paid lobbyist for Fox. (It is, in fact, the under-the-table payments that ought to be eliminated.)

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[captwheeler]

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.

How do you define a [Political organization], then, and separate it from a [corporation | grassroots group | foreign disinformation campaign]?

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[captwheeler]

So you can have free speach on one condition; reveal all your finances.

I would like to add a requirement: you have to make a public statement of good intent; to be honest and decent.

What? You got a problem with honest and decent?

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[Khyber]

Take that one step further, Since the government is technically public property, being for the most part funded by public money via taxes, EVERYTHING about the government should be open to public inspection for any reason at any time.

Actually, I think that's already written somewhere in the lawbooks. And, national security or not, we're paying for it. We've got the right to know. It's our money, our hard work, not theirs.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

This is not a free speech issue. I'm not suggesting any restrictions on what a blogger can write. I'm not suggesting requiring a blogger to reveal his or her finances. I am suggesting that political contributions to bloggers be made public, i.e., by the person or organziation making the contribution.

Or, would you rather reamin ignorant and trust a blogger someone has bought?

Bloggers need to get off their high horses and realize that their just as much a part of the media as everyone else in that game. You can't argue that accepting a bribe to slant the words you write is a free speech issue.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[rastos1]

I don't get it.

If I write in a blog I should reveal my sources of income? Your intention is to prevent political forces to influence blog content. That's fine. Perhaps. But should I be required to publish my financial situation if I'm just a single geek with no political group behind me? Whose job is to prove that nobody is behind me?

The TV stations in my country, are required to report neutrally and independently. Perhaps because they license the medium for broadcasting - "the radio waves" - from the state. But I'm publishing my opinions in my blog. I'm not using any medium owned by state. Should your suggestion be enforced on people who put up posters on street lamps? Or talking loud on street corner?

Nonsense.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

Read more carefully. I'm not proposing that bloggers report their income sources. I'm proposing that the people who pay bloggers to slant their posts report those payments.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

Are you saying that I should required to report any donations I might make to moveon.org or similar site? Good way to start a which hunt. Unless I'm running for public office or donating to an officially recognized candidate, I shouldn't have to report where any of my money goes except to the IRS, and that's only if I wish to deduct it from my taxes.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

Are you saying that I should required to report any donations I might make to moveon.org...

Did I say individuals giving money to organizations should be required to report the gift?

No, I didn't.

Moveon is not a blog or a blogger.

Go back and read what I said rather than mispresenting what I said just to take a shot at it.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

Did I say individuals giving money to organizations should be required to report the gift?

From another post:I am suggesting that political contributions to bloggers be made public, i.e., by the person or organziation making the contribution. Emphasis mine.

Does not "the person" kind of mean "individual"? Contribution could be considered a "gift". "Political contributions" can be twisted to mean many things. If you're seeking a tax deduction, then of course all bet are off, and you should identify your intentions. See bold print below.

Moveon is not a blog or a blogger.

Forum...blog...forum. To me the difference is insignificant. I suppose a blog is the site owner's comments, and a forum involves everyone else. Either way, unless official candidates for office or tax exempt orgs are involved, the gov't has no place here. Public displays of a private person's opinions, no matter what influence they may be under, are just that, a private person's comments, and the gov't should just stay away. We can do our own investigations, thank you. We don't need gov't meddling. What they're really trying to do here is identify and mark "undesirables". The spin they put on it just tries to make it look like they're doing the right thing. Besides, if the president(no matter who he is) can keep things like his energy commitees(people who set public policy) private, we should be permitted the same "privilege".

I understand your sentiment here, and basically I agree, but we must limit this to publicly funded orgs, or ones that actually set policy.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

MoveOn is not a blog. It is a poltical organization. If they pay a blogger to lobby, then they ought to make that payment public.

If an indvidual connected with Moveon pays a blogger to lobby in ther interests of Moveon, that payment should be made public.

I'm not opposed to private individuals donating money to bloggers. But, you can require organization to go public with payments to bloggers only to leave open a huge loophole that permits officers and representatives of those organizations to make the same payments, for the same purposes, in the guise of "individuals".

I agree that the government has no business interfering in the expression of opinion. That's why I don't argue that bloggers should make these payments public. Requiring that payments to bloggers be made public doesn't infringe anyone's free speech rights. The bloggers can still say anything they want, and they can take the money or turn it down.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

It is a poltical organization.

Ok. I guess my question should be, are they somehow registered as such? Do they have any special tax status? Are they publicly funded in any way? If that is so, then I absolutely agree. Every penny should be publicly accounted for. If they are simply a bunch of guys with money to burn, how they spend it shouldn't be any of my business, unless I have some personal vested interest in them. If they are causing real problems, then we should call them on it. I have no problem using the gov't as a stick to put them down in such a case.

But, you can require organization to go public with payments to bloggers only to leave open a huge loophole that permits officers and representatives of those organizations to make the same payments, for the same purposes, in the guise of "individuals".

It sounds like the present day problem we have with soft money, only in reverse? It may be difficult to prove, but doing what you said there might require a bit of fraud. If we pay close attention to what's happening, we should be able to keep that in check without any help from the gov't. As a matter of fact, who's calling for this? The public? Maybe a small noisy group, but I haven't seen any op-eds on the matter outside the extremists papers. They are giving the public a chance to comment, but I don't know how it's being presented. Too lazy to check, I guess. Trying to read through all that crap just puts me to sleep. Unless somebody is causing physical harm to the planet or the rest of us, or there is public money is involved, my attitude is pretty much, "Back off. We'll take care of it." I forgot which movie it was...There was a married couple in a fierce argument when a third person(probably their counceler(sp) tried to intervene. They both turn to the person, and in perfect unison, yell, "SHUT UP!"...well, you get the point.

Requiring that payments to bloggers be made public doesn't infringe anyone's free speech rights.

Except the guy who is giving the money. If he has to report that, he may be reluctant to do so. To me, that is an infringement, however small.

What I really don't like about this is that we are asking "daddy" gov't to watch over everything we do so we can remain in our slumber. These are just one of those things I think we are capable of handling ourselves. Unfortunately, many people want everything done for them. We seem to be trying to achieve "freedom from choice. If you remember how people were complaining about high credit card interests rates during the late 70's, they were demanding tha the gov't do something. What they would refuse to do is quit using the damn card. This was a pefect example of the people let their power slip right through their hands. I see the same concept happening here. I want to see us use the power we have before we go crying to somebody to rescue us.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

Sounds like you're OK with businesses bribing the news media to create propaganda. I'm not.

Sounds like you're really advancing an agenda of opposition to something you call "daddy" government out of your contempt for most of your fellow citizens. I'm not and I don't hold my fellow citizens in contempt when they demand their government start to advance their best interests rather than the interests of large checkbooks.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

I firmly believe that the gov't operates with the full consent of the majority. Otherwise we would see a higher turnover in congress, and more third and forth party congresspersons(people?). I can't sympathize with people who won't use the power they say they have in a democracy. If people are aware that the news media is being bribed, the people themselves have to voice that to the media, and the media should lose credibility if they don't respond appropriately. If people keep on listening to and believing a corrupt media, you can hardly expect me to sympathize. It's up to you and me to show them that the gov't represents big business and not us. If they refuse to believe us, then I won't blame the gov't for that. The people have decided, and I will continue to assume that the gov't does indeed represent the majority. I don't believe in majority rule for all the obvious reasons, but we're not ready for the next step. However, the gov't must act according their wishes, no matter how brainwashed they might be for whatever reason, and they are doing just that. My contempt arises from the people's refusal yo wake up from their slumber, and actually try to use their vote to fix the problem. It's easier than it appears. What most people are doing is relying on whatever is spoon fed to them. They refuse to check alternative sources of info. They are fairly comfortable with things the way they are, and they don't want to rock the boat. That leaves the rest of us holding the bag. I do find that contemptable.

Sounds like you're OK with businesses bribing the news media to create propaganda.

Believe me, I'm not ok with it, but the majority apparently is. The numbers spell it out pretty clearly. It's up to us to re-program ourselves. I don't expect anybody, least of all the gov't, to help us there. The gov't and corps are the main beneficiaries(sp) of the status quo. We're on our own here, and only we can save ourselves, as depressing as that may be. If we want help from the gov't, it's up to us to elect people that will do that, and not to re-elect them when they fail. There's simply no other way that I can see, without resorting to violence.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

If we want help from the gov't, it's up to us to elect people that will do that..."

Well, that's using the government wisely, in my book. You get what you vote for.

I strongly disagree, with your reasons for being contemptuous of everyone else. We all have our own lives to lead and our own problems to solve. I've found that worrying about government isn't high on most folks todo lists.

Nor do I believe that we have a "corrupt media" or that the people are brainwashed or asleep.

Sounds like you've got a problem getting along with the world as it is.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

You get what you vote for.

This has been my point all along. I thought I spelled that out pretty well. Apparently not. Again, this is why I don't blame gov't and corps for what ever happens. My problem is with people who refuse to accept that and continue to complain about government this and big corporations that, and then re-elect the same people, or buy from the giant corps that caused the percieved problem in the first place. We have DMCA, TSA, the Patriot Act, Microsoft, Walmart, etc, etc, etc. because that's what the majority wants. Nobody forced them into it. They could have voted out the incumbents if they don't like what they do. Part of the problem is that most people vote on local issues and are not seeing the big national/world issues that are also effected by the people they vote for. Dan Rostenkowski(sp) is an excelent example of this. The people of Chicago loved him, but he sure did a job on the tax system as chairman of Ways and Means. We have the power to change it if we want to. I'm cool with that. I just keep my distance and hope that they keep theirs

We all have our own lives to lead and our own problems to solve. I've found that worrying about government isn't high on most folks todo lists.

Precisely, and so that's the gov't we have today. Democracy is not exactly low maintenace. If you don't want your gov't to become abusive, then you have to keep a close eye on it. That the gov't and corps take advantage of our inattention is not their fault. It's perfectly natural. I'm not the one demanding that the gov't "does something". You(editorially speaking) are. I'm saying that if you don't like the way your gov't operates, then elect some people that will conform to your wishes. The majority has done that. A privately operated blog and the private idividuals that pay for it should not have to pay the price for our own inadequacies. These people are not manufacturing weapons or deadly chemicals. They're providing information(more correctly, an opinion. Personally I don't care whose opinion. I take it on its face value. It doesn't matter who says it. I'm interested in the message, not the messenger. Even Goering came up with a few beauties. It doesn't diminish the message.). How we act on that info is not their responsibility, or their problem. To say otherwise doesn't speak well of human intellect.

Sounds like you've got a problem getting along with the world as it is.

I'm doing just fine in my little corner. The weather's great, and so are the locals. Politically we are much worse off than you guys. I'm living with that just fine. When they complain about their gov't, I tell them the same thing I'm saying here. They accept it, even if they don't do anything about it. We all get along great. I noticed that they don't always get along with each other, even within the same family. Hmmm, just goes to show how much alike we ALL really are. The beer kinda sucks, but that's for another thread.
Let me ask you something. I'm aware that you don't look too kindly on the Chinese gov't. My question is, Do you check the label of everything that you buy to see where it's made? Do you shop at Walmart? Everyday there is a larger chance that what you buy was made or assembled in China. Check out the innards of your computer. I checked mine. I see lots of stuff in there that come from China. In fact, almost all of it. So, if you do buy those things, what does that say about you when you yell from the mountain top that the Chinese gov't is evil? If you buy those things you are supporting that gov't. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I see a tiny conflict there. Do you? If so, then how are you resolving it?

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

No, you're not being clear. You say you hold "the people" (everyone who isn't you) in contempt, but yet you say you're "cool" with democracy. Can't have it both ways, you know.

You also seem worried about a lot of things that really don't worry me and, I suspect, don't worry a lot of other people. Do I feel threatened by things like the DMCA, TSA, the Patriot Act? Not especially. Am I concerned about Walmart selling products from China? No. I'm nore concerned about not wasting my money.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[iminplaya]

Well, it's clear you're not listening then.

Am I concerned about Walmart selling products from China? No. I'm nore concerned about not wasting my money. Emphasis mine. Sure says it all.

Looks like your rant on China was meaningless and hypocritical. I'm sure they appreciate that. I hope you never need their help to get you out of a tight spot. See ya on the next thread.

Absurd and who cares?

[shanen]

Yeah,it's absurd, but we're at the point where no one seems to care about reality or integrity anymore. At least none of the politicians making the decisions, and they seem to have enough voters who are willing to go along. Most blogs are nothing more than silly personal diaries writ large for all the world to see--and why should anyone care? And now the politicians and their appointed lackeys think blogs need to be regulated and controlled? Bizarro world.

All I can imagine is that it's related to the JG (Jim/Jeff Gannon/Guckert) fiasco, which they'd apparently like to blame on a few crazed muckracking bloggers. However, the "big story" isn't that someone with such a crazy and blackmailable past and no writing or journalistic skills was wandering around the White House. The real story is that he could pass for a "real journalist" for a couple of years. That's the real metric of how low America has sunk. Famous sense of humor notwithstanding, Benjamin Franklin would not be amused.

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[AstrumPreliator]

More people need to care, that's the problem here. People figure that just because a law restricting a personal freedom doesn't affect them personally it doesn't matter. The problem is if you allow them to start taking away personal liberties, even if it doesn't affect you at first, it eventually will hit home. I hate to sound like my old man, but he is dead right in this respect.

"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free."
- Benjamin Franklin

Just my opinion though ;).

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[timotten]

And now the politicians and their appointed lackeys think blogs need to be regulated and controlled?

There's no need to lump "the politicians" together on this issue. Some politicians are pressuring the FEC, arguing against regulation of blogs.

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[chl]

Those who would alter an essential quote to temporarily further their own agenda, deserve our full contempt.

The following version forms the motto of "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" from 1759. Note the "essential liberty" as contrasted with "little temporary safety":

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

chl

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[AstrumPreliator]

I actually couldn't remember the exact wording of the quote so I googled it. That's what I got. Hardly an attempt to further my "agenda". In either case I thank you for the correction, now quit splitting hairs.

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[CrazyDuke]

The funny thing I find ignored by democrats, republicans, the media, and thier grassroots, is that JG was a blogger himself. Hell he was known to brag about his exploits on FR. Face it, Talon News was set up after the fact to give him cover after he had been in for months. It was his personal blog, with FR being his forum. It's hypocritical, and a sign of the times. FR has been on the rampage for years with this kind of activity. Hell JG himself "outed" Kerry as being a gay frenchman. ...and that wasn't even based on facts. And after other people get fed up with the abuse from FR and start their own political blogs. Now all of a sudden blogs are evil and must be regulated by big brother. Go figure...

Even the freepers don't get it. For example, during the 2004 Presidential selection cycle, the freepers that have spent the last several years flooding every "biased" poll they could find on the internet, from news media polls, to forum polls (including some of slashdot's), to polls for frickin elementry school students, could not comprehend why the blogs rooting for Kerry where flooding the polls after the debates. Even the shoot'em first, ask questions later crowd couldn't understand payback when they where the ones recieving it. It's amazing how quick the schoolyard bully is to cry foul when someone punches back.

Re:Absurd and who cares?

[chl]

Quote: Hardly an attempt to further my "agenda".

No offense meant. I just needed a catchy phrase for my "witty" opening line.

If I had not known about the version with "essential", which makes more sense to me than the other one, I probably would have accepted the first best google hit, too. Which makes me feel bad about all the other occasions where I did not dig deeper. Google is a good way for wrong information to spread.

chl

Er did i miss the point or something?

[t_allardyce]

So wait, in US politics its acceptable to raise and waste billions of dollars on stupid, totally biased commercials for parties, and auxiliary organisations that use some tax loop-hole to make even more biased commercials that rarely provide any insight to the arguments, but blogging is not on? The only people who really win in all this are the media companies, and lets not get started about 'campaign contributions', bribery and 'e' voting, the FEC shouldn't even be looking at the internet with all these problems.

Re:Er did i miss the point or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

As one of the greatest minds in the history of humankind once said: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

Re:Er did i miss the point or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

and few more:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2000

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Re:Er did i miss the point or something?

[don.g]

Makes you glad US politics doesn't affect those of us outside the US, doesn't it?

Oh, wait...

Damn superpowers. At least we're not affected by their domestic policy :-)

Re:Er did i miss the point or something?

[Vince Mo'aluka]

The only people who really win in all this are the media companies

Let's call a spade a spade. The big winner here is government.

if the firs amendment means anything

[mickyflynn]

it means I can say whatever I want to about politics and the government. If I want to rail against Bush, I can do it. Against Clinton, an do it. Against Communists, Nazis, the ZOG Machine or whatever the hell else, I can do it. And the Government has no power to regulate it.

Further, "campaign finance laws" and TV ad shit. 'Freedom of Assembly.' If several people who have the same ideas I do get together and call ourselves the NRA or the AFL-CIO, doesn't matter, we have the right to do that, pool our money, and support our interests.

Respect the constitution to the letter or don't pretend to honour it. Just admit we dont have one, like Britian.

Re:if the firs amendment means anything

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Britian and America are two very very different things but right now we're both in the same shit hole.

We're looking at a police state within ten years and you fuckers vote the bastard back in! ..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...".

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

Re:if the firs amendment means anything

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There are limits to even constitutional protections. For example, freedom of assembly doesn't protect violent mobs. The right to own and bear arms doesn't mean just anyone is allowed to own and operate an M1A1. Freedom of the press doesn't mean they should be allowed to publish lies.

I'm not saying "blogging" constitutes any of these, but I think those that are paid by an election committee should be required to say so. Unforunately, it looks like these requirements are worse.

Re:if the firs amendment means anything

[mickyflynn]

if I had the money, i am not sure there is anything which would prevent me from buying an M1A1 -- just the .50cal browning machine gun by the turret hatch.

Re:if the firs amendment means anything

[bryanp]

As long as it was "properly demilitarized" you are correct. That would also include the 120mm main gun, not just the .50cal machine gun.

Regulation and the US Court System

[omb]

What is really wrong here is that that the FEC thinks they can get away with this nonsense; it is clearly an abridgement of free speach on a global basis and specifically contrary to the US constitution.

If the US court system was working properly they would know the game was up, and not waste their time.

Dilemma

[Gogogoch]

Like so many things, the issue here isn't black or white. No one in their right mind would regulate the Internet for political messages. On the other hand, its so easy to camouflage yourself on the net that crafty political agents can try to fool people into believing their message comes from someone more credible.

As usual, its the sneaks and cheats who may spoil things for everyone. Isn't there an analogy with email and spam here?

I have no idea what the solution might be, but I wonder about putting the onus on the politician or political party. How about regulating that they (politicians) can only use overt messages on the Internet. No sneaky business. Perhaps there could be stiff penalties if a hoax was discovered with clear evidence leading back to a politician.

There are people who abuse children; the solution is not to regulate children.

Re:Dilemma

[Tsiangkun]

its so easy to camouflage yourself on the net that crafty political agents can try to fool people

Are unidientified bloggers really worse than when the government prepackages propaganda as a news segment complete with lead in lines for the network anchors to read as they segue into the "story" ?

Re:Dilemma

[Moofie]

How about "don't trust anyone!"

I can't imagine reading a blog, and letting it change my viewpoint all by itself. I read critically. I read actively. I don't just up and change my mind on a whim.

Other people may or may not do that, but it's not the Law's place to protect their fickle preconceptions.

I think that the better way to attack it would be to require any political party (or party support mechanism) to have completely open financial records. Right now, the parties have tremendous power and very little accountability to We the People. That needs to change.

Trying to get a level playing field

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that all candidates should be able to compete fairly. In theory, a poor person with a good idea should be able to compete on the basis of his policies, not on the size of his pocket book.

The basic principle is laudible. In practice however; what a mess. I think the FEC is trying to protect us from astroturfing and outright lying. It would be nice if they could dream up rules that would do that without wreaking havoc on the rights of the rest of us. Oh well. (resigned sigh. Is it too early for a beer? Probably.)

Re:Trying to get a level playing field

[Secret Agent X23]

The idea is that all candidates should be able to compete fairly. In theory, a poor person with a good idea should be able to compete on the basis of his policies, not on the size of his pocket book.

The basic principle is laudible. In practice however; what a mess. I think the FEC is trying to protect us from astroturfing and outright lying. It would be nice if they could dream up rules that would do that without wreaking havoc on the rights of the rest of us. Oh well. (resigned sigh. Is it too early for a beer? Probably.)

While I don't like to say things that might associate me with the tin-foil-hat crowd, it's really, really hard for me to reconcile these proposed regulations with the idea of "protecting" us from anything. It's a far easier conclusion for me to think that regulating political speech is one of the basic steps in consolidating political power.

If candidates are to be allowed to "compete fairly" in the world as it exists today, an unregulated Internet is, quite possibly, the only way to do it.

Re:Trying to get a level playing field

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

"the tin-foil-hat-crowd" is arguably one of the most brilliant successes of modern propaganda. It causes people to innately dismiss any opinion different from the official stance of the government, no matter how reasonable, as nothing more than the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic. I don't think it's deliberate (it could be, but that reeks of aluminum), but it certainly is effective.

Heck, toss in a few truly bizarre government research projects (HAARP, anyone?), a few good unsolved mysteries (oooh, magic bullets), and suddenly every actual paranoid schizophrenic is clamoring to point out all the various government conspiracies that may or may not exist - whether or not those conspiracies are valid or even credible.

At this point, the corporate media could sell the general public any outrageous story, no matter how much a bald-faced lie, and they would eat it up and ask for more.

Re:Trying to get a level playing field

[Khyber]

Never too early for a beer, especially when you don't know if you'll even be alive within the next hour, given how unstable and messed-up our government is.

B.S.

[mickyflynn]

Europe has so many hate speech laws and other crap you're no freeer. Freedom means being allowed to diseminate Nazi stuff along side the commie stuff. Freedom means being able to publicly support or protest immigration. Freedom means not having to associate with people if you don't want to for whatever reason -- race,religion, et cetera -- not being forced to, unless you want to.

Europe also has stupid anti-gun laws. Britian has pretty much banned them. But in 2003 before I left Ireland, I was watching Sky News and there were like, 3 drive by shootings in London in like a week. They interviewd some lady and she was saying how Britian needed tougher gun contgrol laws. Well,you can't GET guns there unless you buy them illegally. Criminals don't obey the law, that is why they are criminals. Breaking and enterings and rapes and stuff jumped in the UK and Australia when they banned private gun ownership -- no armed citizens and no death penalty means no penalty at all.

The rest of the world is not free. Freedom is an illusion. You think its better there because you are from there. I think its better here because I grew up here. The FEC is unconstitional and I'll do whatever the hell I want to. I'm sure you have similarly evil institutions in Europe. Your country just historically doesn't really have rights. European countries have no founding principles because they jsut where always there. We were founded and have foundindg principles and doccuments and that makes it easier to know when we are getting shafted.

Re:B.S.

[Gordonjcp]

Europe also has stupid anti-gun laws. Britian has pretty much banned them.

Bzzzt! Wrong, thank you for playing.

Most of the people I know own some sort of firearm. I don't, personally, because I don't really need one. Furthermore, it's easier to get a shotgun licence here than it is to get a motorcycle licence.

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.

Re:B.S.

[ezzzD55J]

We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force. You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands" - which I would think of as democracy, but gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.

If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now. I wish they would ;)

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

Occasionally it is needed. The Declaration of Independence provides the moral and legal authority for it. Furthermore, this is backed up by the inaugrual address of one Abraham Lincoln (ironic is it may be, it is true). I'm about to make an argument which was true in the eyes of the founding fathers even if I don't really believe it anymore: Standing armies are dangerous. They serve the State and not the People. If the government maintains a standing army then it is no need to care what the People say. This is why congress has the power to raise an army and raise and maintain a navy. appropriations for the army can be for a period no longer than 2 years. This is why the 2nd amendment talks of a militia. George Mason said, "after all, what is the militia? it is the whole of the people, minus a few public officials." The Federalist Papers back up that every male citizen must be part of the militia, and provide his own weapon. "well regulated" means "put to good order" in the context of the 2nd amendment -- meaning, trained and uniformly equiped with the standard issue weapon of the day. Today that is the M16A2 (semi auto and 3-shot burst select fire .223 (5.46mm) rifle). I have heard that he UCMJ also supports the notion that the militia is everybody not otherwise already in the acitve service or national guard. of course, i heard that in someone's slashdot comment years ago and we know how reliable information around here is :-) At any rate, what I am talking about is keeping intruders, criminals, and people like bill clinton ('We cannot be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.'' -- B.J.Clinton, USA Today, 3/11/93 page 2A) out of my home, away from my family, and off of my rights. Not vigilanty gangs. Although, they are more effective than "due process"

Re:B.S.

[Jugalator]

Europe has so many hate speech laws and other crap you're no freeer.

Europe isn't a country; pick one to discuss.

I'm not going "the american continent has so many hate speech laws and other crap..."

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

You are now officially scary.

Evidently a right-winger (I like the way you say "B.J. Clinton"). Evidently unaware of linebreaks, and evidently lacking political context. Please, step back for a minute.

Being an Expatriate Brit living in Australia, I'm no US constitutional scholar, but I seem to recall the fact that it's meant to be a "living document", so citing Lincoln is not necessarily an appropriate interpretation of the facts here. After all, Lincoln, if I remember rightly, was the man who suspended Habeas Corpus at a time when it was (debatably) unnecessary.

I have no wish to start a political flamewar here, but talk of militias in the world today is at the least troubling. Yes, the US has problems with democracy (the fact is you can't run without a shitload of cash behind you, no matter what your policies), but by talking about subverting the established process with a gun is just an invitation to a really ugly situation.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

Europe is movign towards unification, like it or not. Each State has different laws here, but each State is the size of most european countries. Europe (the EU) and the United States have about the same amount of people and the same sized economy. It's pleanty well enough to compare the two.

That said, Britian, France, and Germany in particular. Singer of the band "Landser" is doing time for disemintating Nazi propaganda (their songs). France sues any website that doesn't block frogs from being able to see authentic nazi stuff on auctions or sales or whatever. Britian, i hear, is trying to make it 'hate speech' to protest immigration. That's just fucking retarded.

That's what I mean. The Contintent is turning into one big california filled with a bunch of pussy-ass bitches who scream "tollerance" but then don't tollerate the other side. They don't want to hear about Nazis or how immigration is killing their country or whatever, DONT FUCKING LISTEN. But the people who want to hear that should have the right, unrestricted. If they want to buy authentic SS daggars or something, let them. It doesn't hurt anybody until someone gets curbchecked, then charge them for murder or battery if the victim didn't die. Don't charge them with being "racists" -- someone isn't any more or less dead because they were killed for being a "nigger" or a "kike" or a "cracker"

Re:B.S.

[JustOK]

See, and I always thought it was a well armed militia that was important.

Re:B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I'm out of words here.

That's not as surprising as you might think. You're expressing a completely emotional argument, absent any rational assessment.

Consider that statistics show consistently that a well armed citizenry reduces crime rates. Also consider that guns are not the only weapons that kill. You have to decide if you are a person able to comprehend abstract rational thought and look at causations and corrolations and make decisions on that basis. For instance, do you blame an inanimate object, loath and fear it because you think that object hurt someone? This is caveman "fire is bad" thought and really an expression of an educational failing. We can't ban fire as much as we can ban guns, cars, volcanism, comets, and all other things that can hurt us.

Are you also able to understand that the mere creation of a rule or a law does not necessarily exact compliance? It must be frustrating to pass a law against crime, only to be consistently outwitted (and surprised) by the evil doers. I've listened to state legislators express complete shock that their latest law was ignored. The fact that such ill equipped persons got into office is only proof that there are a good many people who just aren't equipped to make it in life.

When you look at liberal persons, incorporate their causation reasoning flaws, complete lack of understanding of human behavior, and consistent rationalizing any situation only so they get to do what they want regardless of consequence, you realize that they're nothing more than intellectual children that refuse to grow up. It's no surprise then that they want a totalitarian society to babysit them.

We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force.

Yes, and so did those in East Germany, USSR, Lebanon, etc. Taxes are nonunique, and so is the trend for unchecked power to corrupt.

You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands"

Again the lack of understanding of human behavior. In my small community, one out of three conceal carries. There is never crime by locals (who know of the presence of checks and balances on their behavior) and only absolute surprise by the fool who stumbles into a community like ours as he is successfully deterred or taken into custody.

Contrast that with this week's school shooting with numerous dead and injured, with the entire school staff unable to defend itself due to "progressive gun laws". So decide which you want to effect: a rule that expresses fear and hatred of objects and ignores human behavior, or a rule that understands human behavior can go bad if unchecked and give it guardrails to keep it from heading out of bounds.

Re:B.S.

[brainburger]

The things I never see the US gun-lobby admitting is that although guns are good as defensive weapons, they are even better as offensive weapons, and that they are dangerous and cause accidents. The net effect of more guns around is more gun-related injuries, whichever way you try to cut it: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=new+york+shooting&word2=london+shooting Sure illegal guns are a problem, but the number of shootings is still a lot less per capita in countries that limit legal gun-ownership. - In the UK having an unlicenced gun will get you a mandatory 3-year prison sentence. - I think the lady you refer to was calling for this to be increased. As for "break-ins and rapes and stuff", I doubt gun-ownership was a deterrent for those in the past, as we have not banned gun-ownership here, only tightened the safety-checks on licensing and banned automatic weapons (also handguns have been banned for many years). You can still get a shotgun if you have no criminal record, have a need for a shotgun, and will store it securely. Regarding hate-speech, anything is legal in print, or on the net, but there is a crime of "inciting racial hatred" here, which refers to political speeches and the like. - I don't think this conflicts with our wish for a tolerant society - you can legitimately supress factions which are a danger to freedom, - The US has been particularly keen on this approach, for a long time. - or hadn't you noticed?

Re:B.S.

[That's Unpossible!]

I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.

That's because you've been brainwashed. In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs, and if they decide to do so anyway, they find a much quicker demise.

We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force.

That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.

You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands"

No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense. Taking the law into your own hands is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and most gun-rights advocates do not condone such things.

gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.

I'm sorry you've been trained in government school and most likely be your family that "guns are bad." Guns are dangerous, guns should be handled with great respect, but they are not evil.

However, there are plenty of people out there that are evil -- and they have guns, and will use them.

I don't want to wait for the police to come in and save me, so I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.

Re:B.S.

[mrogers]

But in 2003 before I left Ireland, I was watching Sky News and there were like, 3 drive by shootings in London in like a week.

The US has a much higher murder rate than the UK. But never mind the statistics, tell us an anecdote.

Criminals don't obey the law, that is why they are criminals.

Obviously banning guns doesn't stop them from existing, but it does mean you can arrest someone who drives around with a gun in their car before they kill anyone.

Breaking and enterings and rapes and stuff jumped in the UK and Australia when they banned private gun ownership

Bullshit. There was no jump in crime when handguns were banned in the UK. (Private gun ownership is not banned - shotguns and rifles are legal provided you have a license and store them properly.)

Your country just historically doesn't really have rights. European countries have no founding principles because they jsut where always there.

Gosh, I wonder where the French Constitution came from then...

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

I cut and pasted the quote. His name William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton. Plus, I'm not really right wing. As the most August Il Duce once said, "I am a revolutionary or reactionary as the situation dictates." As I said, I didn't really believe the argument I was making on behalf of the founding fathers.

I'm a Nationalist. I am an Imperialist. I am a Fascist in the sense that Fascism harkens back to Roman ideals and goals. I believe in compulsary military service and a draft and I am enlisting after I finish college next year. I grew up in the American South and as such I am probably a racist, even if I don't believe in whole-sale murder in the name of any such cause (we dont really have anything but christians here, 96% of my county is white, and what isnt is black. People more or less just stick with their own, de facto). If you heard of that Mat Hale guy they thought ordered the killing of the Federal Judge in Chicago (it was a big story, you may have heard of it down there) -- his group, World Church of the Creator, one of my best friends growing up is the younger brother of the virginia leader, "Rev." John King (the younger brother is not a nazi, btw). My neighbour is in the klan. that John guy's father is his best friend, also Klan. They're not big on me for being Irish (and a healthy chunk of German) and nominally Catholic -- mostly for the Catholic part. I've dealt with it and dealt it. It's just the way it is. that said, the klan is a bunch of disorganized rednecks and most neo-nazis have:
A) No plan for what to do AFTER they get rid of the Jews
B) no real organized plan to get rid of the jews
and thus are totally crappy at being nazis who had a plan and were highly efficiant.

People in this country have an enumerated right to own and carry firearms. It's not so in Europe, I don't care. I don't live there. I'm just saying, I won't give up mine, no one else should give up theirs. Ideally, everyone should have a nice plot of land to make their living, raise a family, and have a nice quiet life. The 20th century sucked and the 21st is going to be worse.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

which one? Their on they're 5th republic, we are on our first. And did it without a "reign of terror."

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs

Now, I would love to see a study of that - let's look at comparative crime rates in, oh, I dunno, say, The U.S. vs the UK?

That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.

Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls.

No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense.

Possibly. I didn't take it that way at all. The original context was more societal than personal.

I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.

Under the laws of your country, you're entitled, and if you are actually responsible, I have respect for you if you are a responsible gun owner. I myself live in a country where I don't feel the need to buy a gun. And I'm very happy about it.

Re:B.S.

[mariox19]

The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial. It's an idea born of the progressive era in American history. It's an idea born of the notion that history is no guide to the present or future: therefore, experimentation based on present circumstances is the proper method for addressing the "unique" problems of the day.

There are other constitutional philosophies, notably natural law, or a principled approach to constitutional questions.

At the time of this country's founding, people were very jealous of government power and had first hand experience with what they considered tyranny. Now, with generations of americans growing up relative freedom, the american people are far less guarded when it comes to preserving their liberty; they are far more naive when it comes to how easily government can encroach upon and ultimately stifle liberty.

Make no mistake, the Second Amendment is not about hunting; it's not even about defending one's home from criminals; it is about the people -- as individuals working in concert -- reserving the use of force against government tyranny.

That government will tend towards the subjugation of its people is not a historical oddity; it's an eternal principle of politics. A "living document" philosophy does away with notions of eternal principles, and it does so at the risk of freedom.

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.

We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force.

The army, if I'm not mistaken, is forbidden from acting against American citizens unless Martial Law is declared. Even if they aren't, they're somewhat busy overseas now to take an active part in law enforcement.

As for the police forces: They don't have to protect you. Period. They're job is to catch the guy after he robs/rapes/kills you. Don't beleive me? Ask the Supreme Court Of the United States.

If you want protection from other American citizens with less than honorable motives, you've got to do it yourself.

Re:B.S.

[TFGeditor]

How sad that on /.--whose denizens speak loudly and often of freedom--one of said denizens deemed the factual and insightful parent "Flamebait." This is exacerbated by the fact that the comment was about a FREE SPEECH ISSUE.

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

I particularly like this one...

but it does mean you can arrest someone who drives around with a gun in their car before they kill anyone.

Sure, if you check every car. Papers, please?

Re:B.S.

[natrius]

If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now.

As an American citizen, with all due respect, mind your own business. Stop trivializing revolution. Revolutions are meant for when the government ceases to repesent its people. Believe it or not, many issues that are unpopular with the typical Slashdotter (including me) are widely supported among the people. You don't change that by revolution, you change it by education. The only issue that doesn't really follow this is the corporate domination of politics. That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.

As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?

I also assume that you weren't being all that serious, but the moderators really need to get a clue.

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

Plus, I'm not really right wing
as such I am probably a racist

From your commentary so far, it's clear that you are right wing. Racist I don't know about. However it's very good that you can face up to your political background and any racist tendencies you may have. It's also clear you're living in a pretty bad spot though.

If you grow up in an area which is either outwardly racist, or if you're simply naive and have no contact with different ethnic groups, you're probably going to have some issues when you move into a "more integrated" society. Hell, I had some uncomfortable moments moving from a small town in Wales to London in 1999 but i adjusted out my unnconscious behaviour pretty quick, and everyone realised I was just a bit naive, luckily.

You want more or less what everyone wants, by the look of it - a nice quiet life and a family, good home, y'know, the lot. This is good. But I'll still hold out against you on the gun issue. My only contact with guns has been clay pigeon shooting and one guy we ran into in a club somewhere who had an active 9mm with no ammo he picked up in London. They're still scary.

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

If you want protection from other American citizens with less than honorable motives, you've got to do it yourself.

Vigilante Society? Hmmm...

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

If you want to equate "self-defense" (note my rather clear use of the words "protection" and "yourself") with "vigilantism," be my guest. Anyone with a sufficiently high IQ and resistance to brainwashing will recognize you as a disingenuous fuckwit.

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

Tell you what, let's agree to disagree.

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

I think it's fucking scary when you fucking Brits think that gun ownership is pathological.

OK, explain why you think that. I think having guns around is scary because I don't want small lumps of hot metal to rip through my organs at barely subsonic speeds. Your reason is?

Re:B.S.

[Mycroft_VIII]

And I find your words, and thier implied lack of understanding of a basic truth even scarier.
And yes a well armed citizenry DOESE mean a safer and more just society, not a perfect one, but better than one where the people are beholden to the police and army to keep the thugs and murderers and crooks from hurting them.
All gun grabber nonsense (and that's all it is) is predicated on the theory that man cannot controll himself and must be controlled for his own good, how else can they suppose people will start shooting each other up given guns?
The simple truth is most people would not kill someone who pissed them off no matter how easy. Have you ever tried to run someone over with your car? poison thier food? maybe just chop thier hand off with meat cleaver? NO almost certainly not and this is true for most people, and a gun wouldn't change that.
However for the tiny minority of people who do wish others harm, most wish to survive in of themselves and will not by choice take unecessary risks, such as by robbing someone who may shoot them to protect thier family.
Words fail you because none can place reason or truth to your emotion born, I hope, of ignorance of history and fact.

Mycroft

Re:B.S.

[redhog]

>As for the police forces: They don't have to protect you. Period. They're job is to catch the guy after he robs/rapes/kills you. Don't beleive me? Ask the Supreme Court Of the United States.

Interresting. In Sweden where I live, the police is obliged to try to stop crime if they are noticed about it. They are _not_ obliged to find out after a crime has been comitted who was responsible, and often don't as they have quite some cases and must prioritize.

Btw, I find the pro-gun argument that the citizens must be able to overthrow the government if it stops being democratic a bit strange as its never practically true (any more, perheaps I should add) that the populace have greater weapon resources than the army...

Re:B.S.

[Mycroft_VIII]

May I ask what community you live in. That one in three is an impressive ratio, even considering it probably represents permits issued vs eligible citizens and not actual numbe of people carrying at any one moment. If not hyperboly it leave me real hope a few here and there 'get it'. And even if hyperboly there must be a fairly high number anyway to give one something to exagerate.
I may one day get around to the wife and children thing (make my parents pretty happy and stop them bugging/embarrising me as much) and knowing a safe community or two would be nice.
Course knowing my luck it's gonna be a really cold part of some northern state.

Mycroft

Re:B.S.

[Moderation abuser]

"That government will tend towards the subjugation of its people is not a historical oddity; it's an eternal principle of politics."

Your evidence?

The UK? An absolute monarchy becomes a constitutional democracy.

Repeated all across Europe.

Russia? An absolute monarchy becomes an absolute dictatorship becomes a fledgling democracy.

Historical evidence as far as I can see shows that the people revolt against subjugation when the government becomes onerous. Just a matter of time.

I don't think actually owning a gun will make that much of a difference, especially when there are external forces who are only too happy to supply assault weapons, training and logisitical support. i.e. the CIA, KGB, MI6 etc.

Re:B.S.

[ikkonoishi]

http://www.answers.com/militia&r=67

militia (m-lsh') pronunciation
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Technically if you can hold a gun you are in the militia. The second amendment calls for "A well regulated Militia" depending on the way you read the commas that phrase isn't even important.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you do a sentence diagram of that you get this (I love the internet, it does so much of the work for me.) where it shows that the noun/verb/adjective core of the sentence is "(the) right shall (not) be infringed". So the militia is completely secondary to the point of the sentence.

Re:B.S.

[Mercedes308]

I good friend of mine that lives nextdoor to me used to be in the Foreign Legion, then after that did Mercenary work (which he regreted). So he's been around a bit and seen many different places with their own particular gun culture. When I asked him about what he thought on gun control, he replied it depends on what country you are refering too. Some countries where there is gun control (like Australia, where I live) he hopes that the gun laws never get relaxed, even though guns were never a large problem here, but in other countries where there is little restriction it seems natural the way it is since there is an embedded culture and history with guns amongst the citizenry so general inappropriate use of firearms is quite low. On the other hand there are countries where guns are rife and there is no control. Guns are prevailent everywhere in those places and there is no responsible behavour since they became availiable to them suddenly and in numbers without the history and proper gun culture to prevent people from using them for situations in which they shouldn't be. That's his opinion on it anyway and he's one of the few people that has actually been on the receiving end of the result of various states of gun control/proliferation from region to region. I know its a bit offtopic, but it does highlight that what may be a good solution for one region may not suit so well for another. So comparing them against each other may not give much relevence.

Re:B.S.

[Math, The Ancient]

That wasn't the point, was it? Try to show some intelligence when you give such a poor example of "freedom to kill" against the age-old argument to "freedom to protect".

Re:B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:B.S.

[Mycroft_VIII]

If he really is beating his wife then a felony conviction for assault (perhaps with a nice side of intent to do something even worse) will do that just fine.
If however your just digging up a boogman that rarely exists, stop worring about it. Most people, even the most red-neck stereotype matcheing 90IQ types wouldn't really consider what you suggest. And the rare few that do wouldn't get far, unless of course all thier neighbors were just helpless idiots who dutifly turned in thier guns while he burried his a sealed container late one night.
It a bogus argument if made up, always has been. a real bad-guy won't turn in his weapons and won't say 'oh he might call 911 and only leave me a half hour or so to rape his wife and shoot his kids', but he might think 'hmm his wife sure perty, but i don't want no .30-06 in muh spare ribs'.

Mycroft

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.

Well, there's a major problem with that POV at the moment in that the U.S. seems to be run as a corporate oligarchy* - if you don't have big cash, you're going nowhere, and the main group with the big cash is the corporate sector.

Campaign finance reform is the thing you need in the U.S. to restore balance, but Catch 22 - the guys who can pass the finance reform laws are themselves heavily financed by the corporate sector

* correct me if I have the wrong archy. it's approaching 1.30am here

Re:B.S.

[ikkonoishi]

We are free

Sayeth the A.C.

"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

If you are unable to discuss the causes, effects, and methods of an ideology then over time you will begin to lose sight of what made it so bad in the first place. Just sweeping it under the rug of history, and hoping it goes away is not the action of a rational being or society. It is like covering a boil up with makeup and leaving it to fester. It will only get more dangerous, more painful, and harder to remove.

Re:B.S.

[skahshah]

A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all. Sure, some crimes will happen, but fewer.

I suppose that's why the USA are famous for their lower criminality, compared to any European country, New-Zealand or Canada ?

Re:B.S.

[drinkypoo]

I have to show my ID every time I rent a video, to qualify for a national health service discount for drugs, apply for a job, when a cop or any other official asks me to show them or I make a credit card purchase in excess of $50. I don't have any problem with that. Why would I?

John Ashcroft? Is that you?

Here in Amerikkka you are not yet required to show an ID when you do any of those things. The last one might be a good idea, though. You have to show your ID (and allow your employer to photocopy it) along with your social security card. You only need display identification in the US if you are involved in a traffic stop. Otherwise you are well within your legal rights to inform the police that you will not be showing them your ID. (Whether or not it's a good idea to deny it to them is another question.)

Why should you have a problem with that? Because none of that is anyone's business. It's my business what I'm doing.

As for the NHS thing, we have the same thing here if you are poor enough, but they issue you an ID card with a grainy black and white photo printed on it.

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

Yeah, I don't remember the exact details, but it boils down to the fact that the police here do NOT have to put themselves at risk to prevent a crime from being committed. Kind of short circuits the whole "civilians don't need to protect themselves. That's the police's job" argument

Re:B.S.

[Math, The Ancient]

"Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls."

1) But they sure are always there to monitor your parking habits 2) Efficiency...only at limiting activity of citizens that do obey the laws and funding to provide those laws 3)Funding...only administration or AFTER the crime.

So much for stability...

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

Works for me. I make it a policy not to agree with those who try to redefine words in terms of other loaded words to suit their agendas.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

I've been shooting since I was like, 4. Guns are no big deal to me. I know how to deal with them. I used to shoot competition rifle.

many of the things I believe may be concidered "racist" but I don't think that's the right word. I do not like Rap music, hip hop culture, et cetera. That doesn't mean I don't like black people. I don't like that culture. I like jazz and the blues. But I don't really know many black people. I have 2 black friends, one of whom is the whitest person i've ever met (just black, you know). Of course, I am not attracted to african features. I would never marry a black woman. But I don't think that makes me racist.

I'm anti immigration, particularly illegal immigration. It's not that I don't like mexicans. I just don't want people sneaking into my country and demanding social services. Mexico is sueing Arazona for refusing to give social services to illegal immigrants. The sad thing is, they will probably win. I plan on staying in my country, they should do the same. It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin.

I disagree with a lot of the things the left says and does, but it doesn't make me right wing. I disagree with a lot they say and do also. Yes, I am more inclined to agree with them on many issues, but I am more reactionary than conservative.

But these days, if you have National pride, you're labled a racist. If you are anti-immigration, you're labled a racist. if you're just plain not attracted to blacks or mexicans or indians or whatever, you're labled a racist. It's not that. I just don't like those things. I don't like brown on eyes on white girls either. Cows of brown eyes -- they are boring. But hey, i'm not terribly big on blonde hair. Everyone in my family has black hair, except for some redheaded cousins and stuff. If you don't grow up with something you don't learn to like it -- like fish eggs.

But yeah, I hear the word "nigger" or some variation thereof like, 12 times a day. My school has like, 1200 students and only like, 35 students who are not white. That includes the Japanese girl. Maybe 43 if we count Jews as "non-white." I don't see black people much. I don't know how to deal with them.

A guy I know that is the assistant manager of the dining hall at my school named Ron is black. One day he asked me if there were black people in Ireland. There may be in Dublin, but I never have seen any. The situation is only slightly better here. I never have to deal with Jews. We don't even get Columbus Day off because we have almost no Italians. And I don't even live in the backwoods, really -- i'm 10 minutes from williamsburg if we could go straight (cheatham annex for the US navy is in the way, so it takes me 35 minutes because of where they had to build the bridge). If I go to hampton there are plenty of black folk. But I never have to go to hampton for anything really, and I feel very uncomfortable if I do.

I don't hate them per se, I just don't really ever have to deal. The point of the whole thread is that people shouldn't have to. If I want to go hang out with some black people or whatever, that's fine. if I don't, that's my decision. I shouldn't be forced to in the name of "diversity" -- honestly, I cannot say I believe it would make anything better if it were "more diverse." I can just find different food when I go visit my family in Boston, Chicago, New York, or Ft Lauderdale. On the other hand those places are cramped, crowded, loud, filthy and crime-ridden. But hey, they are diverse.

but I really don't think we need to be talking about this anymore.

Re:B.S.

[operagost]

There are quite a few people in companies like Disney who think that hackers having access to high-speed internet, powerful CPUs, unencrypted media, and Bitorrent is "fucking scary." They're trying to stop you, too. And saying, "well, downloading or hacking never killed anyone" is simply a false statement to them because they find those activities to be a threat to their livelihood; the same way you apparently think that a firearm in the possession of a law-abiding, peaceful citizen like yourself is a threat.

Re:B.S.

[ikkonoishi]

I can't believe you just tried to use Googlefight to support a serious arguement.

Check this out.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=new+york&word2=london

Your results
new york shooting
3,660,000 results
london shooting
1,780,000 results

My results
new york
237,000,000 results
london
129,000,000 results

New York shootings had more hits because New York had more hits.

For unbiased statistics you can't beat the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Check these.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth. htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm .htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Interesting huh.
The vast majority of deaths by firearms are for suicides at 59%. Gun crimes across the board falling.

Meanwhile hidden somewhere over here

KEY FINDINGS
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion
excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent.
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year.
Air weapons were used in 12,340 recorded crimes, a rise of 21 per cent compared to 2000/01. Threequarters
(77%) of recorded crimes involving air weapons were of criminal damage.
There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02.
Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun.
The number of firearm robberies increased by a third (34%) between 2000-01 and 2001/02. Currently,
the number of firearm robberies is the highest since 1993. However, the proportion of robberies involving
firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last five years.
Weapons were fired in only 24 per cent of firearm crimes (excluding those involving air weapons). In
most of the cases (84%) where a handgun was present, it was used as a threat and was not fired or used
as a blunt instrument.

Crime rates headed up. (Although in most cases its used as intimidation. Frankly I like the US's straight statistics setup instead of the political couching and analysis of England, but thats just me.)

As for hate speech, I don't see how buying an old antique that just happens to have the swastika on it is hate speech, but they disagree with it so down the memory hole it goes. (Apologies to Mr. Orwell. Remember kids the memory hole is just for paper. For disposal of other items just place the item in view of a telescreen, and your helpful Ministry of Justice will send someone to deal with it promptly. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER!)

Re:B.S.

[cfulmer]

2 comments:

1. While I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, it's a stretch to say that it was all about people being able to use guns against government tyranny.

If you look at it historically, you have to recognize that at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, the people most affected by gun restrictions weren't in the population centers but on the frontier -- people facing problems with wild animals and hostile Indians. (Before I get raked over the coals for not being PC, they were called Indians at the time, and some of them were clearly hostile. I'm not going to go into the legitimacy of the hostility.) That, combined with hunting, made guns necessary to the survival of the frontiersmen. And with their survival went the expansion of the Union.
Heck, at the time, Marbury v. Madison hadn't yet been decided and many people though of the Bill of Rights as being a paper tiger which the Congress might just ignore.

2. Also, note that natural law was an approach to the law based on specific principles, not just generically "law based on principles." Heck, most of today's law is still based on principles, just not the same principles that fans of natural law had. For example, in natural law, government could not do anything to interfere with contracts. Since then, we've established all sorts of principled judicial doctrines to limit the power of contract(doctrines of unconscionability, and non-enforcement of contracts against public policy, for example.) Similarly, the right to free association was an absolute natural law right. But, when the result of that was that Black people could not freely travel in the South (and in the North, to a lesser extent) because no hotels would serve them, a different principle took over.

Re:B.S.

[Taladar]

Strange. Most people breaking into houses here in Germany do that to rob electronics, rape and murder happen mostly on the street. I would argue that shooting someone for a 50 Euro DVD-Player or even a few hundred Euro TV or PC isn't worth it because:
1) The risk of the robber harming you is higher if you attack him
2) A human life (even that of a criminal) is worth more than a pile of transistors in a box.

Re:B.S.

[mankey wanker]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." - Thom. Jefferson

Harsh words ain't gonna cut it when your liberties are on the line, buddy. No governmental "mommy" or "daddy" is gonna come help you - hell, they might be the problem.

The People + guns = posse comitatus = militia = freedom = rights

Don't be a pussy. Get a gun and defend your freedom.

Re:B.S.

[Mac Degger]

I think you're trivialising your country's problems. You mention 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). Seems like no one wants the general populace to be educated...
Anyway, the abolition of basic human rights (as happens in Guantanamo) coupled with the lack of habeus corpus and the right to legal representation have basically broken your status as a free country: lack of the last two can be thought of as the definition of a police state.

Then there is the fact that money is considered free speech. This, coupled with the lobbying industry (a whole industry dedicated to /bribing/ the government!!!) means that a) people with money have more than one vote and b) corporations have a say in government...a government which supposedly is by and for the people, with no mention of corporations.

And then there's the media, which has transformed from something which gives you the news to a spin delivery system. Face it: Clearchannel, the FCC and Fox have made it so that no scandal breakes which can hurt the people it is protecting. With all the crap going on Iraq, the Taiqan shitstrorm coming up, the mayor economic problems in the US, the failing education, the selection of convicted felons and suspected felons (Negroponte!) for high offices...and what's on t.v.? A single euthanesia story which the courts throw out. Which is rather remarkable, because it does three things: it gets Bush to finally 'appeal to his christian base' whilst at the same time (but then this is underreported on) he gets to push government interference on personal matters (and here's me thinking the Republicans where anti big gov'ment)...but more importantly, more pressing and important issues are just swept under the media-blanket.

So, yeah, I'd say your country is due for revolution. And I say that as a foreigner who thinks your foreign policy is shit and has made the world a much more unsafe place (meaning I have a much higher chance of getting blown up than I used to when I travel...but then, so few americans travel abroad that it doesn't really matter, does it?). But most of all I say it as foreigner looking a country where people shout 'freedom' and 'terror' whilst having the fear of god put into them by their leaders and their "put us on orange alert 'cos we're down in the opinion polls" and their freedoms curtailed (free-speech zone? WTF? PATRIOT ACT with no sunset clauses? Torturing a national policy? Curtailing free speech by selfcencorship and half million dollar FCC fines? Constant hints getting dropped that Roe v Wade is about to get dropped? Abstinance only programs over condom use? No sex-ed? Goddamn creationism over evolution?).

Really, you have no clue how bad your country is down the toilet if you think that "normal people running against career politicians" have any chance whatsoever nowadays. You need money and lots of it to even consider running...and that money can only be had by getting into bed with special interests in the US. Your democracy is broken...and if Diebold blackboxes are the tools by which you count your democratic vote, you /have/ to know that by now.

Re:B.S.

[Math, The Ancient]

"PS. Your own islamophobia is showing..."

'kill the infidels!' -- i have as much reason to fear (phobia) this group as any other anti-seministic group.

Re:B.S.

[tootlemonde]

The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial. It's an idea born of the progressive era in American history.

Actually, the "living document" approach goes back to the tenure of John Marshall as chief justice and his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Marshall dealt with the creation of the Bank of the United States noting that "Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word 'bank or 'incorporation'...". However, he found the bank constitutional and observed:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. . . .

The U.S. constitution is a set of principles that by their nature require interpretation both by the Congress when it makes laws and the Supreme Court when it reviews those laws. As Marshall said, the Constitution was "intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

During the "progressive era" you refer to you, the Supreme Court has almost always used its powers to expand the freedom of citizens by striking down restrictive laws. The result is that the current generation of Americans have fewer restrictions on free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., than at any point in American history. Whatever the weakness of the "living document" theory, it has not proved to be a threat to freedom but an agency for extending it.

Re:B.S.

[Mac Degger]

"when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs"

Urban legend, or in less euphemistic language: a lie. Ask the first police officer you see if this istrue. Better yet, go have a look at crime statistics to see how wrong you are. Then, for a real blast, have a look at the difference between gun-related (and overal) crime in countries which have strict gun laws and the US. Last time this came up it took me ten minutes to google a reliable source (which means: not the NRA).

BTW: what usually happens is that when a victim has a weapon, the situation rapidly escalates, leaving the criminal (who has nothing to lose...he wouldn't be robbing you if he did) no choice but to get violent or run away. Criminals tend to get violent, leaving the victim quite fucked up, as a rule. The once-in-a-thousand case of the victim actually managing to draw his weapon on the criminal (who usually already has his weapon out) just tells you that 999 victims got shot.

Re:B.S.

[Jesus_666]

Freedom means being allowed to diseminate Nazi stuff along side the commie stuff.

Do you know what would happen if Germany lifted the ban on Nazi propaganda? Every nation of the world would diplomatically ass-rape us, the USA being first in line.
Freedom of speech? Not if it's about the dissemination of an ideology that cost 30 million perople's lives last time we allowed it - at least not in Germany.

Even though I do think that we should come to terms with ouu history already, I'm quite happy that national socuialism is illegal over here. We've had our fair share of imperialistic over-exaggerated patriotism along with a tendency to take semi-random people and declare them guilty for everything bad.

Re:B.S.

[GutBomb]

once one kind of offensive speech is deemed illegal how long does it take for other speech that is offensive to some but not all people to become illegal? measuring the general public's offense level is impossible. therefor any laws outlawing any specific offensive speech are flawed because no matter what you say, someone will be offended and some will not be.

Re:B.S.

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

Well, we did have that unpleasantness in the (18) sixties, but point taken nonetheless.

Re:B.S.

[GutBomb]

the "flamebait" mod is speech in itself. and it did not restrict the speech of someone else, it merely commented on it.

Re:B.S.

[Jesus_666]

Oh, and... We have not "always been here". We were created (by you) in 1948. And you have pretty much dictated the rules under which we were allowed to become a country.
If there's anything missing it's certainly not our fault; we didn't have much to say back then.

Re:B.S.

[triclipse]

The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial.

It is hugely controversial. As Scalia point to in many of his dissents, it is simply an excuse for five D.C. lawyers to make the 14th amendment say whatever they want it to say.

Re:B.S.

[Guppy06]

"Believe it or not, many issues that are unpopular with the typical Slashdotter (including me) are widely supported among the people."

50% + 1 does not "widely supported" make. The politicans who were elected by a wide margin are the ones who have had their district lines drawn very carefully just for them.

"You don't change that by revolution, you change it by education."

And you don't see it as a conflict of interest (if not inherently dangerous) to put the elected officials in charge of that "education?"

"That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind."

Nobody runs with "the general interests of the people in mind." The person who says that they are is going for the power and the glory of the elected office, or at least trying to build the perception that his or her views have more widespread support than they really are. Everybody has their own little agenda and what the voters should be doing is making sure that a candidate's personal agenda lines up with their own, but instead they get sucked up by lines like that, complete with a waving American flag in the background.

"Normal people" don't run for office. "Normal people" barely even vote.

"Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?"

Have you looked at some of the root causes of the American Revolution lately? Ever hear of the "Stamp Act?"

Re:B.S.

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Well argued. It is nice to see some rationality in this.

Re:B.S.

[brianber]

Last time this came up it took me ten minutes to google a reliable source (which means: not the NRA).

I trust this "reliable" source was either The Violence Policy Center, Handgun Control INC, Million Mom March or some other such completely non-biased "public interest think tank."

Piont being, that BOTH sides may be less than totally honest and might selectivly ignore statistics that don't agree with their view.

Re:B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:B.S.

[josh3736]

As an American citizen, with all due respect, speak for yourself. I might not be calling for revolution quite yet, but I do certainly feel like our government has ceased to represent its people. Hell, it doesn't even respect its people any more. Laws are passed which are clearly against the best interests of the people and serve only to benefit the few. Combined with a wholly ignorant and apathetic population, we have a recepie to be screwed at every corner.

As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?

Well, let's see... We lied about why we went to Iraq, lock up our own citizens without trial, piss all over our Constitution, and totally ignore countries that actually pose a threat. I don't think it's actually possible to get the apathetic American pissed off about foreign policy.

Re:B.S.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Not when you look at the US's gun stats.

Re:B.S.

[MightyMartian]

I didn't see him saying he should be able to do what he wants. He's talking about speech, and I agree with him. Free speech means taking the good with the bad. The government is the worst possible organ of a nation to limit speech. Simply put, I trust no government in regulating what ought to be the most fundemental freedom next to life itself.

Re:B.S.

[antirename]

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.

Re:B.S.

[Lord_Dweomer]

The problem is, the ability have a revolution by force has long since left our hands. We have laws enabling us to bear arms for this very reason. However, what good does a rifle or shotgun do against a tank, or our army, or a bomb?

We've done a nice job of giving our government overwhelming power and keeping none for ourselves. And if you try to take things back by force, we've given them nice laws to label us terrorists (not revolutionaries), and that gives them a license to take us out at all costs.

Re:B.S.

[MightyMartian]

Standing armies may be dangerous, but they are absolutely critical to any nation's survival. Even letting your standing army dwindle, as the US did between WWI and WWII can spell disaster when you need to mobilize. There's nothing wrong with a conscription army that's organized when needed, but with the functional core of a professional army you can find yourself in an uphill battle. The only that saved the US's hiney in WWII was the fact that it was separated from its two opponents by huge oceans, and had the population and resources.

It may be a bad example, but the Germans, even though strictly forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles, kept its general staff going between 1919 and the early 1930s. These guys had paper divisions, played wargames, and preserved the Prussian army that Frederick the Great had built up, and thus could simply fill the divisions with troops and armor when the time came. The US might have survived fairly well two centuries ago with a militia, seeing as it's direct threats were fairly limited (particularly after the War of 1812). I cannot fathom the US today without a standing professional army. I can't imagine any modern state that isn't in someway the client of some much stronger state surviving without a standing army.

Re:B.S.

[MightyMartian]

Using an extreme example like Nazism as an argument for censorship will usually get people nodding in agreement. The problem is of course drawing that line. The wise and noble men who inherited the great ideas of the Enlightenment and wrote such brilliant documents as the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew very well that there is indeed a slippery slope and that just about any speech could be censored by some variant of the precise argument you gave.

Besides, anti-Nazi laws haven't stopped the Neo-Nazis and skinheads in Germany. You cannot destroy an idea through suppression. That only gives it mystique, an attractiveness particularly to people who feel themselves treated unfairly. Thus we see it growing in Europe as people begin to identify the social problems growing in many parts of the Continent. You're not going to stop this by banning it. Then you just drive it underground, where it can fester in secret. Blowing it wide open, revealing these ideologies and their supporters for what they are is what will work. Despite the freedom of the KKK and other white supremacist organizations to spread their filth in the US, mainstream society has steadily been moving away from such opinions for decades.

Europe will not solve its problems by hiding its dirty laundry and pretending that the heirs of the Brownshirts don't exist. It won't make that hatred go away by outlawing its proponents from speaking in the public square. They will speak in the dark places, and the very laws you think will stop them will only give them the power to grow. Shine a light on these people, don't give them a way to hide.

Re:B.S.

[pedroloco]

If you look at it historically, you have to recognize that at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, the people most affected by gun restrictions weren't in the population centers but on the frontier -- people facing problems with wild animals and hostile Indians.

I disagree with your statement that the second amendment was not about government tyranny.

As a practical matter, people on the frontier had little to worry in terms of government control - they would have been able to carry arms simply because there was essentially no government on the frontier to enforce any possible 18th century gun control laws.

The second amendment was written because the Framers of the Constitution remembered that the Revolution was fought by Americans who, more often than not, brought their own weapons to battle against the British government. You might recall that Minutemen (which could have been considered a "well regulated militia") supplied most of their own arms. The Framers hoped that the threat of an insurrection would keep the central government from abusing its power.

Re:B.S.

[BorgCopyeditor]

If you do a sentence diagram of that you get this (I love the internet, it does so much of the work for me.) where it shows that the noun/verb/adjective core of the sentence is "(the) right shall (not) be infringed". So the militia is completely secondary to the point of the sentence.

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing but you are incorrect: syntax alone cannot determine whether the "militia" clause is restrictive.

But we do have a consolation prize for you. Johnny, tell him what he's won....

Re:B.S.

[LtOcelot]

Russia? An absolute monarchy becomes an absolute dictatorship becomes a fledgling democracy.

...and then starts showing signs of becoming a dictatorship again, in fact if not in name. Time will tell.

Historical evidence as far as I can see shows that the people revolt against subjugation when the government becomes onerous. Just a matter of time.

Sure. Historical evidence also shows that most of these revolts are forcibly suppressed.

Re:B.S.

[pilkul]

That or, you know, maybe they could just elect someone else come 2008? Perhaps that would be a little easier than a civil war.

Hot tip: in democracies change of government can be effected without revolution. But I guess you're one of those people who thinks that the US is somehow not a democracy, despite the current president being elected by a majority with no evidence of tampering.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

I am about to say something very poltically incorrect, but i don't really care.

European-Americans (English, Irish, German, et cetera) are not the predominant group sitting in prison. It's blacks, latinos, et cetera. all those "gangs" you always here about -- well, I doubt any "honkeys" are in the Crips or Bloods. We have massive amounts of illegals streaming across the Mexican border. Many of them end up committing other crimes.

I am sure that Europe, Canada and New Zealand will reflect this as well. That is why I said it. It's not us, it's them. about 70% of America is white but about 80% of the people in prison are not. it is not because we go around willie-nilly locking up "coons," it's cause they are comitting the crimes. Maybe whites are committing more crimes and just not getting caught, but I don't think so.

Of course, if we had none of those people all the crime would be white crime. But there would probably be a whole lot less crime. Much of the crime is black-on-black, probably more so than black-on-white and from what i see on the local news from hampton roads, infintly more than white-on-black which i almost never see.

of course, anecdotes aren't really evidence, except in specific cases. and i can't find the prison stats right now. but those numbers are pretty close to accurate.

Re:B.S.

[pilkul]

But look at what happens when the state doesn't have overwhelming power. You get a security nightmare like today's Iraq.

The state monopoly on force is the most basic condition of stability and prosperity; it won't do you any good to complain about it. If you don't like the current American government, the best approach is to try to change it using nonviolent means (and luckily, democracies provide an excellent way to do this).

Re:B.S.

[Peaceful_Patriot]

My attitudes about Gun Control have changed over the years. I have come to believe that the greatest protection from an armed society is protection from our own government and the ability to rise up in rebellion when necessary.

The day may be coming when we will see the wisdom in such a law.

Re:B.S.

[FLEB]

You might want to adjust your sight. Nice grouping, but all you hit was the author. The issue's over thataway just a bit.

Re:B.S.

[Moderation abuser]

"and then starts showing signs of becoming a dictatorship again, in fact if not in name"

Again, evidence?

"Historical evidence also shows that most of these revolts are forcibly suppressed."

At which point, real military hardware is imported and used against the oppressive regime. Often supplied by external sympathisers. The IRA is a good example of this. Guns are illegal in Northern Ireland yet the IRA have significant caches of heavy weapons.

e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/148242 6.stm

There's no evidence that small arms such as pistols or rifles would be of any significant use against a competent, trained military force.

In fact, the evidence is that civilian police forces (never mind military forces) are quite capable of dealing with small arms wielding civilians. The right to bear arms section in the US constitution is really just enshrined paranoia and doesn't even serve the purpose for which it was intended. The right to bear arms would have to include tanks, helicopters, military aircraft, nuclear weapons etc to be of much use these days.

Re:B.S.

[zCyl]

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing but you are incorrect: syntax alone cannot determine whether the "militia" clause is restrictive.

Perhaps it was simply written that way because it was written by committee. One group wanted to say as clearly as possible, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and another group in the committee wanted to justify it, and give a reason for it, so the militia clause was prepended as a justification, but without grammatical connection.

These are people who just finished fighting and winning a revolutionary war. You can bet good money that protecting the capability of the people to do an armed revolt was top on their mind when formulating that amendment. There were probably just differences of opinion between them about how that could best be done.

Re:B.S.

[Mac Degger]

Sure. I bet not even some kids in the bronx see that much 'action'...and you, a self-confessed nerd who posts on /. do better than cops?
I'm sorry if I seem sceptical, but even if what you say is true, there has to be something wrong with your attitude that you get jacked 6 times in the last 5 years: you're making yourself a target.

Re:B.S.

[thedustbustr]

As for the police forces: They don't have to protect you. Period. They're job is to catch the guy after he robs/rapes/kills you. Don't beleive me? Ask the Supreme Court Of the United States.

What case is this? I did not know this. I'd like to see the case for myself.

Re:B.S.

[Mac Degger]

You know, I'm surprised at this: there's one source all others refer to, and it's being looked over. YOUR GOVERNMENT PUBLISHES IT'S FIGURES! THEY ARE OFFICIAL (or as official and trustworthy as they'll ever get) AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE, ONLINE! Check this link

Re:B.S.

[thedustbustr]

You used "disingenuous" wrong.

not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who...exemplified...the most disagreeable traits of his time"- David Cannadine; "a disingenuous excuse"

fuckwit

Re:B.S.

[Ivop]

It has nothing to do with race, if that's what you are suggesting. In Holland, it's about the same. 80% of the people in prison is non-white. The main cause is not the color of their skin, but the fact that they all live at the bottom of society. Most of them are unemployed and are poor. If you raise their overall social standard (give them jobs, push society to accept "those" people), crime will drop.

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.

[dangitman]

In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs, and if they decide to do so anyway, they find a much quicker demise.

If that's true, then how do you explain America's extermely high rate of gun violence and murder - while countries with fewer guns, and tighter regulation, have much lower levels of firearm misuse and violence?

However, there are plenty of people out there that are evil -- and they have guns, and will use them.

Only when the society they belong to encourages gun owenership and has lax regulation and tracking of said firearms.

Re:B.S.

[mickyflynn]

no, i am not saying the colour of their skin does it. I am just saying that the people who do it happen to have non-white skin colour. Clearly Colin Powel isn't going around gang banging. And "Slim Shady" isn't exactly a model citizen.

However, the "hip hop" culture does encourage violence and criminal activity as a method to gain street credit. Then again, so do anarchist punks. Personally, I believe C. Julius Caesar: "break the law only to seize power. In all other cases, observe it."

Re:B.S.

[LionKimbro]

A "living document" philosophy does away with notions of eternal principles, and it does so at the risk of freedom.

A "living document" philosophy doesn't do away with the notion of eternal principles;

A "living document" philosophy says that the eternal principle is life itself.

Re:B.S.

[Curious Yellow 82]

I second that! Until that day comes, anyone know where I can score some weapons grade Pu?

Re:B.S.

[Curious Yellow 82]

I'm sorry you've been trained in government school and most likely be your family that "guns are bad." Guns are dangerous, guns should be handled with great respect, but they are not evil. You say that, but do you not get a feeling of power when you hold that cold steel in your hand? To paraphrase the book from which Dangerous Minds was based on Ice cold blue black steel Red running in the streets Gun is Man's best friend That haiku (?) made my blood run cold when I first read it and I've never forgotten it to this day, 10 years later.

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

"not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness;"

Looks right to me. Fuckwit.

Re:B.S.

[iq in binary]

"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.

Re:B.S.

[geminidomino]

Sorry it took so long. I had to find it.

My mistake, it wasn't SCOTUS, but one "State supreme court" (Actually the D.C. Court of Appeals, the equivalent) and one federal appelate court (7th Circuit Appeals Court).

Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) - DC Court of Appeals

this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ...

Bowers v. DeVito (1982) - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen

Re:B.S.

[josh3736]

You make some good points and I won't get too much into the first half of your post other than mentioning this: while--as you claim--Americans are aware of most (if not all) of the things you mentioned, the problem isn't their ignorance of these facts. The problem is the American's apathy toward them. For example, our last Presidential election was one of the most hotly contested elections in the history of this country. Yet out of 217,767,000 eligible voters, only 165,607,114 were registered and only 122,300,696 actually voted. [1] People just don't give a shit so long as it doesn't conflict with their religion, cf. gay marriage and abortion. The people behind the Bush Administration know this and they have used it quite successfully to their advantage. But I digress. I'm here to argue you on education: (Which I just recently wrote a rant about.)

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.

Clearly you don't know anyone who is actually in education. My parents have been in the education field for nearly 60 years combined. They know how things work and saw this law as the worthless piece of crap it is. (See my rant, linked above, to read more.)

Granted, some portions of the law might do good things, or at least attempt to do good things. Additional testing isn't one of them. This is yet another issue that has been needlessly federalized. The Federal Government really has no business telling my local school district how to operate itself. School boards exist because local control works best: if there are actually teachers or administrators who are underperforming, the local school board can take care of the problem.

At any rate, mark my words: Politicians want to kill public education. In my state, the state legislators have been at it for well over a few decades by underfunding the system so badly it'll collapse and they get to look like heroes "saving the taxpayers money" by eliminating the system altogether. Now the Federal government is trying to privatize the whole damn system by undermining public confidence in the system. ("Your child's school isn't meeting [our unrealistic] AYP!") But does the Federal Government's desire to privatize education surprise you considering BushCo wants to privatize everything else?

Basically, it comes down the rich lining their pockets at our expense. And guess what? (Get ready for this one...) Privatized schools don't actually work! Read this great editorial:

The buzzword throughout public education is accountability, the state's primary and secondary schools rigorously scrutinized on how much they spend and how well students score. In that kind of atmosphere, the rapid growth of charter schools is all the more remarkable. Charter schools cost the state more and more money, yet they produce test scores no better than public schools.

...

Once the profit motive was introduced to education, the obvious should have been anticipated. To follow charter schools means following the money.

Should it be a surprise that online charter schools, with drastically lower overhead costs, now enroll about one-fourth of all charter-school children? Or that the number of special education students in charter schools, bringing in more state money per pupil, has increased?

Oh, how I enjoy having my tax dollars raped by some profiteering bastards.

Re:B.S.

[IANAAC]

As for the police forces: They don't have to protect you. Period. They're job is to catch the guy after he robs/rapes/kills you. Don't beleive me?

If so, I'd say most all police forces I've seen the the US, including the SF bay area where I live, should change their slogan (read on-car advertising).

They ALL say "To serve and protect".

Re:B.S.

[DisKurzion]

the abolition of basic human rights (as happens in Guantanamo) coupled with the lack of habeus corpus and the right to legal representation

IIRC, Guantanamo camped MILITARY prisioners. Not citizens of the USA. Thus your argument is null. And Guantanamo wasn't that bad. I don't see any bodies being shipped out.

a) people with money have more than one vote and b) corporations have a say in government...a government which supposedly is by and for the people, with no mention of corporations.

IIRC...coporations are made up of people too. Also, they provide jobs. Granted, they do a lot of corrupt stuff. But is it worth dying for? Not yet. I have no beef with rich people. You know why? They're still people. Maybe because I don't feel that it's right for ANYBODY to unwillingly give up 1/2 their salary just because they make more than other people. Maybe it's just that "personal responsibility" thing that I was raised with.

The rest of your post is unintelligable garbage.

What I gather from it is that you have no understanding just how BIG a revolution is. A revolution is for SERIOUS problems (aka: martial law, beheding those who oppose you). All this stuff that is happening now is minor squabbles compared to what a revolution would bring. That is why, in 3 years, if people are THAT dissatisfied, congress will be completely restructured to reflect that.

You really have no idea how America is, I doubt you've ever been here, or even have the remotest understanding what it's like. You are just a petty bitter European (emphasis on petty), who is just angry that the USA isn't bending to YOUR wishes. The majority didn't vote for Bush cause he was Christian, they voted for him because he pisses you off.

We Americans like being the center of our own attention. Especially in regards to a revolution, which shouldn't have SHIT to do with international affairs.

(and note to mods: who the hell modded this troll up)

Re:B.S.

[cfulmer]

The second amendment was about government tyranny, but the view that the right to bear arms was there to fight against government tyranny isn't entirely accurate: The 2nd amendment was mainly based in a pro-militia, anti-standing army view. The concern was that a standing army would lead to tyranny, that militias were better and that people had to have guns in order to be in the militia. (some early statutes required men to own guns and to be part of the militia.)

You can see this from the proposed amendments in the Constitutional ratifying conventions and in the Virginia Bill of Rights.

BTW... The "Framers of the Constitution" did not write the Bill of Rights -- that was handled by the 1st Congress formed under the Constitution and by state ratifying conventions. There was certainly some overlap, but not complete.

Also note that 2nd amendment was originally labelled #4 -- the original #2 is now the 27th amendment. So, the oft-used argument "Well, it's 2nd, right after freedom of speech, so it must have been really important" doesn't hold water.

Re:B.S.

[Belanth]

It isn't as clear-cut as you state it. The problem has more to do with how US law handles corporations. In many cases, corporations have rights that parallel citizens. And frankly, I would rather fight for my rights and lose that job than to bow to some corporate master at 8 in the morning. The difference between where we stand now and the situation that the book 1984 presents are merely incremental.

At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me explain -

There are two major positions on ethics:

Those that believe that ethics are static, and do not change per individual viewpoint

-or-

Ethics are personal opinion, and change with every person.

Now, since we have laws in this country that affect everyone, we have to assume that it is generally accepted that we believe in static ethics (this doesn't, BTW, mean we agree on what that ethical code is). If this is the case, and we see 'mere corruption' going on and fail to take umbrage at it, then we are condoning it.

When we, as citizens of a country stop worrying about corruption in politics, and the loss of rights it is the first sign that we have already lost them.

It shouldn't be a question about whether campaign contributions should be made by corporations - since they are not citizens (I'll get to the employees in a second) they should not be involved in politics at all.

Employees do not owe fealty to an organization - and they may not neccesarily agree with the corporation about policies that they want promoted in government. Individuals should always have the right to free speech, whether citizen or not - but only citizens can vote - and therefore only citizens should have impact on politics.

Personal Responcibility is not just about earning your own pay to live off of - it also entails watching the government - letting corporate greed control the destiny of our government is as wrong as doing nothing while a fascist leader kills millions.

In regards to your comment about Bush winning a second term - that had more to do with a flawed electoral system that left us with a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Re:B.S.

[jedidiah]

If you trust the citizenry well enough to vote, trusting them to "take the law into their own hands" should not be a problem. Over here, the notion of a posse formed by a bunch of respectable citizens lead by the local constable is not such an alien idea.

Apparently, the contempt for the common man is a little more brazen across the pond.

Re:B.S.

[rastos1]

Have you ever tried to run someone over with your car? ...

Nope. But there is thousands of car accidants every day. With cars being easy to get hold of, the number of idiots driving carelessly, drunk, intoxicated, ... is growing. Inevitably.

As some poster already pointed out, it is much better to live in society where you don't need the gun. If we are not there, we should work towards that. You feel that police can't do their job and you feel that you can step in to take over. Just think about it and try to replace the word police in previous sentence with any other government-supplied service. Ok. May be you can be a good teacher, doctor, firefighter, bridge egineer ... well probably not, unless you are Superman.

Re:B.S.

[bluGill]

I myself live in a country where I don't feel the need to buy a gun. And I'm very happy about it.

I don't know one person who feels a need to buy a gun for self defense. I know many people who have one for self defense anyway though. Need isn't important, sure it is 1 in a million or some such that they would be attacked, but guns are cheap enough that why not keep it with you just in case. Now these are all people who enjoy shooting targets as a hobby. (which is much safer than some of the drugs some people do)

Re:B.S.

[srmalloy]

In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs

Now, I would love to see a study of that - let's look at comparative crime rates in, oh, I dunno, say, The U.S. vs the UK?

Except that you're working across a cultural difference there -- Britain has a historical tradition of limited gun ownership, while America has a historical tradition of widespread gun ownership. Why don't you look at American cities, where you'll find that the rate of gun crime parallels the restrictiveness of the gun-control laws?

If you want to make comparisons just on the availability of firearms, without considering any other factor, then let's trot out the fact that in Switzerland, virtually every household has a select-fire military assault rifle, but their gun-crime rate is even lower. You can't focus on just the availability of firearms between different countries and derive useful conclusions about crime rates.

Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls.

Knowing that the police are efficient and deter 90% or more of all murders and assaults is so comforting to the woman being dragged into an alley and knifed or shot for her purse, I'm sure.

I myself live in a country where I don't feel the need to buy a gun. And I'm very happy about it.

It's your life; you are entitled to turn over the responsibility for protecting yourself to anyone you choose. By the same token, however, if and when you find that that protection isn't there, remember that it was your decision, and take responsibility for the consequences.

Re:B.S.

[Tassach]

I think having guns around is scary because I don't want small lumps of hot metal to rip through my organs at barely subsonic speeds. Your reason is?

I don't particuarly want lumps of hot metal ripping through my organs either. Nor do I want some steroid-pumped gorilla bashing me over a head with a big stick, or some crazed religious fanatic slicing open my juglar with a boxcutter or scattering me over several acres with a car bomb.

There are bad people in the world, and they will obtain weapons of some description no matter what precautions you take. We can't even completely disarm the inmates of maximum security prisons effectively, what makes you think that we can disarm an entire free society?

Even if you could magically destroy every firearm on the planet overnight and prevent any new ones from ever being created, you would still have violent criminals in the world, and they would still prey on those weaker and less well-armed then themselves. People were killing, raping, and robbing each other long before firearms were ever created.

In a world without firearms, people who are larger, stronger, and are more skilled at physical violence have free reign to prey on those smaller, weaker, and less skilled than themselves. The only way a 4'11", 98lb woman can effectively defend herself against a 6'3" 250lb attacker is with a firearm.

Re:B.S.

[Tassach]

They ALL say "To serve and protect".

Look up the definition of the word "propaganda".

Re:B.S.

[Bob_Robertson]

Your evidence?

Any history book. I would suggest first, _Democracy_-_The_God_That_Failed_ by Hanse Hermann Hoppe. That will cure you of your error that a change from monarchy to democracy is self-evident "progress".

The UK? An absolute monarchy becomes a constitutional democracy.

You must have missed the part about multiple civil wars, the whole Cromwell thing, War of the Roses, something about an invasion almost 1,000 years ago, etc. Governments come and go, styles come and go. Once established, every government tends to increase its power over the lives of its subjects until it too is overthrown.

If you asked British subjects of, say, 1750 to: Relinquish their personal arms; Meekly prostrate themselves to a criminal because it's not their job to take the law into their own hands; Pay for other people to live on the dole; Pay more than 1/2 of their income in taxes; Produce government paperwork in order to travel, you would have a revolution on your hands.

Historical evidence as far as I can see shows that the people revolt against subjugation when the government becomes onerous. Just a matter of time.

This directly contradicts your earlier demand for proof that governments become onerous. Governments ALWAYS become onerous over time, prompting civil wars and revolutions, even if their violence is only focused on the heads of said government and doesn't effect YOU.

I don't think actually owning a gun will make that much of a difference

Then you are not a student of history. Government thugs are cowards, that's why they attack in groups. Wide distribution of arms in the hands of common citizens makes the price of such police action higher. So high, in fact, that it becomes much more difficult to rule peoples lives directly. That's why Jews were disarmed in Germany and the occupied countries before and during WW2. That's why Russian subjects have traditionally been disarmed. That's why the Japanese restricted the ownership of arms only to the Samurai class historically, and have continued to disarm their citizens in modern times.

Governments that allow their citizens to carry arms are very rare. Britain used to be the archetype of that kind of individual freedom, even under a monarchy, and were also the most powerful and influential country on earth.

British freedoms are what the American Bill of Rights was written to ensure, because people had become complacent and let those freedoms be infringed upon. Looking at that piece of paper, it's easy to see how far Britain, and America too, have since fallen.

Bob-

Re:B.S.

[Moderation abuser]

I didn't miss the Cromwell thing, or the Magna Carta etc. They are examples of the progression from absolute power over life and death towards individual freedoms.

"Once established, every government tends to increase its power over the lives of its subjects until it too is overthrown."

I keep hearing this statement but I haven't heard *any* evidence to back it up. Again... And I'm going to shout it this time... *EVIDENCE*?

I can cite you many examples of countries which began as absolute monarchies with the absolute power of life and death in the hands of an individual over their subjects now as democracies with the power residing in the people.

"Historical evidence as far as I can see shows that the people revolt against subjugation when the government becomes onerous. Just a matter of time.

This directly contradicts your earlier demand for proof that governments become onerous"

No, it doesn't. My statement applies to dictatorship, absolute monarchies etc. Democracy is revolution enshrined in law. You don't like the government, too onerous? Vote them out and get another lot in. Revolution.

Re:B.S.

[triclipse]

D'oh!

Re:B.S.

[WebsterTrivium]

Well said. I hate to say it, but most of my fellow Americans walk around with blinders on. And normally when I even try to discuss anything serious with my friends and family, it leads to a fight.

I've lost more friends because they don't want to discuss politics in the last year then I'd have imagined.

This past presidential election was the first I was able to vote in, and I bloody well knew it was an important one. Now I'm not so niave as to say it was the most important presidential election in the history of our nation. Because, let's face it, early on there were probably some things that could have got us to this situation sooner. But I digress, all I wanted to say was, don't disreguard these comments just because he's not an American. It is his business. That'd be like telling our president to butt out of matters in other countries. (Most of the time, that would actually be more appropriate) Because we have a great effect on the world at large. So telling someone from another country that US Policy is just not their business is flat out wrong. Anyway... That was my little rant, I have to get back to work.

Re:B.S.

[Bob_Robertson]

And I'm going to shout it this time... *EVIDENCE*?

No need to shout. You're still clinging to the false assertion that replacing a monarchy with a democracy is de-facto progress. As I pointed out, most modern democracies are far more restrictive of individual liberty than many monarchies have been.

Continuing to demand evidence is silly, I've already told you that reading _Democracy, the God That Failed_ would be a good start.

I can also suggest the works of Ludwig von Mises and Murrey Rothbard concerning "Public Choice Theory", which details how bureaucracies always accrue power to themselves by the simple function of each bureaucrat weighting their choices by what is in their interest. A search with Google should suffice, or you can visit http://www.mises.org/

If you're going to demand evidence, don't ignore it when it is presented to you. That just makes you look silly.

Bob-

Re:B.S.

[Keebler71]

Sorry for the late reply...

Clearly you don't know anyone who is actually in education. My parents have been in the education field for nearly 60 years combined. They know how things work and saw this law as the worthless piece of crap it is. (See my rant, linked above, to read more.)

Actually, my mom is a semi-retired elementary school teacher with about 35 years of experience and my wife has about 8 years of exprience teaching 2-4th grade (she is currently staying at home with our young son and will *not* be going back to teaching). I also routinely helped out with my wife's class (about half a day per week) ro so. So actually, I also have quite a bit of exposure to at least elementary education in this country. I've seen the mailings from the Californ ia Teacher's Association telling them exactly how to vote in elections (straight Dem ticket every time). I hear them complain about parents and administrators - the real problems with our school systems.

The Federal Government really has no business telling my local school district how to operate itself.

On this we agree... however, NCLB doesn't force a state to do *anything*. It merely makes them accountable if they want to continue to receive federal funds. People want to know that their tax dollars are being used effectively.

Re:B.S.

[Mycroft_VIII]

I never said I FELT the police couldn't do thier job, they usualy do it fine. I said thier job can't be to protect each and every individual from each and every other individual. Simple fact.
The police have NO obligation to protect you individually even if they KNOW you personally are in danger. Thier obligation is to the community at large. This has been established repeatedly in the courts when people have tried to sue because thier 911 calls and such didn't result in a cop at thier door fast enough to stop whatever unpleasantness was occuring.
As far as a society where guns were not needed, yes could be better, will never happen till the very nature of mankind changes. I'm not shure such a change would be for the better. Maybe we'd have to be ants or some other creature with no individuality. In any event that's a LONG way off.
As far as all those jobs, I've probably done some of each to small degree (except the bridge engineer, never needed to cross anywhere where a bridge would be needed). They don't require superman, nor in many cases for minor things are the pro's needed. Yes you need a doctor to remove and apendix, but to apply a bandaid? One should call the fire department if thier house is on fire, but anyone can unplug and take a fire extinguisher to the tv should it have an issue. And so on.
The society where that level of harmony exists and everything is done by only by specialists doese exist in our world, but I don't want to be an insect thank you.

Mycroft

Re:B.S.

[Mycroft_VIII]

I would argue that saying "excuse mister, did you break into my house to kill me and rape my wife or just steal my vcr" is stupid as is assuming the latter should someone break into your house. I'm talking darwin award stupid.
re:1)Not usually, many thieves,rapist,etc will RUN if they see a gun in the hands of a home-owner.
Maybee your #1 would make sense if we were talking someone weaker than the criminal with a simple melee weapon, but few crooks are so lacking as to attack someone with a gun.
#2 assumes you know why a crook has broken into your home, which is not usually the case, and assumes you'll just shoot someone who breaks in if you have a gun, also not usually the case.
Generally most crooks will run like hell if you meerly point a gun at them and tell them to get the hell out. Those that don't are usually on drugs or insane and not rational.

Mycroft

Re:B.S.

[Atrax]

very late reply

step one

more skilled at physical violence have free reign

It's 'free rein', not 'free reign'. It's a horse metaphor. Not personal, I've just hit my fucked grammar threshold.

right. here we go.

Why do you pay taxes?

you have some good points, viewed in a tight context. however you really need to step back and look at the big picture for a second*

We can't even completely disarm the inmates of maximum security prisons effectively

Not my problem. we do pretty well here. Learn. But if the (US) government department concerned with this shit is still subject to partisan politics, what are you gonna do?

would still have violent criminals in the world, and they would still prey on those weaker and less well-armed then themselves.

you've played strawman on the 'all guns gone' aYeah, but... hang on. I was going to say "have you ever heard of the phrase 'lowering the bar'?". not necessarily relevant, however, because the US has to recover from below the line.

Gun amnesties get legal owners to give up, but criminals retain, right? But, if I'm correct here, and I may not be, the Republican Party and the NRA have campaigned to remove background checks on gun purchases. So Crims can just wait a week or two and get a new gun, or even use a fake ID. But the background checks are gone. So Joe Murderer can legally buy a gun, or illegally purchase one off someone who can, and suddenly the law abiding guy who turned in his WW2 Luger is dead,

hmmm...

I think the ideal trick here would be to not restrict the sale of guns, but restrict maniacs like Chuck Heston filling your heads with bullshit about 'home defence'. Wake the fuck up, please.

* fuck. I am now cliche man.

Re:B.S.

[StupidKatz]

I have heard that he UCMJ also supports the notion that the militia is everybody not otherwise already in the acitve service or national guard.

You're looking for Section 311 of US Code, Title 10.

Re:B.S.

[StupidKatz]

Actually, an "arm", as the word was defined in that day, at least, meant 'any weapon designed to be man-portable'. (I did paraphrase.)

The second amendment does not grant a US citizen the right to own a tank. It does, however, protect the citizen from the (federal) government's attempts to keep the citizen from owning a LAW, RP-7, M4A1, hand grenades, Stinger missiles (and launcher), M249, MG44, silencers, backpack energy weapons, etc. In theory. Try carting around a MAC-10 and see how long it takes you to be gunned down by the BATF. :P

feeling

[bmgoau]

do you ever get the feeling that we should be the ones runing the country?

Re:feeling

[Atrax]

don't know if you mis-typed running or ruining there...

Re:feeling

[Everleet]

don't know if you mis-typed running or ruining there...

Actually he typed "runing". You know, covering the nation with magical symbols to enchant it against evil [political] powers.

Re:feeling

[rastos1]

reminds me of something ... originally it was about some computer related stuff ... but fits here perfectly:

If you are unsure whether you should do it, you probably shouldn't.

Take care.

Surprising, really...

[bobpence]

... how many sites would go into password-protected status overnight with a password page that says, prominently, "the password is FUCKTHEFEC"; I wonder if RSS feeds qualify as "limited distribution" in the same way as email lists.

Interesting ediorial from WSJ

[Cutie Pi]

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about this topic on Wednesday:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110006458

I'm surprised that /.ers are just now hearing about it.

Re:Interesting ediorial from WSJ

[nettdata]

I'm surprised that /.ers are just now hearing about it.

Yeah... I would have thought it wouldn't be heard about until sometime late next week... twice.

Re:Interesting ediorial from WSJ

[Jodka]

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.

Slashdot headline in a few weeks;

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinkers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Thinking

The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

There are plenty of very good reasons they're tackling the issue and if you bother to read the related documents, it is quite clear they are attempting to draft rules that impact only coordinated, primarily directly paid, activity--and even then, they're simply requiring the campaign connections to be disclosed and, when appropriate, reported as contributions.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[Mr. Arbusto]

The Law States:

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.

Just because the speech is assosiated with politics or money doesn't make it unfree speech. It could be argued that the intent was to specificlly make politcal speech entirley untouchable. Any atempt to abrige these rights is congress stepping beyond its bounds.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

Yeah, I've read the constitution.

So, you're saying that the FEC is fundamentally an unconstitutional entity? I'd think that if that was the case, it would have come up in the Supreme Court sometime in the last thirty years.

Have you read the proposed language? Every other blinking sentence talks of protecting individual free speech. They're talking about circumstances where there is direct financial backing or administrative coordination with campaigns, not Joe Six-pack's blog--and all they are proposing is that it be reported the same way they would have to if you made sammiches and donated them to the boiler room. It's not at all about abridging free speech, it's about documenting contributions, whether in-cash or in-kind. Period.

Big fat farking deal.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[zCyl]

So, you're saying that the FEC is fundamentally an unconstitutional entity? I'd think that if that was the case, it would have come up in the Supreme Court sometime in the last thirty years.

It would have, except there are enough people annoyed by corporate money running the country that the populace and judicial system are willing to go to greater lengths to curtail the problem.

The optimal solution is probably something significantly different from what we have, with more emphasis on educating and informing voters, and giving voters more realistic choices (such as with Approval Voting), rather than on restricting funding. The restricting funding approach doesn't really seem to be working so well, it's simply redirecting the mode and style of funding. The Swift Boat ads were clearly a campaign contribution. Was F911? How about Fox News? We can legislate financial contributions into oblivion, and there will still be ways for money to influence opinion unless the opinion-holders get more selective in how they are influenced.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

Look, my point is that in the capacity in which the FEC is currently charged, this is reasonable. We can endlessly broaden the debate to whether they should exist at all, but that's fantasyland. The reality we're in now is that election campaigns are regulated--for good reasons, imho--and all they are doing is responding to how campaigns are run. It's not perfect, there are massive holes, but it's at least an attempt to level the playing field.

This is about disclosure. One major reason the FEC exists is so when someone gives a bazillion dollars to prop up some puppet candidate, you know who you're REALLY voting for. Remove the reporting requirements and *poof* everything becomes confidential and, for all reasonable purposes, untraceable. Frankly, if it was the case that the DNC bankrolled F911 or the GOP was directly underwriting Fox News, yeah, I'd want to know.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[Mr. Arbusto]

The FEC isn't an unconstitutional Entity. Most of the legislation dealing with the FEC is making sure people can be and are allowed on ballots and making sure voting rights are upheld (to the extent of their empowering statues)
Requiring full discolure of campain contributions to a political campain isn't a violation of free speech. Telling people and possible corporations, how much they can contributed and when they can talk about the elections is a violation of free speech.

There is no inherent privacy involved in free speech, even if you use your mouth or your pocket book.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[SouthernSoxFan]

C10 -- I'm on your track. This isn't about impinging on free speech, it's about making sure non-free -- i.e. FUNDED -- speech is not posing as someone's free thought. If I am professionally affiliated w/ a political organization, be it a lobbying group, polical party, or grass-roots PAC, I need to provide disclosure when I offer an opinion related that promotes my professional interests or organizational affiliations. Otherwise, let's consider the following scenario: A PAC wants to a particular candidate for public office. So, instead of forking over $40K for a 30-second spot on the local news, the PAC hires 10 college students for a month to fill the blogospere w/ biased viewpoints, all under the guise of free speech. 'Free' does not mean it costs $0; It means it was worth more than money.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[Moofie]

If the playing field is so level, why are there only two parties on it?

The FEC exists for one reason only: To preserve the dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties. They might pretend to be all different on certain issues, but on one issue I guarantee they will bend their every effort to maintain the status quo. They WILL continue their dominance, by any means necessary.

And that, my friends, is why politics in America sucks so bad.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

IF the FEC suddenly disappeared in a cloud of smoke it would change absolutely nothing about that aspect of the electoral process, ergo, your suggestion is specious at best.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[Moofie]

The FEC is a symptom, not a cause.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[C10H14N2]

It also is not unique. It is charged with precisely the same duties as similar agencies in other countries that have many sitting parties.

The cause is the constitution. This country was designed from day one to have, more or less, a two party system.

I'm not remotely in favor of the so-called "two party system." However, in analyizing the problem, it helps to be precise (preferably correct) in identifying causes and effects. In this case, the FEC is neither cause nor effect. If we magically transformed into, say, South Africa, where they have a dozen or so relevant parties, the FEC would still have a role and would have to change little to accommodate the difference.

From your argument, you could blame every single agency of the United States as both cause and effect of the two party system--and in a prosaic sort of way, you'd be right. If your goal is to devise a solution to bring about multi-party politics in the US, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Re:The Sky! The Sky is falling!

[Moofie]

Would you please point out to me where the Constitution says that the Republican and Democratic parties are chartered to run elections?

Rule suggested. Rule shot down.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the March 10 document, political Web sites would be regulated by default unless they were password-protected and read by fewer than 500 people in a 30-day period. Many of those Web sites would have been required to post government-mandated notices or risk violating campaign finance laws.

The explanation for the dramatic changes during the last two weeks, according to one FEC official familiar with the events, is the unusual public outcry that followed a public alarm that Commissioner Bradley Smith sounded about a pending government crackdown on bloggers. After Smith's warning, an army of bloggers mobilized to oppose intrusive regulations and prominent members of Congress warned the commission not to be overly aggressive.

The regulatory approach was necessary because of "the increased use of the Internet by federal candidates, political committees, and others to communicate with the general public to influence federal elections," according to the March 10 draft.

"If the March 10 draft had gone into effect, it would have been bloggers with pitchforks and torches storming the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street," said Mike Krempasky, a contributor to conservative Web site RedState.org and co-creator of an online petition on behalf of bloggers.

Krempasky said that Democratic activists and even fellow commissioners unfairly criticized Smith as overreacting to the threat of regulation. The March 10 draft would have forced bloggers "to comply with the entirety of the regulations that apply to paid political advertising on television, radio and broadcast. It gives no substantive exception and even goes so far as to regulate in some circumstances a free blog on a free blog host."

Many Web sites that endorse or attack political candidates would have been required, for instance, to sport a permanent disclaimer.

The March 10 rule did exempt "any Web site, blog, or third-party content appearing on another person's Web site, so long as the aggregate disbursements for the Web site, blog, or other Web site content do not exceed $250 per calendar year." A long list of expenses would have counted toward the $250 trigger, including hosting fees, Web design software, domain name registration, fees paid to PayPal, and any "other payments" related to the site.

Re:Congress shall make no law ...

[Anna Merikin]

Congress made a law saying the FEC can write binding regulations. If the regulations are defective or unconstitutional, Congress or the courts can change them. Meanwhile, though, they're in effect.

Federal employees tend to want more and more power. So do the commissions they make up. Thus Congress mandated public rulesmaking procedures so people like /.ers and others who care can make their opposition heard. The FEC is just using this first draft as a trial balloon which, obviously crashed hard.

This is a strange process, and the first draft reminds me of the way we Europeans treated the Indian lands we came upon: Since white people have or might travel here, we need regulations to keep them safe....

Reread Brave New World. The values and civilization the natural people at the end achieved is called the Perennial Philosophy, and is very similar to Open Source or FSF.

Freedom is not granted by a well-crafted constitution; it must be seized!

AnnaMerikin

Unconstitutional anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Unconstitutional anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Because. Slashdot readers tend to be between the ages of 14 - 30, which is the "politically ignorant and inexperienced, but outraged about something all the time anyway" age.

90% of Slashdot readers first became interested in the US Constitution in 2001, when they realized they could drop the word "Constitution" into a sentence with the word "Bush" and appear topical. This doesn't mean they actually understand how it works.

On Blog junk and politics

[Targon]

The problem is that since the early 1970s, there has been less and less confidence and support of the US government from the people who live in the USA. As a result of this, the government has a valid concern that groups of people here in the USA may decide to do more than just talk about how they dislike how the government has developed.

So, now the government is trying to keep anti-government types from talking, but doesn't care about the rights of others.

Re:On Blog junk and politics

[Targon]

I never said that I want to see a violent revolution since I am against violence. But I see a gradual degradation of trust here in this country that EVENTUALLY will lead to a revolution of some kind. If it happens in ten years, or one hundred, or longer or shorter isn't the point, but it is going to happen if the US government doesn't remember that there IS a point where the people they theoretically govern and represent will not accept their abuses.

Watch 'em like a hawk.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Freedom of speech ?!?

[MrTheBunny]

A death thread about any individual on a blog could probably result in criminal pursuit. It would be like going on radio and saying "I'm going to kill !".

There are criminal charges applicable here, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

And treathening to kill a elected political leader is simply anti-democratic and dangerous. And I'm saying that as the last guy who would have voted for the actual president...

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[DoktorTomoe]

And treathening to kill a elected political leader is simply anti-democratic and dangerous.

Althought it may be controversial, I am sure there is a natural given right to kill a tyrant. People who tried to kill Hitler (remember: he was lawfully elected, as opposed to certain US presidents we have witnessed) are celebrated as heroes in contemporary Germany.

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[Math, The Ancient]

what is wrong with you? are you that ignorant of the actual laws that determine the election of the US presidency? if you don't like the electoral vote process (which i doubt you know), then change it.

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[GigsVT]

Actually, there are no criminal charges involved.

You can't be charged with "attempted" anything unless you make a substancial action toward the end of committing the crime.

I can say all I want "I'm going to kill that fucking idiot MrTheBunny from slashdot!"

As long as I don't... buy a gun... search out your address, drive by your house with a gun in my car, etc, I have committed no crime. If I said that and then was picked up in your city (assuming I don't visit your city normally) with a weapon on me, I could be charged with attempted murder.

The key is that talk about committing a crime is never enough. There must be actions that indicate I am working toward the end of actually committing the crime for there to be a criminal act. Those actions demonstrate real intent.

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[gnuman99]

But MrTheBunny can now sue your ass off for mental anguish.

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[MightyMartian]

Yes, Hitler was lawfully elected, after he bullied and murdered enough of his opponents to assure victory. The 2000 US Presidential election may have been an example of a grossly mismanaged election, but to think that somehow Hitler's ability to threaten the Communist opposition in Germany and thus win a victory is somehow superior baffles me. What the hell do they teach in history class nowadays?

Re:Freedom of speech ?!?

[DoktorTomoe]

Matter of fact, after having chewed up this period for three times during my school years (they are pretty persistant about this in Germany nowadays, maybe the US should be to...), historic evidence is that the urban "Strassenkampf" between the Communists and the SA had no significant effect on the election of 1932. In this election, the NSDAP got 230 and the Communists 86 out of 680 seats in the Reichstag, who elects the Reichskanzler. Althought the second election of 1932 resulted in a slight decrease of NSDAP seats, this actually was a perfectly legal election. And no, prior to January of 1933, the National Socialists did not hold any right to imprison or kill anyone.

Freedom of Bill

[Lord Prox]

Did anyone catch the name of the Judge that started this BS...

From TFA...
The FEC is in the unusual position of being required to extend the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to online politicking because of a federal judge's order last fall. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled--click here for the PDF file--that the FEC improperly exempted the Internet. She also ordered the agency to rewrite its rules.

Isn't that the same ho that let Microsoft off the hook a few years ago... She is really starting to bug me...

Re:Freedom of Bill

[mbrod]

Dang right she is.

Nice catch.

She is Rehnquist's flunky, no wonder.

You Wanted "Campaign Reform"

[John Hasler]

...You're getting it.

Re:You Wanted "Campaign Reform"

[GigsVT]

Get off it... I'm against most campaign finance reforms too, but what you are saying is the same sort of tripe that people argue when "privatization" efforts fail.

Just as in many cases of failed privatation, the implementation was so screwed up that it had no chance of succeeding anyway. Don't blame the idea for the completely bungled implementation.

We were all warned

[sanermind]

When mccain-feingold was first proposed, I found the very notion of it a disgusting violation of the first amendment. My friends disagreed, but the writing was on the wall.

Don't say that you weren't warned

Re:We were all warned

[jfengel]

Too late, I'm afraid. McCain-Feingold is only the latest in a series of attempts to change the way political money is raised in this country. That's where the matching funds system came from in the first place.

With more eyes thrown at the problem, it takes less and less time to spot the loopholes in any new system. This one didn't even get through an entire election cycle.

Arguably the right thing to do is to scrap every limit on campaigning and go right back to where we were, which still has all the original problems (too much money coming from limited sources to which politicians were then beholden) but at least has the virtue of being simpler to understand and less obviously limiting of the right to free political speech.

Re:We were all warned

[Mac Degger]

I think you'd do well to read the actual legislation being proposed (or at least a better edited version): the bill is supposed to take care of paid-for blogging (ie the recent case of a blogger getting money from the gov'ment to spread propaganda for their new healthcare [or was it education?] plan) and the like. It's not meant to 'regulate the internet', as the /.-headline makes you want to believe.

Freedom of Speech

[herwin]

Political speech is the most sensitive, and the SCOTUS usually gives it the most protection. I suspect any attempt of this kind would rapidly result in their stepping in. I also expect many people would be willing to draw the line here.

These are some comments of mine on the CDA from many years ago:

"Recently my pastor quoted Nelson Mandela's inauguration address in the context of how we should challenge authority and give forgiveness in taking freedom. I was listening and weeping and thinking.

"Nelson Mandela can say that; Ken Saro-Wiwa might have said that; even I have the right to say that; but I question whether he should have said that. He has never experienced the arbitrary power of immoral authority, and does not know what it is like to face the power of the state alone with no certainty of outcome. What it is like to have friends fall away and perhaps be jailed. To come out the other side wondering why you are there and others not. I know I can't ask others to go through that. I spoke this morning with one of the plaintiffs who has joined with the ACLU in challenging this legislation, and the only thing I could say was 'Thank you.'

"One of my other postings discusses the academic 'vow' to speak the truth, not listening to pleas of convenience. Politics is not about truth; it is about power. The first rule of politics is 'punish your enemies' and that is what the CDA is about. Certainly many politicians are squeamish about the innocent blood that may be shed; but many more don't mind, and some even relish it. The First Amendment is the least of their concerns. For academics, it is the greatest of our concerns, because it protects us when we speak the truth. I cannot tell you this is the time, but I will suggest that if your fate is to go down challenging immoral authority, this is as good a place as any."

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

and the SCOTUS usually gives it the most protection.

Can anyone see "SCOTUS" and not think of scrotum?

Re:Freedom of Speech

[kliment]

Yes, I can.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Kohath]

The Supreme Court already ruled on McCain-Feingold. They said it was OK.

The Supreme Court is worse than useless these days.

The first amendment would override

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1st Amendment is very clear.

And as it was designed primarily around political speech, I can't imagine this holding up in any court for longer than, say...30 seconds.

Re:The first amendment would override

[the_2nd_coming]

actualy... probably 1 minute. it would take time for the judge to get down from his /her bench to bitch slap the DOJ representative.

Re:The first amendment would override

[brianber]

I believe the court already ruled the McCain-Feingold act constitutional in a suit.

You sir, are correct. The SCOTUS did indeed rule that the Incumbant Protection Act's restrictions on paid political advertising are indeed NOT in violation of "Congress shall make no law..."It had to be the only time in history that the ACLU, NRA, and Unions were on the same side. As a result of that ruling, I would be very surprised if bloggers can keep their right to free speech.

When honest people have guns...

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs, and if they decide to do so anyway, they find a much quicker demise.

Wrong.

When honest people have guns, the criminals will just be more eager to shoot you so that you don't get them first. See my post below about the time I got robbed at a knife-point.

Re:When honest people have guns...

[TFGeditor]

"When honest people have guns, the criminals will just be more eager to shoot you so that you don't get them first. See my post below about the time I got robbed at a knife-point."

And this is based on what?

Re:When honest people have guns...

[Math, The Ancient]

Common sense is that I want to protect my family from being raped or killed. Without the right to bear arms, my only option is to suffer the consequences.

Re:When honest people have guns...

[TFGeditor]

In other words, if you cannot back up an assertion resort to meaningless rhetoric.

Re:When honest people have guns...

[heybo]

No your wrong. Check out history. during the days of the wild lawless West there were LESS murders and robbries per capitia than there are today. Why? Where the average robber went to rob he was worried about getting shot. In those days a person broke into your home you shot him and the police just came and carried him off a buried him. End of story. This kept the crimmal in fear. Not the Citizen. Here in Georgia a town (Kennasaw) passed a law that ever home owner was to posess a firearm in their home. Buglaries dropped 60%! Why? The crack heads got scared to rob homes in that town.

I never saw you post about being robbed, but like another post to yours I must say what a wimp! Isn't your life and the life of your family worth fighting for? I was robbed at knife point once too and my licenses to carry firearm that I had on SAVED my life. The mement I pulled the gun they dropped their knives and ran for their life. What is wrong with this country? Attiudes like yours. Your life either means nothing to you and you expect the world to guard you and you property. The only person you can count on to protect you at all time is yourself. I am a peaceful man by nature but do not attempt to rob me. The moment you put me in fear of my life I WILL legally shoot you and fell no remorse. I would rather die like a man fighting for my life than crying "Please not hurt me" at the feet of some crack head.

I value my life and the lives of my family anf friends.

Oh yes you may ask how did I get so cruel? I learned to kill protecting the freedoms that like in this article that we are having taken from us.

Re:When honest people have guns...

[Pantero Blanco]

I hope you're glad to be a child, taken care of by his loving parents, the State.

So..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So how long untill Freeman turns up? He's the one who frees the human race from a police state isn't he? I think it's time we start making secret bases in sewers and finding a way to control Ant lions because we're officially fucked if stuff like this is seen as something which can get passed!

Re:So..

[No Such Agency]

I always thought the situation in Half-Life 2 reminded me more of Iraq:

Combine = US Armed Forces
Citadel = Green Zone
Dr. Breen = Bremmer/Chalabi
Gordon Freeman = ???

Europe? Even worse...

[annullator]

The EU has no respect for free speech whatsoever. These days, you can even be thrown into jail for heresy against God, even if heresy is not a crime in the EU state you live in:

Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy

its really not so complicated....

[3seas]

as soon as you draw a line between what can and can not be said on the internet, you will have people playing manipulation games and that where things get messy.

But if the first admendment is adheard to, then everyone can pull the same shit and that makes it more fair (though dishonesty is not a supporter of fairness) than otherwise.

Perhaps what laws need to change are those regarding dishonesty, libel, slander, etc,.

For example, I'm sure the FOSS community would benefit if there were such laws and awards against those commiting lies against it.

Proprietary vs. OSS is a much bigger battle ground .

Monster Raving Loony Party

[Anonymous Coward]

you might find a guy who might just do his job because he didn't win threw a popularity contest

Yes! Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party!

Blogs are just entertainment, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar ticles/000/000/005/350fnrnt.asp

Re:For all the people...

[/dev/trash]

DailyKos is owned by the big money anyway.

International /.

[Moderation abuser]

Look, I know that most Americans are incredibly parochial. That's fine, you have a big country after all. It is however only around 5% of the world's population, the other 95% are outwith your borders.

The Internet is an international network making web sites international by their very nature, so when you say "Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech" what you really mean is "American Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech".

Re:International /.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, you have a big country after all. It is however only around 5% of the world's population...

And over 25% of the world's total economic output, and responsible for creating almost all the technologies that make blogs possible, from the idea of the blog down to the network that distributes it... In any case the word "Federal" should obviously indicate this is only applicable to American sites; we're not France, after all.

Re:International /.

[mrscorpio]

Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites.

Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 10/3/04

so?

[No Such Agency]

You can't legally threaten to kill anyone. The President just has more aggressive enforcement on his side than your neighbour (who won't return your god damn weed wacker) does.

So, Do Some Digging - You Might Find Dirt

[Cycloid Torus]

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).

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. pdf).

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?

Regulation is not the solution for a good reason

[ShatteredDream]

Everytime that the Congress drafts a law that will give an agency any meaningful rule-making power it is delegating its authority to that agency. No one elected the FEC, they were appointed by a group of politicians from two large parties whose ideological differences, in practice, are weak at best. This alone is the big problem. Can anyone, really say that Bush has change the course of the federal government enough to be a meaningful departure from Clinton? America is effectively living under a 1 party system where the two wings of the same ideology work together through compromise. The Republicans are effectively our Menshaviks and the Democrats our Bolsheviks because the course of the Republican Party has been to advance more slowly the same agenda that the Democrats will take on rapidly. The Republicans are only better at it because they know how to "temporarily" roll back government while setting the stage for permanent involvement from Iraq to gun control to abortion to medicare.

I think that you don't give people enough credit here. It takes a lot of effort to start a blog that gets any meaningful number of visitors. The crowd of bigger blogs are in essence the gatekeepers of blogging in the sense that it can be quite hard to get a lot of regular readers (thousands to tens of thousands) without being on their good side. Well, some GOP or Democratic Party hack isn't going to waltz in before an election and get there overnight because the last thing the bigger blogs want is to be caught with their pants down like Rather, especially after some of them made such a big stink about how they took Rather down. What an irony that would be, eh?

Here is something that might work. Get rid of all of the individual campaign finance regulations, and then require that politicians do two things. First, require by law that all campaign funds be accounted for. Second, require the politicians to donate all of the money that is left over to charity. The problem is that a politician can become fabulously wealthy because the law lets them keep their extra campaign dollars. In Senate races, that can literally be tens of millions of dollars. Make it illegal for incorporated entities to give money, but allow them to run ads otherwise eventually your ability to make a Flash ad lampooning Bush, Kerry, whoever will become a "loophole." That was my prediction, anyway.

Erosion over time....

[JoeMerchant]

If you look at relative freedoms of cultures compared to the age of the culture, you'll find that the largest, oldest, in-tact cultures, such as China, have the most restrictions on free speech, free thought, etc.

Revolution / invasion can reset the clock somewhat, such as in India.

America is getting old - erosion of freedom will continue until the next big uprising (e.g. French Revolution).

You don't get freedom in little pieces.

Re:Erosion over time....

[Anna Merikin]

> the largest, oldest, in-tact cultures, such as China

It is very, very doubtful that any thoughtful Sinologist would agree with you; Mao burnt all the bridges to the past in 1948-9 when he defeated the kuomingtang and sent them off to Taiwan.

The I Ching was replaced by Mao's Little Red Book, Confucianism with Collectivism and T'ai Chi with ping-pong. Now, even the nature and detail of the written language is being revolutionized.

How can you support your view in this light?

Re:Erosion over time....

[iggymanz]

chinese culture stagnated a thousand years ago, and lately merely has been copying some of the worst ideas of western civilization.

Re:Erosion over time....

[Esion Modnar]

America is getting old - erosion of freedom will continue until the next big uprising (e.g. French Revolution).

Perhaps there is a socio-political corollary to the Malthusian Catastrophe? That those in power, will inevitably seek more power, until they get the ultimate beat-down. The tragedy is that none of these regimes ever realize that what has happened to other powers, can happen to them too.

At the heart of it, is the grubby greedy primate instinct to grab as many peanuts out of the jar as is possible, whether this leads to ruin or not.

Re:Erosion over time....

[808140]

With all due respect, you're an idiot.

While the OP's comment about China's culture being intact is certainly wrong, your explanation is just misinformation. Hopefully it's not deliberate.

First off, the KMT were hardly sent off to to Taiwan, they were driven there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is what you meant and were simply not being precise. But as for culture going with them, I think the only way you can make an argument for that is if you are refering to the vast numbers of cultural treasures and relics looted by the KMT army as the retreated. Most of China's existing cultural treasure exists on Taiwan, and it's not because the KMT goverment protected what it had while the Mainland government didn't. Consider how much of what was in the Forbidden City is now in museums on Taiwan.

The I Ching is still around and was hardly "replaced" by Mao's little red book -- during Mao's cult of personality years, the little red book was studied by everyone, whereas the I Ching is mostly completely meaningless drivel well beyond the reaches of all but the most educated masses. It's classically been used by fortune tellers as a way to read omens and that usage remains. Any deeper interpretation is just new age crap. If you read Chinese (and my impression is that you probably don't) then you'd realize that expecting the common people to be able to decifer the I Ching a bit like you reading Homer in ancient greek, only harder.

Confucianism remains the driving force in how Chinese culture determines roles and the flow of respect on both sides of the strait. Collectivism was, I think, never popular, except in those years right after the revolution when the locals actually believed that cooperative iron smelts could transform China's rural economy into an industrialized one overnight.

And if you think T'ai Chi has been replaced by ping pong, then you're just nuts. Tell that to all the old men and women I see doing T'ai Chi here every morning, or the huge numbers of westerners so serious about its various styles that they move here for the sole purpose of learning it.

Amusingly, the event which destroyed much of mainland China's cultural heritage, the aptly named "Cultural Revolution", which began in 1966 and ended either in 1969 or as late as 1976, depending on whom you ask, went unmentioned in your post. But I guess facts aren't all that important when you're trying to associate loss of cultural heritage to a communist revolution, instead of to the acts of a megalomaniac leveraging a carefully crafted cult of personality to achieve ends that are widely derided by everyone on both sides of the strait.

Re:Erosion over time....

[Anna Merikin]

No offense taken. I tried to email this reply to you, but your email does not link to your name. But I feel a reply is necessary.

We have different opinions. The facts, however dramatically I put them, are the facts.

The Little Red Book I referred to is, of course, a metaphor for Mao's enforced view of the world. And he enforced the destruction of the former culture relentlessly. As you suggest, I was not in fact mode, I was in metaphor mode. Which is how one reads Chinese, by the way. I have, indeed, learned to write and read Chinese, although not enough characters to find it useful for general reading. Sometime if you like we can discuss in another forum what I've learned.

If you read my post as rhetoric, I think you will find we agree. There are several ongoing cultures, and, as you say, the I Ching was mainly a useful intellectual tool only for the cognocenti, but that is true for the high culture everywhere, throughout time. The I Ching is also a teaching tool for T'ai Chi (or WAS, before Mao) along with certain other books that Mao banned (The Hui Ming Ching, for example). T'ai Chi DOES have a deeper meaning, and its history, teachers, literature and art went to Taipei.

If you didn't see the humor in Ping-pong replacing T'ai Chi, then, perhaps humor is wasted on you -- no offense intended. Some people are humorless. I am sorry to have misled you. I stand by the insight in this metaphor, too.

Yes, the Cultural Revolution was much more important, long-term, than Collectivism, but Collectivism was revolutionary AT THE TIME and replaced feudalism, largely. Collectivism was an early tool Mao used to destroy the path back to the former culture.

(Besides, it sounded better in apposition to Confucianism! Puns are an important part of the Chinese language, and "Cultural Revolution" doesn't even remotely sound like either "Collectivism" nor "Confucianism.")

I can cerainly agree with what you posted. Can you find room to include my truth in your world view? It might be rewarding.

In (Former )Soviet union , Journalism ..

[FidelCatsro]

Just a small look at how political comment in journalism is handeld in the ukraine , It does not sound as bad over there yet , but the fact they consider control of any form over matters such as this is worrying .
http://www.ukrweekly.com.nyud.net:8090/Archive/200 2/410220.shtml ''

On September 23, on the eve of a major anti-presidential rally in Kyiv, opposition leaders occupied the UT-1 television headquarters in a futile attempt to present their position to Ukrainian viewers. Official media outlets subsequently portrayed this desperate effort by the opposition to gain an opportunity to speak freely as "political extremism" and a "criminal action by political outsiders."<BR><BR>

On October 1 journalists of the independent news agency UNIAN accused its new executive director, Vasyl Yurychko, of censoring their work and refusing to run any reports that could be construed as unfavorably portraying President Leonid Kuchma. The conflict was settled when Mr. Yurychko and the disobedient journalists signed a declaration in which the supervisor promised not to interfere with their work.<BR><BR>

On October 3 the journalists' growing resistance to the official media policy resulted in a "Manifesto of Ukrainian Journalists Against Political Censorship" [see text on page 3]. The manifesto, which is open for signing by any journalist in Ukraine, was prepared by some 60 representatives of various media outlets.<BR><BR>

The signatories of the manifesto say they "welcome the tendency whereby, under circumstances of the growing political censorship in Ukraine, journalists are switching from individual protests to collective actions of solidarity." The manifesto declares the readiness of Ukrainian journalists to organize a countrywide strike and to stand for the rights of colleagues who were fired from their jobs for political reasons.<BR><BR>

The significance of this document can hardly be overestimated. For the first time in Ukraine's modern history the vicious circle of narrow corporate interests of journalists belonging to different media groups has been broken.

Re:you can't shoot your way out of your problems

[Math, The Ancient]

"I don't want to wait for the police to come in and save me --- that is taking the law into your own hands."

Yes, much better to be dead. Taking the law into your own hands is not always wrong.

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[cesspool]

... have a cesspool-like government in Washington...

oh yeah, score one for moi

Everyone has freedom OF speech.

[stinkpad]

It's freedom AFTER speech that matters.

Re:Everyone has freedom OF speech.

[unitron]

Everyone has freedom OF speech. (Score:2, Insightful)
by stinkpad (810024) Alter Relationship on Sunday March 27, @11:01AM (#12060081)
It's freedom AFTER speech that matters.

Too bad there's no +10, "you ain't just whistlin' it" mod available.

Mod parent up

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

Fully agreed. Especially:

Your country just historically doesn't really have rights. European countries have no founding principles because they jsut where always there.

Britain has the bill of rights, if I recall correctly. Germany got a shiny new constitution after the second world war. The reason for "all" the anti-hate-speech-laws is historical. Some countries in Europe found out the hard way that completely free speech -- like spreading FUD against democracy and tolerance -- can be dangerous for a society. The technical term for the current system in Germany is "armed democracy". I like that. It doesn't mean you'll be prosecuted for talking against the government. It means you'll get sacked if you lie against your fellow neighbour or against society as a whole. Wether you actually did so will be decided upon by a judge, not a governmental body.

Re:Mod parent up

[Jesus_666]

Germany got a shiny new constitution after the second world war.

Germany doesn't have a constitution. When the FRG (West Germany) was founded in 1948 everyone was thinking that it'd be a matter of months or maybe a few years until the GDR (East Germany) and the FRG would unite, so we only got a temporary thing that acted like a constitutuion, but wasn't one. It's called the Basic Law.
Even after Germany reunited we still have the Basic Law. There have been discussions about a constitution, but we still don't have one. That doesn't make Germany any worse, the main difference between the Basic Law and a constiution is the name. But still...


Some countries in Europe found out the hard way that completely free speech -- like spreading FUD against democracy and tolerance -- can be dangerous for a society.
We found out about that the hard way, indeed.

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?

Use DownsizeDC.org to notify your representatives

[Mike]

Sign a petition and send a letter to your representatives easily using DownsizeDC.org.

Freedom NOW

[Doc Ruby]

What are you waiting for? Americans have never before been so well armed - we're armed to the teeth. And we've never before had such a huge ($2.5 TRILLION per year) government, hellbent on opposing our rights. I'm sure you've got your own long list of tyrannical abuses (probably somewhate different from mine, with overlap). Where's the increased liberty and justice? Where are the armed citizens taking to the streets? And no, I'm not talking about the thousands of citizens killing each other every year over theft and anger. C'mon - if not now, when?

Let's Go

[Doc Ruby]

Yes - this MGM case is the kind of tyranny that Washington and the rest of his posse kicked King George out of America for. Meet me in DC on Thursday with your gun - we're gonna defend us some freedom.

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

What a tired load of shit.

My family comes from a country where they gave up all their guns and ended up under a military junta. People were unable to defend against imprisonment, torture, and being "disappeared." When I talk about this, it's not really in the hypothetical - my father and mother were tortured, I know what being unable to defend against tyranny really means. I can see it in their scars and emotional wounds.

Let me know your opinions when you wake up from your dream, you lame-ass whiner.

Re:Let's Go

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah - name the country - I bet the junta was backed by the US. And what about the people the US is currently imprisoning, torturing, disappearing? When Arabs take to the streets with guns, which side are you cheering for?

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

The U.S. is a good idea for a country, but it's not actually a good country. It's a bully - of the elite, for the elite. The rest is marketing-speak.

When I see Arabs defend their own land I do not cheer for the invading occupiers. I want our children back home because they do not belong over there and never did. Everyone has the right and duty to defend their home and homeland.

If and when an Arab comes over here, to the U.S. to cause trouble as a terrorist, I would shoot him like a dog in the street.

I won't start a fight, but I do end them.

Re:Let's Go

[Doc Ruby]

I'm talking about the Arabs *here in America*. But of course, their guns are keeping them from being sent to Guantanamo, and rendered to other countries for torture, right?

You're an angry person, looking for excuses to shoot people "like a dog". My own family was nearly wiped out in Europe during the last century, by fascists *and* Communists. But I don't believe that guns protect our freedom from the government, with its huge army. By the time the guns are even useful, it's too late - the game is over, and the country has collapsed. Only an authoritarian regime would come next, which would be a disaster for the entire world, possibly terminal.

You claim not to start a fight, but you came out in this thread insulting me, and now you're not even focused on the topics on which we disagree, not to mention failing to back up your strong assertions about guns making the difference between military junta and freedom. How do you expect to end this one, when you haven't offered a single post that I could respect, let alone let change my mind? Just another conflict that a gun can't solve.

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

Uh...you can fight with practically anything, but guns do help. We aren't winning in Iraq. 'Nuff said.

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

This is better than what I said before:

"Those who would give up freedom and liberty for the sake a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor liberty" - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Let's Go

[Doc Ruby]

How about this: "up against the wall, motherfucker". How often do you hear that in defense of freedom, vs agressive tyranny? You've already said the US isn't really a good country, a bully. What are you waiting for, with your armed defense of liberty? You talk tough, but you're a coward - you've got the means, motive and opportunity to fight for freedom, but instead you're hugging your gun at home, and talking macho on Slashdot.

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

In a general uprising whose principles with which I agreed, I would not just be sitting at home. Right now I would just be a psycho with a gun - even though I do not agree with many current U.S. policies. I still generally agree with majority rule and minority rights. And while I have very little faith that working within the system will yield any good results, that's what we have for now. The various offenses committed by the state are not yet that pointedly eggregious to my fellow americans. That day may yet come, and I will be ready. But no, I am not yet ready to sacrifice my one life in martyrdom to a currently unsupported cause.

The american revolution wasn't some one guy with gun, it was a general rebellion.

This is stupid. Your questions aren't interesting. Your anecdotes are just that, one example that doesn't cover all cases. Even worse, the example above is just off-point. I mean, how often are bad motives disguised with good motives? All the time - look at the war in Iraq!

Freemen bear arms. Period.

You have all of history to clue you into this one simple fact. I mean, what was the Civil War but a rebellion achieved through force of arms? Without the arms, you have nothing. And unless you are going to start frothing at the mouth about bunker A-bombs, any war in country would be fought with largely conventional weapons, even in this day and age.

As to the question of terrorism and whether I am just an angry person seeking to kill an Arab - well, two things:

1. I would certainly kill anyone threatening me, my family, my neighbors, or my community. This presupposes knowledge of the violent terrorists act contemplated and my own ability to defeat the plan spontaneosly instead of calling in better trained and armed authorities. But let's just say a man is running down the street killing my neighbors with a shotgun - yes, I am prepared to kill that man.

2. I have nothing against Arabs. In fact, I politically and theoretically support the uprising in Iraq. We americans are an invading and occupying force there, we don't belong, and we should get the hell out of there. Don't we expect people tro defend their homes and homeland? But, to turn it around, if an Arab were to turn out to be the guy running down the street killing my neighbors as an act of terrorism; then yes, I'd kill him like a dog.

Re:Let's Go

[Doc Ruby]

I think you're pretty monotonous, too. Unfortunately, there are so many people like you hanging your machismo on the gun you own, waiting for the crisis, instead of doing something without a gun now, that I find it useful to keep current with communications with you. So it's no wonder that you think that the Civil War was a good example of armed insurrection as the process of freedom: the bloodiest conflict in history, which not only failed to achieve its political ends (slavery, antirepublicanism, perpetuated feudal agrarianism), but which destroyed the context for political solutions for literally centuries - it's still not over.

Tell it to the various armed groups flattened by the Feds through the 1980s, or the Branch Davidians, or anyone else who'd chose political change over war. Or anyone among the hundreds of thousands of people killed recently with the guns all of you "freedom fighters" are stashing away until that day, always just around the corner, when you'll need them. You might have some luck with the "until I do something bad with it, I am free to own anything I want" argument, but arguing about the practicality of guns as ensuring freedom is just demonstrably backfiring.

Re:Let's Go

[mankey wanker]

I don't hang my sense of self on gun ownership; but I do consider it a right and a duty to keep and bear arm that are in good working order. I do work within the system to make things change now, but mine is seldom the majority view and my minority rights are respected less and less as time goes on. Of my two examples, you picked the one that didn't work out to pick on - but my point was merely that armed rebellion was possible and that is a fact you cannot refute.

While I am sympathetic to the gun ownership views of radical groups like the Branch Davidians those people brought down hell upon their heads by allegedly (not following the case that closely and never did) molesting children. Now sure, the Feds went into overkill mode and that's very wrong also, but there was an obvious excuse. If there had been a general uprising all over the country I doubt the Feds would have been able to handle it. They cannot control Iraq, they could not control the whole U.S.

A gun is always the last solution, but sometimes it has to be the final solution to a given problem. One handgun on one of those planes that ran into the World Trade Center could have saved many lives because a gun defeats a utility knife.

But you are too pacifistic for that kind of obvious solution - the kind of solution that to my mind was actually the civic duty of every non-terrorist on those planes (except that such a solution is denied us by the Feds). Now do I want the average nutcase to be poking holes in the fuselage of a plane at high altitudes? No. But one well placed bullet sometimes does the trick. And we already know that the people aboard 3 planes were all cowed into submission by utility knives. Of course that trick will never work again in the U.S. (well, hopefully) - everyone should now know that people that are willing to hijack a plane are willing to die and take you along with them to accomplish their terrorist goals. I'd say the next time it happens we will read stories of heroism and people being unfortunately injured; but we will not hear stories of planes being flown into buildings. Everyone aboard such a disaster plane should now know that they might as well fight to the last, they are most likely going to die anyway. I'd rather die trying to stay alive. In saving myself, I just might be thwarting a much bigger disaster.

Unenforcable

[Anonymous Coward]

Congresss, FEC, Supreme Court, et. al. are not interested in your freedom of speech. The only reason why they will not try to crack down on internet speech is that this is totally and wholly unenforcable.

Blogs would pop up by the hundreds of thousands if this happened, just to counter the government. What about international blogs? How exactly would the FEC try to regulate an anonymous American citizen posting on a blog hosted somewhere in Europe or Asia? The whole attempt would be an embarrasing failure and there would be massive political fallout.

People may not give a damn about not being able to air commercials before an election, but tinker with their right to give their 2 cents and there will be holy hell.

The Land Of The Free?

[Xarius]

So, doesn't isn't your fancy constitution meant to stop this kind of thing?

Good Morning, Devil's Advocate here...

[spiritraveller]

OK, just what is the point of having Free Speech and a Free Society when it is taken over by specialized interest groups that mold our points of view on everything from abortion to defense spending?

If we let the large specialized interest groups and the multinational corporations control the flow of information in our society, then we will think and speak whatever they want us to.

It's already happened.

Free Speech was great in the 1700s, before we had companies controlling all the speech that enters our homes. These days, I'd prefer to focus on Free Thought.

Feel free to flame. Turn off the television and the computer first though.

Re:Good Morning, Devil's Advocate here...

[Caseyscrib]

Free Speech was great in the 1700s, before we had companies controlling all the speech that enters our homes. These days, I'd prefer to focus on Free Thought.

Yeah, I remember back in the good old days...

Oh wait, I wasn't born yet.

Re:Good Morning, Devil's Advocate here...

[bluGill]

The special interest groups are YOU! The NRA is not made up of some tiny group of rich people in a smoke filled back room, they are made up of millions of Americans who got together to promote a cause. There are other such groups. Perhaps you have heard of the AFL (American federation of Labor) which is a group who banded together to promote the cause of workers.

Now you might disagree with both groups, that is your rights. However by restricting them you also restrict the groups you agree with.

None of these groups take over speech. You do not have to listen! They can send you mail, but that costs money and you can throw it away unread like most people do. They can buy a commercial, but that only gets to you if you have the radio/TV on at the time, and even then they are supporting the program you enjoy.

Back in the 1700s freedom of the press was important because a printing press was now cheap enough that you could buy one without getting a grant from the king. Today printers are still cheap, and you can also get a website without a grant from the government. Appearently you don't have a website you care about. Some of us do though. Even if nobody reads our website we have at least tried.

Re:you can't shoot your way out of your problems

[brianber]

The only time this country has seen ANY decline in gun crime was after the Brady Bill,

Looking at stats on the FBI's website for 1996-2000, Murders went down across the board, not just firearms. So I suppose that the Brady bill with its waiting periods was responsible for the drop in knife, blunt object, and strangulation killings?

Do you know how many people die in the cross fire in this country? More then the original targets of the crime. WHY? Cus of assholes like you.

Site your source.

Also from the FBI, in 2000, there were 137 cases of justifiable homicide by private citizens reported to the FBI. That's likely at least 137 people who owe their lives to the fact that someone had a gun, and knew how to use it. What's never mentioned is how many times merely brandishing a firearm is sufficient to subdue or scare off a would-be attacker. The sound a burglar fears most is the racking of shotgun behind his back. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

Re:You stupid git

[hazah]

Now now, children, settle down.

Re:You stupid git

[daniil]

Just doing my best to make your Slashdot experience a pleasant one :7

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[TheKidWho]

If you don't like the FCC so much, then why don't you do something and umm COMPLAIN ABOUT IT TO THEM! And then get more people to COMPLAIN! And then maybe the FCC will change their position. They are a public institution after all and their primary goal is to serve the people.

Take them to the supreme court if you have to.

Although atm I don't see anything that the FCC is doing to be so bad, other then that damned Broadcasting flag.

My kind of fascism

[MoebiusStreet]

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal.

If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative.

If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate.

If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.

-- Joseph Sobran

Re:Judicial System????

[TheKidWho]

Im just going to quote the post right above me by mac deggar

"I think you'd do well to read the actual legislation being proposed (or at least a better edited version): the bill is supposed to take care of paid-for blogging (ie the recent case of a blogger getting money from the gov'ment to spread propaganda for their new healthcare [or was it education?] plan) and the like. It's not meant to 'regulate the internet', as the /.-headline makes you want to believe."

It may be an elaborate troll on McCain-Feingold

[snol]

I first heard about this issue on ArsTechnica of all places. This article by Hannibal claims that Bradley Smith, a vocal opponent of campaign finance reform and the head of the FEC (go figure), is more or less trying to force the reversal of McCain-Feingold.

Evidently his original tactic as head of the FEC was to implement policies to make campaign finance measures as ineffective and rarely-enforced as possible. Now since being successfully sued by representatives Shays and Meehan and ordered to shape up, he's taking the opposite tack and trying to enforce a too-broad view of the laws in order to make them look more onerous than they actually are.

Re:It may be an elaborate troll on McCain-Feingold

[Stonehand]

If the laws logically lead to such regulations, they *are* actually that onerous.

And for years, "campaign finance reform" has been pushed with an explicit attitude that while political contributions ARE free speech (as SCOTUS ruled years ago), that the state has a compelling interest in ignoring the First Amendment. Once it was determined that contributions of /activity/ could be considered contributions (so that people can't contribute money-equivalent advertising without charging, for instance) everything became fair game.

Federal Crackdown on Speech?

[mi]

Talk about provocative titles...

Re:if the first amendment means anything

[quarkscat]

Whoa, Nelly!

When I first read this /. article, I had a
flashback to, shortly before the 2004 elections,
the FEC "floating trial balloons" in the press
regarding postponing the national elections.

Even the contemplation of such an action should
be grounds for impeachment & conviction -- even
during the US Civil War no such restraint upon
national elections was ever proposed.

I recollect the news feeds about the recent
meetings between Dubya and Putin, during which
Dubya chided Putin over non-democratic actions.
It has become clear that the only real difference
between Dubya and Putin is hippocracy & hubrous,
of which Dubya has an endless supply.

As a patriotic American, Dubya&Co make me want
to puke.

When will they get it?

[Eric Damron]

"Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet."

The first thing that I thought was "When will they get it? The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech. But then I started thinking; when has this administration been overly concerned with upholding our constitution.

The Internet can be a very powerful tool for political change but if the people in control of the government depend on the status quo, the last thing they may want is to empower the people to that end.

Re:When will they get it?

[Stonehand]

It's largely bipartisan, for three main reasons.

(1) Incumbents have substantial advantages over challengers not already in any public office due to their increased media access in addition to voter intertia and extremely clever redistricting. Reducing the ability of everyone to raise money means that these other advantages which don't require mass spending by campaigns are therefore greatly increased. Result: those in power have even safer seats.

(2) Contributions and unusually high political involvement are associated with the wealthy and corporate PACs (or merely corporations, for those unaware of the fine distinctions between PACs, 527s, etc). Anything that would seemingly target these people more than those looking at their wallets and deciding that they can't contribute, will appeal to the masses -- even if this increases the re-electability of incumbents and lowers the incentive to actually be responsive to one's constituents.

(3) Caring about the Constitution is frankly not a very winning move. Anybody who would support a strict interpretation of it would be extremely unpopular with just about every freakin' issue group out there except possibly the Libertarians, and that latter group seems to enjoy nominating people who drink colloidal silver, want to restore the gold standard, would rather have minimal government at all levels rather than pushing more authority to the states, trend towards isolationism, and abolish the FDA.

This is particularly a problem on emotionally charged issues. For a politician to say that abortion should neither be guaranteed nor prohibited at the Federal level and that it should be left up to the states via the tenth amendment would not be particularly popular with either the rabid pro-death or anti-choice movements, and much of the rest would probably be confused by the very concept of the tenth amendment (what? not everything needs to be done at the national level? But my views should apply -everywhere-!).

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[symbolic]

The regulators at the FCC are in the pockets of the large corporations. Nothing they do surprises me when I look at their modivation: greed and power-mongering.

This is the precise reason that most politicians make a career out of it, rather than serving their country and moving on.

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[Khyber]

Umm, this is about the Federal Election Commission, not the Federal Communication Commission. Just to keep you up to speed. ;)

Re:So you're not free unless...

[MightyMartian]

Any ideology that calls for the "dictatorship of the Proletariat" is hardly what I would call laudable. Communism was not a laudable movement, and never took root where it was supposed to. Socialism, on the other hand, is such a nebulous term that it can speak to all sorts of ideologies.

Fascism in the long term is good.

[elucido]

If America really is fascist, it's going to collapse. The entire new world order along with it. While I'd hate to see America collapse, at the same time the collapse of America will be the defining moment in human history. It will show the world that the path we are on only leads to collapse, it might turn the world socialist as a result. If fascism cannot work, then socialism and communism are the only options left. These two options in the long term will be better anyway, and while I'd hate to see society forced into these two styles, if the current "Free" market does not work, and people refuse to have a "Fair" market, then the market itself cannot govern.

Re:Fascism in the long term is good.

[Ivop]

And after that, we'll join the federation of planets. Oh, wait... Seriously though, any extreme form of democracy or lack thereof, doesn't work. You have to be somewhere in the middle.

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[TheKidWho]

I know, but the parent poster said FCC.

Quit Quoting the Constitution

[tom's a-cold]

The US government has always tried to subvert the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights, all the way back to the Sedition Act. Posting on /. saying "Waah, itz UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!" is all well and good, but the only thing that makes them stop is when we don't let the bastards get away with it. The idea that citing the Constitution will somehow magically make it all better is delusional. They will do as much as they can get away with. When they can't make us comply, and when we fight back, THEN they listen. The rest is just empty talk.

I pressed Virginia 18 months ago on issue

[michaelmalak]

From my blog entry Virginia blogs barred from mentioning local candidates:

In response to the following question:

Now that the Fairfax County Supervisor candidates are announced, if I provide an opinion on my blog that is negative or positive about what an incumbant Supervisor has done, would that require me to file a disclosure report pursuant to 24.2-910?

I received the following response:

If the total aggregate of the independent expenditure is in excess of $200 and the expenditure is made to influence the outcome of an election for public office and if any material is published to the public referring to a candidate by name, description, or other reference, advocating the election or defeat, setting forth his position on any public issue, voting record, or other official acts, or otherwise designed to influence individuals to cast their votes for or against a candidate.

You must file a Statement of Organization and disclose the independent expenditure on a contributions and expenditures disclosure report.

The "Paid for by" and "Authorized by or Not Authorized by" Statements would apply as well.

Rise' Miller
State Board of Elections
Campaign Finance Division

MOD PARENT UP! +5 Insightful at least

[BorgCopyeditor]

NT

Re:For all the people...

[BorgCopyeditor]

Demonstrably false ... but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

How can one just 'move' to NZ?

[FattyBoeBatty]

This may be off topic, but everyone in this thread is discussing 'moving' to NZ as if it's actually an option -- HOW on earth can one just move there? I understand how you can get there, and even stay for a period of time, but isn't it virtually impossible to get a job and stay?

I'd LOVE to move over there, but as with most other countries, they try hard to keep the few jobs they have for their citizens.

Any ideas?

-Fatty

Re:How can one just 'move' to NZ?

[firewrought]

I second that... how does one expatriate successfully?

Re:How can one just 'move' to NZ?

[CaperNZ]

As a New Zealander, I agree... don't find out how to move here, assume you can't and stay in the States...

Yes, there are alot of restrictions to moving here, but they are simalar to most countries. We go off a points system, and you get points for things like the industry you are in,education, your age, your financial situation etc...

Although with the changes in the exchange rate lately, you would have been far better off moving here a couple of years back.

"They try hard to keep the few jobs they have for their citizens". I'm actually surprised by this comment, our IT industry is doing quite well at the moment. From the feedback I got talking to people at a conference in the States a couple of months back, our IT outlook looks cheery in comparison.

Anyway, My $.02. If you actually wanted an answer to the question.

Re:How can one just 'move' to NZ?

[Moofie]

Well, I just moved to Oregon and got a job. It's kinda the same thing...

Re:How can one just 'move' to NZ?

[Funksaw]

New Zealand has a very liberal WHV program: meet some financial, medical, police reqs, and you can move in anytime, work a job for up to 12 months... oh, and while you're there you can apply for a Working Visa which allows you to work your same job up to another two years. They have wonderfully low unemployment and are looking for educated, bright people to come into the workforce. It's actually pretty damn easy.

MOD PARENT UP

[northcat]

A death threat can be illegal even if you never meant to act out on the threat and even if you can prove that you never meant to act out on it. You're intimidating someone and causing mental anguish. "Freedom" (free speech) doesn't mean you can piss on your neighbour's lawn.

Re:crime is just as oppressive as any tyrannical

[jadavis]

He was advocating responsible gun ownership, not crime. There is evidence that gun ownership reduces violent crime.

Re:Judicial System????

[wheelgun]

They didn't get rid of the unconstitutional parts of McCain-Feingold. I don't see why they'd overturn other unconstitutional speech laws.

Interesting Development

[00 Agent Kid]

Officially, this could relate back to Shenck v. U.S. (1919) when the Supreme Court ruled that one does not have free speech when such speech causes a "clear and present danger." Unoffically, this would seem as yet another method of government oppression. "Hmm.... I don't like what this person is posting. Let's see if I can 'regulate' it!" Although online blogs could be considered a form of static communication that anybody can read, I doubt that this law could be constitutional.

Redstate - Hah!

[Damek]

Wow, someone actually reads restate.org? That's a laugh!

Read my sig

[doc modulo]

Read my sig

Re:Europe? Even worse...

[annullator]

That is currently irrelevant to this discussion as most countries EXCEPT apparently Greece have no laws against "heresy".

Where did you get that? Heresy is also a crime in Germany, for instance. There are also several other kinds of opinions that can get you in prison if you say them aloud in Germany. And people get even indicted and convicted for heresy and other forms of illegal speech every now and then. And no, it is not only Germany and Greece that do not "respect" free speech.

So the conclusion is that EU respects free speech, but Greece does not.

The fact is that the concept of free speech simply does not exist as an "inalienable right" the way it does in the US.

What did you expect, you asked for it

[geekee]

People on /. continually bitch about how corporations run the US govt. So congress starts passing laws to limit political speech to make things more "fair", i.e. limiting hard and soft campaign comtributions. Ironically it hurt the democrats more than the republicans since the democrats had a lot of large contributors in hollywood and the law field. Anyway, now these new laws start looking into what's going on on the internet, and you're surprised and outraged? Give me a break, you asked for limitations on free speech in politics, and now you're getting it.

Awright, it's official:

[RM6f9]

I am hereby declaring the following: I am, by virtue of native born citizenship and age a member of the class eligible to be elected to the office of President of the United States of America. I am interested in accepting the position. To that end, I am requesting eligible parties to begin petitions for including my name on the next general preisdential election ballot in their respective states. I will have a website up listing my basic positions on issues within the next month.

courts forced the FEC to regulate the Internet

[ClipDude]

If the US court system was working properly they would know the game was up, and not waste their time.

Originally, the FEC extempted the Internet entirely from regulation, but a court said they weren't allowed to do so. Quoting CNet:

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.

I'm annoyed that this was not mentioned anywhere in the Slashdot writeup, and people aren't raising this point in the comments (as far as I have read so far). People are talking about how this is a power-grab by the FEC, without realizing that it was not the FEC's decision to regulate the Internet--the courts are requiring them to do so.

There is a solution that would stop the Internet from being regulated at all by the FEC. The judge's decision is based on the premise that campaign finance law applies to the Internet. So, Sen. Harry Reid has a solution: a bill that would add one single sentence to campaign finance law exempting "communications over the Internet."

Re:you can't shoot your way out of your problems

[brianber]

and no brandishing weapons does not scare off attackers. so stop spouting gun nut propaganda.

Site your source.

In the 12/13/04 edition of The News Journal Wilmington , Del: Store owner produced a gun, robber fled-no shots fired.

In the 11/04/04 edition of the Florence, Ala TImes Daily: Store clerk produces a gun and said: "Do you want this or the money?" Robber fled the scene-no shots fired.

In the 07/22/04 edition of the Houston Texas The Sentinel: Man approached an elderly man with what appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money, the elderly man pretended to reach for his wallet, instead he drew a gun. Suspect fled the scene-you guessed it, no shots fired.

Granted, not all criminals are going to run away like the bitches they are when confronted with an armed would be victim, but many (the smarter ones) will.

Re:For all the people...

[/dev/trash]

I'm sure Dr. Dean would be upset that you dismiss him so easily.

No Bones About it

[samantha]

It should be made crystal clear to our "public servants" that such shenanigans will be considered an act of war launched against we the people they purportedly serve and a gross violation of the constitution theyare sworn to uphold. This trial balloon should be blasted out of our cultural skies with extreme and unequivocable prejudice.

That war ended in 1865.

[MacDork]

States' rights lost out to strong central government about 140 years ago. Nobody alive today is at fault for that. What you should be complaining about is the large standing army. The founding fathers of this nation were against having a large standing army because of the threat it would pose to our democracy. Keeping a large standing army started with the cold war. Blame "The Greatest Generation" for that. Blame yourself and everyone since for allowing it to persist.

Re:That war ended in 1865.

[khallow]

Actually, no that battle was fought more recently starting with the admendment legalizing a national income tax in 1916. That funded a true strong central government. The same funding mechanism that allowed for welfare, etc also allows for the military etc. Also, note that the Second World War military buildup coincided with the same president (Franklin Roosevelt) who created Social Security, Welfare, and many other big government programs that are still with us today.

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)

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[quarkscat]

Not to be an OnT/OffT nazi or anything, but it is one of the other 3 letter alphabet soup government entities that is (yet again) screwing with the Bill of Rights -- the FEC (Fed. Election Comm), not the FCC (Fed. Communications Comm) this time. The FEC has apparently decided that since public opinion is now being formed on the internet, instead of through those multimedia conglomerates that control much of the printed press, TV news, and talk-show radio that are already "on-message" with the Dubya regime, they will try and control the blogsphere as well. This has nothing directly to do with the GOP's attempts to apply the same standards to cable TV and satellite radio that has largely crushed free speech "over-the-air". It's the same players, and the same agenda, just a bit different venue. In basketball terms, the neo-con Nazis in charge are engaging in a "full-court press" to crush or obscure the opposition (to things like Dubya's Social Security reform.) So besides having the Bush administration spending millions of government dollars on "public education of the issues", we have the very same TX Swift Boat "crew" after AARP, as well as trying to muzzle the internet blogs. The very same level of propaganda campaign aimed at getting the American people (and the UN on-board for the invasion of Iraq, or the multi-year massive tax breaks to the fat cats and corporate contributors, and the Pharacutical Industry Welfare Act of 2004, aka the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. When this regime is finally out of power (assuming that they will actually leave after 2008), expect to see some rather serious prosecutions (and convictions) of these politicians and co-conspirators, including the International Criminal Court at the Hague. (Unless they all escape to that mecca of Nazi warlords, Saudi Arabia (just like Idi Amin).)

Need to live longer........

[LinuxLuver]

One of the main problems I see with the world today is that we do not live long enough to fully appreciate the consequences of what we do. If we lived to be 500 or 1,000 years of age, we would do MANY things differently.....and we would have to live a long time with our mistakes....but we would have time to learn form them and make amends.

Re:WTF Does "limited distribution" mean on the web

[Alsee]

According to the original draft (I have no idea what the current draft says), the rule would be that you are only safe to make political speech if your block is password protected with a system that restricts it to at most 500 persons in any 30 day period.

-

FEC "protecting" us is like....

[billstewart]

.... burning the village to save us from the enemy. The FEC always talks about protecting individual free speech, while finding ways to make big corporate contributions feasible and making sure fat cats get what they want. McCain-Feingold worked really well in making sure that the last US Presidential election spent more *countable* money than ever before, leave aside all the under-the-table help from the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" and the other pro-Bush front groups.

The recent "Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act" is turning out to be a real headache for people who support parties other than the two leading ones who made the rules - it's not just documentation, it's a lot of organizational and financial restructuring. I'm not sure how much that was deliberate (though the Democrats were much more worried about the Greens than the Republicans were about the little right-winger parties or either side was about the Libertarians), and how much of it was mostly maneuvering around each other.

Re:my frist psot on /. - 'redundant' ..here i come

[unitron]

" welcome to the US - All your free speech belong to us..."

Seriously flawed grammatically. Should read "All your free speech are belong to us...

Re:This might help to understand the situation

[TheKidWho]

The Grandparent was complaining about the FCC not the FEC.

Also correct me if im wrong, but isn't the FEC regulated payed blogging that is used for campaigning. IE placing limits on presidential/congress/other candidates for the internet too, just like they have for real world campaigning. I don't see much which is wrong there. As long as they aren't trying to regulate regular blogging that everyone else does, including for free campaigning.

IE they aren't going to stop me if I write "I love nader" 1,000,000 times on my blog, but they will try to "regulate it"(whatever it is they do for regular campaigns) if Nader's campaigning department is paying me to write it 1,000,000 times.

Re:So you're not free unless...

[Jason Ford]

Which ideology calls for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"? Communism? I believe that you are referring to Russia after the October Revolution. This is not a general tenet of Communism.

It would be a tragedy to dismiss any ideology based on an inaccurate understanding of it.

I support X, this text counts as my contribution

[mcmanzi]

Its amazing that we actually live in a time where speech is not free. I support candidate X for office Y... This text counts as an in kind contribution to candidate X's campaign. One would conclude that if no one clicks on the fictional link above that my speech is unimportant and free... but if the fictional link gets slashdotted with 100,000 hits in an hour, does that mean I've maxed out my contribution to candidate X? Will I be fined by the state for breaking campaign finance law?

Simple "truth with omission"

[geminidomino]

"...the Status quo."
"...our Corprorate Masters."
"...the ruling party."
"...our asses."

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

[StupidKatz]

(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)

It's hard to have the former without any means of backing it up (or, more precisely, ensure it stays in place) - hence, the latter.
Additionally, those who are concerned about their rights generally are concerned about all of their rights.

Re:Congress shall make no law ...

[StupidKatz]

If the regulations are defective or unconstitutional, Congress or the courts can change them. Meanwhile, though, they're in effect.

No. An unconstitutional government law, mandate, directive, or any other term for a rule, is null and void from the moment of its creation. Any attempted enforcement of an unconstiutional provision (law, blah blah) is illegal.

The only reason you may be under the impression that the unconstiutional law would still be "in effect", meaning enforcable, etc., is usually because there are people with guns doing the illegal enforcing. In all but the most extreme cases, it is wiser to resist in the courtroom rather than the bunker.

Re:Congress shall make no law ...

[StupidKatz]

Freedom is not granted by a well-crafted constitution; it must be seized!

You are absolutely correct. The Constitution grants us no rights. It doesn't have to, because we already have them! (Remember, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".) The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do.

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

[DisKurzion]

That was a rhetorical statement, but your reply is certainly what I was trying to imply.