Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech
InklingBooks writes "Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet. It would have been a 'regulatory minefield for bloggers' and may yet return." CNet has a view of this earlier language as well. It's important to note that the regulation has changed much since the initial draft. The FEC began consideration of more developed regulation language on Thursday. From the article: "So, the original attempt to regulate started with the premise that everything was to be regulated except that with limited distribution or on password-protected sites."
To know they would even CONSIDER such a thing is disturbing.
threaten to kill the president on your blog and see how much "freedom" and "free speech" you have in America then ?
you keep using that word , but you do not know what it means
Speech on blogs shouldn't be regulated. However, the public has a right to know when that speech has been funded by political organizations. The law should require such contributions -- of any amount; blogs are so low overhead -- to be made public.The blogger doesn't need to reveal it, the info just needs to be available so other bloggers can find.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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.
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.
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.
do you ever get the feeling that we should be the ones runing the country?
... 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.
The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about this topic on Wednesday:
t ml?id=110006458
/.ers are just now hearing about it.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
I'm surprised that
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.
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.
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.
/.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.
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
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
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?
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.
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...
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...
...You're getting it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
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."
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.
Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy
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.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Being informed is your duty as a citizen so don't be a slacker (yah, I know someone will consider this Flamebait - more your problem than mine).
. pdf).
Proposed rule is attempting to define where it should set the line as to what to "regulate" - and "regulate" does not mean "stiffle".
The target from my reading of the proposed rule is "expenditures for communication that have been coordinated with a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party"(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2005/mtgdoc05-16
IMO that is a good thing to know about a blogger who voices strong opinions and is being PAID for them. Where it gets confusing is defining how to focus on who/what/how/where - and the FEC tried to define it based on economics (site and related costs of $250). I consider this ridiculously low, but the intent to allow individual bloggers below that amount a BLANKET EXEMPTION was IMO of good intent.
What remains is for folks to make considered comment - which they requested (respond to internet@fec.gov today!).
Do make it considered. Point out that a non-professional blogger can spend $100 @ month on his "hobby" (?hobbyhorse?). None of us wants the burden of having to determine if we need to respond as regulated, while we do want the obvious politico's and their hacks to be so required.
Now, is that really flamebait?
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
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.
It's freedom AFTER speech that matters.
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?
Sign a petition and send a letter to your representatives easily using DownsizeDC.org.
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.
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.
Im just going to quote the post right above me by mac deggar
/.-headline makes you want to believe."
"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
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.
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.
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
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.
INACTIVE ACCOUNT
Read my sig
- -- Truth addict for life.
http://www.nationmaster.com/
r i_ca p&id=OECD
Is a great stats page. A quick summary of several graphs (all per-capita, the only fair stat)
(UK + USA #/1000) (rankings based on OECD countries)
Burglaries
UK: 13.91 (rank 5)
USA: 7.23 (rank 11)
Murders
USA: 0.04 (rank 3)
UK: 0.01 (rank 15)
Murders with firearms
USA: 0.02 (rank 2)
UK: 0.00 (rank 16)
Total crime (including drugs+rape+assault) (all of which USA leads in vs UK)
UK: 86.04 (rank 4)
USA: 81.55 (rank 5)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_c
So it seems the USA leads in rape, murder, assault, drugs, and a few other categories. But somehow the USA is lower in "total crime", despite all this. How much you wanna bet a fair number of those "murders" are foiled robberies?
I would also like to point out that the differences in crime rate between US cities and US rural areas (where gun prevalance is much higher) is phenomenal. It's like comparing Mexico (high crime) with Finland (no crime).
People living in rural areas tend to own more guns, vote Republican (well, at least a 55% ratio do, compared w/ less than 20% in cities), and suffer fewer crimes.
The very fact that more people own guns means that it's less likely they'll need to use them (in the self-defence way).
(and since when was ANY police force effecient enough to deter crime....certainly not in the UK)
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)
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.
Only boring people are ever bored.
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 did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer