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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[reallocate]

Speech on blogs shouldn't be regulated. However, the public has a right to know when that speech has been funded by political organizations. The law should require such contributions -- of any amount; blogs are so low overhead -- to be made public.The blogger doesn't need to reveal it, the info just needs to be available so other bloggers can find.

Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public

[JeffTL]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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"

You Wanted "Campaign Reform"

[John Hasler]

...You're getting it.

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: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: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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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: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.

[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 ?

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.

WTF Does "limited distribution" mean on the web?

[lseltzer]

I never liked the speech regulation parts of McCain-Feingold, but what does this phrase mean in the context of a blog? How do they know how many people read my blog unless they demand my log files?

Re:B.S.

[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.

Use DownsizeDC.org to notify your representatives

[Mike]

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

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.

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: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.

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

Re:B.S.

[Keebler71]

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

The viewpoint seems typical of how foreigners view Americans. You list dozens of ways in which our country (I'm an American) is "broken" and then allude to a conspiracy of the American media to protect the right-wing politicians of this country from the negative side-effects of their evil policies. You (and many others like you) seem to conclude that Americans are just idiots whose time is nearing an end...

Let me let you in on a little secret: Americans are quite aware of everything you think they ignorant of. Everyone knows about Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi prisoner abuse. Everyone knows that thousands of civilians have died in the Iraq war and that popular opinion of US abroad is in the toilet. Everyone knows that our school system could use some improvement (more on that later) and that everyone knows that the Patriot Act in some ways compromised civil liberties for security. Everyone knows that Bush's attendance record in the ANG was spotty and that Oh, and everyone knows that Republicans want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and prefer archaic sex education.

In short, Americans are well aware of all the issues that you seem concerned with, yet about half of them (myself included) disagree with you on just about every point. Did you ever stop to think that just possibly, it could be you foreigners who aren't getting a complete and unbiased representation of the issues as the pertain to American politics? Just a thought. I get my news from a variety of sources ranging in ideology from DailyKos and NPR to yes, Fox News. I am 100% confident that I have heard every shred of information that you have heard about American (and then some) yet I have come up opposite views. The selectiveness of the media abroad would explain a lot of your opinions, but there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way as you so there must be other factors as well. Obviously the culture plays a huge part in this as it is culture and morality and weight the importance of different facts to when forming a viewpoint. For instance, everyone I know thinks the actions of a handful of prison guards at Abu Ghraib were abhorrent - but that they were not more representative of Americans as a whole than the act of the 19 hijackers were representative of the Muslim world as a whole.

While I would love to waste my evening challenging each of your opinions point-by-point, I have a few pressing house chores so I choose just one: your comments about our educations system.

education: something which is fundamentally broken in the US (unless you have money) and which the government is in no hurry to fix ('no child left behind' is just making matters worse)

I don't know what you think No Child Left Behind actually does,... but there were virtually no critics of the law until the run-up to this last election. The states taking federal money for education for years with next to zero accountability. NCLB demands that the states actually demonstrate that federal funds are being spent well, by requiring student assessments, improving the quality of teachers and that school systems use "scientifically based research" for teaching methods. You show me any other federal program that doles out billions of dollars but doesn't require any sort of proof that the money is being used effectively. Schools that under perform are given increased funding.

Lots of people are resisting this law for a number of reasons. Obviously, poor performing teachers and administrators don't want to be assessed for fear of being (rightly) put out

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

[DisKurzion]

http://www.nationmaster.com/

Is a great stats page. A quick summary of several graphs (all per-capita, the only fair stat)
(UK + USA #/1000) (rankings based on OECD countries)

Burglaries
UK: 13.91 (rank 5)
USA: 7.23 (rank 11)

Murders
USA: 0.04 (rank 3)
UK: 0.01 (rank 15)

Murders with firearms
USA: 0.02 (rank 2)
UK: 0.00 (rank 16)

Total crime (including drugs+rape+assault) (all of which USA leads in vs UK)
UK: 86.04 (rank 4)
USA: 81.55 (rank 5)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cr i_ca p&id=OECD

So it seems the USA leads in rape, murder, assault, drugs, and a few other categories. But somehow the USA is lower in "total crime", despite all this. How much you wanna bet a fair number of those "murders" are foiled robberies?

I would also like to point out that the differences in crime rate between US cities and US rural areas (where gun prevalance is much higher) is phenomenal. It's like comparing Mexico (high crime) with Finland (no crime).

People living in rural areas tend to own more guns, vote Republican (well, at least a 55% ratio do, compared w/ less than 20% in cities), and suffer fewer crimes.

The very fact that more people own guns means that it's less likely they'll need to use them (in the self-defence way).

(and since when was ANY police force effecient enough to deter crime....certainly not in the UK)

(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)