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.
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"
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.
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
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
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.
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"
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.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
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.
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.
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!
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
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
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...
/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.
/have/ to know that by now.
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
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
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
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.
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.