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."
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?