Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Attempts to Regulate Blogging
Lawrence Person writes "Forget about theocratic Iran or Communist China; today's report of a political entity trying to regulate blogging comes not from The People's Republic of China, but rather The People's Republic of San Francisco. 'The San Francisco Board of Supervisors [announced] yesterday that it will soon vote on a city ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate." Worse, this is not an April Fools joke. It seems that 'campaign finance reform' is turning out to be the biggest Trojan Horse in the campaign to regulate free speech. "Are you now or have you ever been a blogger?"" Chris Nolan -- the "not a joke" link above -- is more reserved about the true scope of the proposed law (which would deal with election-related journaling specifically, not most diary-style Web journals), but has little good to say about it.
This is only applicable to blogs that mention candidates for local office. So I don't think you have to pay if you're blogging about your dog.
However, this might give corporates some ideas. For example, if your blogs contain certain movies, music, celebrities, you may have to start paying for the loyalty fee, like what radio stations are doing now.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The liberals can spin this as Bush's fault. I mean, it must be his, right?
This is just the start of the wave of blog regulation. A recent appeals court ruling basically said that the internet should be viewed more as a broadcast medium then a print one. The short version of this means that you will start to see a lot of regulations of this kind coming forward. The last I heard there was a similiar issue in front of seattle's board of select man as well.
Why is it always the seemingly most liberal places that seem to be so conservative on certain issues?
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
How do you define a blog, and how does it differ from a frequently-updated website?
It'd be more easily enforcable (i.e. less loopholes) to apply such a regulation to all mass media, especially if preventing political bribery is your goal.
and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate.
:)
Sounds like a tax deduction to me.
Greetings.
I live in San Francisco. I can't believe that this is happening, but since it is, I have a simple solution: move to another jurisdiction. No, I don't mean "pack your bags and go". I mean that, in this age of interconnected servers throughout the world, hosting your 'blog in another jurisdiction isn't hard to do.
I've ran a couple of servers from a neutral, European country for years. Whenever I want to post something that might piss someone off locally I just post it out of one of those machines and under a pseudonym. While this isn't untraceable by any stretch of the imagination, it makes things hard enough for idiots chasing the poster to give up.
That's the beauty of the Internet/cyberspace. "Here" is simply wherever you want it to be.
Cheers,
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Liberals love freedom of speech/press... as long as it agrees with their beliefs. You'd only see this out of the People's Republic of San Francisco (and maybe the People's Republic of Massachusetts... lol).
Has anybody got a link to an actual newspaper article on the subject? While bloggers and advocacy sites can break news stories, they're also full of innuendo, rumor, and things blown way out of proportion.
I prefer to get my news from some organization without an axe to grind.
I discovered this issue 18 months ago.
Virginia blogs barred from mentioning local candidates
Can anybody stop them?
Why is it that slashdot members can't seem to read articles before posting their uninformed two bits? This legislation only applies to communications that are paid for by a PAC. I am a San Francisco resident and I often blog about politics, but I would be unaffected (despite several hundred hits at a time) by the legislation.
They are regulating the communications of lobbists - not individuals - an action that slashdotters have seemingly always been for. For instance, this would keep microsoft on the level if they wanted to buy a candidate in SF office.
It takes liberals to task for hypocrisy and gets modded Flamebait. It needs to be modded Insightful.
If I am saying things about an election, it's journalism.
This is the case regardless of the medium on which I say things. The appearance of the "internet" does not mysteriously grant the government power to regulate speech, or the press.
If they want me to register, or pay money, or do any damn thing they say because I am privately acting as a member of the press, then they can fuck off because they aren't getting anything out of me no matter what the law says. They don't have the power or authority to either make or enforce such laws.
seeing as how over $25M was given by a single contributor (Geogre Soros) to a obviously Kerry campaign media outlet, how could you assume that anything else would happen?
you know the worst part? Rush Limbaugh, as tired as he is, was 100% right on this one. (i agree with Rush ~50% of the time - I'm libertarian)
Get ready for "See, i told you so" from Rush Limbaugh... he was on George Soros' side on this one - but NOOOOO you had to follow McCain down the road of fscking the 1st Amendment.
nice job.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The end of the fairness doctrine during the Regan administration has blown the lid off of most any effort to have accountability on the airwaves and elsewhere. Instead of politicians speaking directly, their message is usually delivered by proxies. The Republicans have been masterful at this, deferring to talk radio hosts much of their message. Since the Right(tm) nearly owns all of the AM dial and all of the FM talk dial not associated with Public Radio, this has been an very effective conduit for them.
Even if some wrong-headed blog-managing rules were put into place by SF, CA or the US, proxies would appear quickly and funnel the same information to those who might listen, with the source one-level-removed.
Attempting to regulate speech is problematic, as I'm sure those behind this effort will discover.
I somehow doubt that this will fly in SF. Her district includes SOMA (I think, it is hard to figure it out from the map) and most of the areas of the city that protest the most. It includes a lot of bloggers and political active members. But I think this is really an attempt to restrict the amount of politics sludge coming from some bloggers. At least require them to register so they can't slander and run. I don't know if this is necessary but something needs to be done about 527s and bloggers who slander and run so we don't have a repeat of the swift boat affair.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
This has a VERY saddening side effect: what if a local San Francisco poltician is doing screwy things and you try exposing them while their running? or how about your good ol' political critiqueing? This will in effect stomp out those who try to attack politicians for their fopaws. This is VERY serious issue, and should go to the courts.
Did the person that wrote the article (personaldemocracy.com) RTFO? The city ordinance does not specifically mention blogging as they seem to imply. It simply says that anyone participating in electioneering for a specific candidate, and spending more then $1000 needs to register. This covers print, internet (where they derive the blogging inference) etc. Your average blogger doesn't spend $10, let alone $1,000, and most political blogs are not for one specific SF candidate.
here are a couple paraphrased for my convienience
"all elections communicaitons shall reveal/identify who paid for them" ie this was paid by ________
dont try and hide who paid for the communication
people paying for elections communications must detail their bills and send them over to the city if they go over 1000 bucks in aggregate per year.
money contributions over 100 dollars which were intented to offset elections communications costs must be documented.
that 500 person distribution limit for internet, radio,billboard, pamphlet, ectera of elections communications.
that 500 person limit seems fairly stupid, who cares about if 500 or 500 million people hear about stuff, it makes them better educated to vote.
unless this is a money thing, and then i could see it making sense. (huge money=huge advertising.)
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
I can't imagine having more than $1000 in blog-related costs. This rule will have zero impact on the avarage blogger.
The People have a right to know who is funding candidates, and all this requirement does is record who is paying the bills. Unlike the avarage blogger, these bloggers who market candidates have an agenda. Money is flowing, and we should know from where and to whom.
I think what will piss people off is they will have to rethink what they are. Are they just talking about their political idea's, or are they acting like a marketing firm?? How much are they giving to a candidate, in time, in advertising? These are all valid questions.
It is like P2P, where taking a copy of a tape to a friends house would never get you in trouble, but the moment someone shared it on the internet they were breaking the law.
The part I worry about is, what can the city (or state) do if they object to a blog? Can they force it to be shut down. What are the penalties?
I guess what we are doing here is examining how to apply current principles of law on technologies that did not exsist when the law was made. Maybe this will start an intelligent public debate, or maybe it will just be more 10 second soundbytes. who knows.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
However, only one law will be put into place that does make sense: Every candidate must create a report, written in plain English, that explains what that candidate intends to do during his term in office, if he gets elected. A panel of ten people or so, appointed by the government, will review these documents in advance and have the candidate correct anything that doesn't make sense. That way, there's no legalese and it won't be written in a way that nobody can understand; also, it will be short enough that people will actually make time to read it.
These documents, once finalized, will be published, by the government, into a book format, and distributed to bookstores all over the country, in much the same way that books like the September 11 report were distributed and sold to the general public. Free copies will be available at all libraries, on the Internet, to first-time voter registrants, poor people, and to whatever other groups the government deems necessary.
The availability of this information will do two very important things:
First, it will allow people to see past the bullshit of traditional campaign advertising, which generally doesn't tell anybody anything, much less serve any purpose other than making people remember someone's name, and that this person's opponent is a piece of lying, cheating rubbish. The advertising and the garbage can go on in the background, but reasonable people will buy the books, read them, and make an educated decision.
Secondly, people will be able to keep these books, and two, four, six, or however many years later, they'll be able to look at them and say, "Did this candidate for whom I voted actually do any of the things he promised, past his first day in office?" This will be great for making re-election decisions, when unsure.
Yes, there will be abuses, but in politics, everything is bullshit. Besides, it'll be great for the economy, with all the advertising moneys running all over the place by various organizations that want to screw over various other organizations.
Certainly, this means that people with less money will probably get less advertising, but did the lack of money stop things like open source software from making Microsoft scared shitless?
I say, the less laws, the better off we'll all be in every respect. And to that end, I think there should be some sort of fund set up with a nonprofit organization of lawyers, kind of like Groklaw, but for pointless, unnecessary laws. This group would dig up all kinds of laws that don't make sense anymore, or shouldn't be on the books, and it will lobby Congress to rethink these laws, remove them, modify them, etc., providing suggestions for something better. Such an organization, if well funded, would help the entire country get over a lot of crap that's on the books and probably will be forever, as we accumulate more and more and more and more and more laws.
I also remember the old "home page" days, and wonder what makes a blog a blog. I've had people tell me about my headlines site, "I like your blog." Uh, thanks, but how is it a blog? I don't post my own thoughts, or talk about myself in any way. In that, it's not even a home page. It's a joke page, but people think about blogs so much that every page becomes a blog.
It's nice to see the nuts are holding up their end of things in the Granola state.
I guess I might as well make an attempt to make a comment like this near the top of the discussion, since the discussion below seems already to be devolving into "you're a liberal" "omfg no YOU'RE a liberal" high-school clique bickering.
There is no such thing as a "liberal"
There is no such thing as a "conservative"
Anyone who uses either of these words-- ever-- is just trying to set up some kind of straw man argument
If someone tries to use these words on you, don't try to argue with them, don't let them troll you, just ignore them and walk away.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
this is a direct result of mccain-feingold. the moment you decide to define 'legitimate media', for purposes of granting their political speech exception, you effectively create regulation of all media. once Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court decided that some citizens, based upon their full-time employment, enjoy free speech rights separate from everyone else, how else would you imagine that those speech restrictions be enforced?
the blogosphere cannot become complacent about intrusions like this -- its actually what MSM and our representatives prefer, largely because it enhances their own power and/or kills open source journalism. so there will be no MSM outrage over this -- they want to hold onto their roles as gatekeepers.
i rule.
Why is it always the seemingly most liberal places that seem to be so conservative on certain issues?
Conservative? Conservatives are for the smallest possible amount of government involvement in peoples' lives and a belief that the status quo usually represents an acceptable equilibrium. Thought Police are the domain of the Liberal/Progressive (see also political correctness). When taken to the extreme we call it Fascism. Some Progressives like to call fascists "ultra-right-wing" but that's just silly, Fascism is about as opposite Conservatism as one can get. Some definitions (per google):
fascism: An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
conservatism: A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.
Now you might see some Bible-thumpers claiming to be conservatives while trying to restrain your individualism through government largess, but if they claim they are also purple cows you shouldn't believe that either.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is is cause all of those "People's Republic of San Francisco" jokes?
I don't care what people blog about, there is nothing in a blog that merits regulation or taxation. In the US, speech and its expression are free... period.
A blog, by definition, is not a public broadcasting medium. It is in the public, but is not a public source of information. Should a politically active person stand on a street corner and shout out their belief and political affiliation, it is not a public broadcast medium.
This is EXACTLY the kind of crap that artificially inflates the value of one political party above another in the eye of the public at large.
ALL, and I mean EVERY LAST ONE of them, all political messages should be broadcast freely to ALL Americans, young and old, till every American, of voting age or not, is sick to fscking death of them, and well informed on how each party, local or national, stands on every issue. When they abuse their rights to speak freely, there will come a time that it is no longer valuable to them to speak in public except in a morally appropriate manner.
The attempt to regulate even a small part of that process is both assinine and totally irreverant to your, and my, rights as citizens.
To do this among a small electorate (read not nationwide) only goes to ensure that only the people with money will get access to the public.... This is TOTAL BS
If you live in SF and this gets passed, I heartily recommend you leave there, pack your bags and go. I'd do that anyway... but especially if they pass this infringement of your rights to hear and be heard.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The blogsphere took out Dan Rather, and the MSM is out for revenge. They realize that the blogs are making much of the MSM irrelevant, with the latest casualty being Ted Koppel who will not have his contact renewed by ABC when it expires later this year. Don't just blame the SF supervisors, blame their corporate media puppet-masters too.
I haven't fully comprehend the proposed ordinance. But I think you guy pull the trigger too quick. I think what proposed amendment is target for elected officials, not your average citizens. The whole thing is probably spawn the supervisor Chris Daly's blog and they feel there is need to clarify the the guideline for themselves.
Daly starts blog on city Web site District 6 supervisor first official to keep diary on city's site
Elections BC has said that blogs, sites etc must register if their advertising value exceeds $500. http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2005/EBC033 005.pdf
Read more here: http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2005/freesp eechonSTV.html
The purpose of this legislation is not to "regulate blogging," as the submitter so breathlessly exclaims, it's to provide transparency in election financing. No one's being prevented from saying anything, or even from taking money to say a certain thing, but if anyone, whether blogger or billboard company or bumpersticker printer, receives money from a campaign or PAC to advocate that campaign or that PAC's issue, it's in the public's interest to know that fact. This is no different than the Federal laws that require political ads to identify the source of their funding ("This message has been brought to you by Citizens For Financial Obfuscation," that sort of thing.)
Bloggers are understandably defensive at the moment, since the serious political commentators and newsgathering blogs are frequently lumped in with the likes of Free Republic and teenagers' LiveJournals, but misrepresenting the issues at hand to turn everything into "the mainstream media/government/alien overlord is threatened by blogging!" is not a worthy strategy.
Pssst, hey guys! /dev/null.....
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I see a great business opportunity for Europeans and others with good English skills. Set up your blog with a com adress and get paid by American pressure groups to blog about an American candidate, or against the opponent. And of course, since none of the blog - not the servers, ISP or blogger - has any connection to the US, this legislation doesn't apply to them.
So US-based bloggers become limited as to how much they can work for an election, whereas European bloggers (generally leaning less conservative) have no such limits. Sounds good to me.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Vote these maniacs out of office! They are out of control.
Pop quiz: which of these people is a Republican:
If you answered "McCain", congratulations! You have enough political knowledge to come out on the winning side of a 50/50 chance! Your "crowd of Democrats" appears to include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
Quiz number 2: Which of the following Soviet dictators signed the McCain-Feingold act into law:
If you selected "George W. Bush", you're right again! Beloved Father of America Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Free Speech Destruction Act into law, thereby acheiving for the Republican Party what Soviet Russia could never do: limiting political speech in America.
Final question, regarding tolerance of other viewpoints: which of the following prominent politicians issued a threat on Thursday against any federal judge who dared oppose his wishes?
See if you can pick the right answer.
Ok. First things first. Download the proposed ordinace and read it.
If not read it, at least search for the word blog, internet, web, or anything else internet related. You wont find it.
You will find that anything journalistic related is excluded. Now, as we know here at slashdot, blogs may or may not be journalism. If they are considered journalism, they are excluded. If they are considered personal conversations, they are also excluded.
Note that this ordinance has not passed, and probably wont pass. Regardless, it seems to state some specific guidlines on advertisment funding disclosure for city officials. Thats about it.
Also, if you decide not to disclose information at all, your charged a whopping $10 a day until you disclose. Woo Hoo! Lunch money!
So, you publish your slam campaign on TV (because there is no internet issue covered at all) and pay $10 retroactively after election day till you either win or lose!
Have a nice day!
"San Francisco Attempts to Regulate Blogging"
Enough said.
This is like the UN trying to regulate the entire Internet. (April Fool's post)
I live in SF and I write a blog. It's not very political, but when it is, it is a very liberal blog. And if you continue on this path supporting this foolishness, and if it actually passes, I will do everything in my power to make sure you, and any supervisor who votes for this INSANE idea, are not re-elected.
This is Simply Wrong.
Rawls: Unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. Look it up.
It is unfair, because it singles out a form of free expression as a form of speech that requires regulation. Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre are regulated free expression. Blogs have no business being regulated like that.
It is unjust, because it would treat all blogs the same. IF the blogger says "Bush is the Spawn of Satan", or "Liberals are the rotting core of Evil in the Universe" or "Go out and vote - it's important" it's all the same: political statements. This would clearly be an injustice.
and it is unreasonable, as a blog can be about a million things, and often are. Politics is often a central theme, but it is not the only. Therefore, it is unreasonable to paint semi-political yet popular blogs the same as some fire breathing partisan blog.
This legislation is also completely and utterly STUPID. Why? Because someone might live somewhere, but the blog could be hosted in FINLAND. Now: try and regulate political speech in Finland from San Francisco. Guess what: It Isn't Going To Happen. Ever.
The internet is international. Get used to it.
Worse, you have single handedly made San Francisco an international laughing stock, and more over: They Are Laughing At You.
Smooth move Maxwell.
I've always known you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this latest embarrassment is really over the top.
I will not register. Furthermore, I will cheerfully join a class action lawsuit to fight this, right to the Supreme Court, if necessary. If that fails, then me and my family will take our leave of this city. We moved here many years ago, because it was a city of free spirits. Then the dotcom idiots did their dead level best to ruin the place, and now incompetent politicians such as yourself are putting the final touches on it final implosion.
I hope you're proud.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
especially on /. is that, given the predictable percentage of replies on how "unfair" and "outrageous" this is, no one is using one of my favorite words: unconstitutional. the issue at hand here is not whether they should do this or not. nor is the issue that for the proposed legislation the majority of bloggers would be unaffected. the issue instead is that it is not within the legal restrictions of the government to impose this ordinance. since it is, however, restricted to campaign related blogs, there are laws which stipulate, at least in certain media i know, that you have to give each candidate, given certain criteria, equal time/space. while i still think this is superfluous, it is a damn sight better than restricting free speech. yes, i understand that they're not trying to keep people from blogging, or restrict what they blog about with this piece of legislation. but, honestly, how long will it take for similar laws to get pushed in other states? and no, not all of them will pass, but the point is that once a majority of the nation does something one way, the majority of congress will mirror it because they're from those states.
this scares me in a way that i normally reserver for senator orrin hatch, but i guess he's got some competition now. i guess we'll have to see how this pans out, but i must admit i'm alarmed by a number of the articles i read now, politically speaking.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/c ommittees/materials/041489.pdf
"Electioneering communication shall mean any communication, including but not limited to, any broadcast, cable, satellite, radio, INTERNET, or telephone communication....that refers to a clearly identified candidate for City elective office or a City elective officer who is the subject of a recall election."
That would be the sound of you shutting the fuck up that I hear, right?
I think taco dropped a bag of Mod crack and they found it before he did.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
If it was fair for McCain-Feingold to create the limits on speech that it creates then these offensive rules are fair as well. This is what we've come to.
-Expenses over $1000/year?
Check
-Poitical section of their site?
Check
-Hosted direct statements and opinions from candidates?
Check
-Has discussed San Francisco City elections?
Probably.
exemptions which includes "news stories, commentaries, or editorials distributed through any newspaper, radio, television station, or other recognized news medium" which certainly might include a web page.
Or it might not. Does this let all 'web pages' off the hook? Certainly not.
So...would they have to file IAW this ruling? It would appear so.
That's one way to prove him right.
-1 Troll? Shouldn't this be like +5 Funny?
...because no one here ever presents political opinions and I'm sure many would blow over $1000 worth of man hours here a year?
I had my suspicions that the SF city council were a pack of commies, but I didn't expect them to be so blatant about it..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
She got elected, which makes her smarter than you.
Doesn't look like that's too difficult a trick, though.
There's just as much pc on the right as on the right as on the wrong side of the shallow. Alexander graham bell was a great hail out of heaven every stone about the recently departed pope, f'rinstance.There's just as much pc on the right as on the right as on the wrong side of the deaf in boston. Perhaps you should just try to muzzle those with whom they disagree.
Because i'm on the right as on the right as on the right as on the tip of my very best intentions.
Conservatives are for the smallest possible amount of government involvement in peoples' lives and a belief that the status quo usually represents an acceptable equilibrium
Except when it comes to gay marriage, dying with dignity, smoking marijuana, playing D&D in the community center, or a thousand other personal issues. Then it's regulation hell.
People who call themselves Conservatives just *say* they want to give the government off your back. That doesn't actually *mean* they want the government off your back.
Now you might see some Bible-thumpers claiming
Don't water it down by claiming there are only "some" Bible-thumpers trying to tell us what to do. These Bible-pushers have become the most powerful force in the Republican party, and are only too happy to ask the government to regulate my personal activities.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
It is not enough to obey big brother, you must love him too.
- Eric Blair
In practice, it is likely to take weeks, months or years to track the affilitions of a "trojan" (as you put it). By the time you have untangled the web of obfuscation, the election will be well and truly over. And the "trojan" typically won't care that his/her reputation is blown.
By requiring the connections to be disclosed upfront (on pain of legal penalties), you reduce the "trojan"s influence on the election outcome. For me, the real question is whether the disclosure of just financial links would be enough to make a difference.
read the fucking ordinance. this is about electioneering and lobbyist/PAC disclosure. im sorry but the so-called blogosphere can be as ridiculous as the left as it is on the right. and its usage of FUD does nothing for its image--it's like the digital bobby fisher imho. and slashdot should be ashamed for posting this without a direct link to the law -- do you repost microsoft FUD verbatim??
Anyway, the ordinance, in not very well worded language, should not affect individual, non-affiliated sites... and the SF Ethics commission certainly isn't going to be doing any invasive auditing. Perhaps the wording is vague because this is standard disclosure form updates for a new medium -- _within_ electioneering and lobbyist codes/regulations.
disclaimer: I'm in school for my MPA and know people on the ethics commission. so i may be mildly biased. especially since i WISH someone would regulate chris daly out of existence.
> Pop quiz: which of these people is a Republican:
>
> * McCain
> * Feingold
Sen Feingold is a Democrat and Sen McCain is whatis known as a RINO (republican In Name Only) who was the preferred candidate of the mainstream (read that as Democratic Party aparatus) press during the 2000 primary Republican Primaries.
> Quiz number 2: Which of the following Soviet dictators signed the
> McCain-Feingold act into law:
Yes and we conservatives are pissed about Bush signing it. But to give him a little slack he did have fairly sound tactical reasons for it. He reasoned correctly that a veto would be hung around his neck like an albatross for sis being a 'tool of special interests' while signing it was safe since it is patently in violation of the 1st Amendment. His mistake was underestimating in just how low esteem Democrats hold the US Constituition.
> Final question, regarding tolerance of other viewpoints: which of the
> following prominent politicians issued a threat on Thursday against
> any federal judge who dared oppose his wishes?
Kinda twisting his words more than a bit aren't you? But at any rate I have no problem with making a public anouncement that the legislative branch is mad as hell and ready to make judges pay a price for usurping the lawmaking powers that are NOT the province of judges. Regardless how you believe on a lot of issues, the courts were NOT where laws regarding them should have issued from.
Democrat delenda est
It seems that 'campaign finance reform' is turning out to be the biggest Trojan Horse in the campaign to regulate free speech.
We told you so.
We told you so.
We told you so.
We told you so.
Conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about how "Campaign Finance Reform", specifically McCain-Feingold.
This is the kind of abuse that we TOLD EVERYONE would result. People assumed that the Democrats would retake congress in the last two elections. People assumed that Democrats would have the White House. People assumed that it would only be Right to Life groups and the NRA who were hamstrung by "Campaign Finance Reform", they were wrong.
I'm not new to slashdot. I remember seeing people here time and time again talk about how this "reform" was needed. Isn't this what you wanted?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No. I don't care what it says. I will post what I want when I want. Fuck them. Fuck their ordinance. And fuck you.
Your knee is jerking badly, IMO.
What is the problem with registering? What is the problem with disclosing that a someone is funded to be someone else's mouthpiece? Surely, if a blogger can register (on pain of penalty) that he is NOT funded by some scumbag, then that only increases the credibility of his viewpoint.
"Its only applicable to blogs that mention candidates"
Ummm. The First Ammendment's entire purpose is to protect political speech.
No candidate or elected official should ever be shielded from the voice of the people. The 60 day moratorium on political speech by the public prior to an election is one of the most nefarious laws I have ever seen passed in the USA.
The entire purpose of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to define the limits of government to act against the people. The campaign finance law has this all turned around.
And notice that it did not seem to actually work. The last election was awash in money.
...ok, who gave Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter a /. account? Taco? Neil? Fess up!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Right?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Also, if you decide not to disclose information at all, your charged a whopping $10 a day until you disclose. Woo Hoo! Lunch money!
I wish I had 10 dollars a day for lunch.
That's the problem with those of us that oppose Bush. We are poor.
http://use.perl.org
If you're not repeating the "official" version of reality, you are a potential terrorist and will be dealt with accordingly.
h tm
If you don't like it then move somewhere else!
Sincerely,
The Two Party System Security Dispatch
Ps. If you don't shut up you will face the consequences:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.
As usual this sensational piece completely misrepresents the proposed change in regulation. The rules apply to those who *pay* someone else at least $1000 to say things about a candidate during an election.
c ommittees/materials/041489.pdf
Get the facts by reading the actual proposal (31MB PDF):
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/
is a lie!!!
That pretty sums up the situation whenever politics is the discussion. Logic simply can't work.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
So campaign finance disclosure is now a bad thing?
Once again, it is apparent that /. authors and readers don't bother checking facts and blindy believe any piece of misleading drivel they find on the internet. This is yet another BS article blowing things out of proportion and trying to stir up controversy (and maybe slashdot readership?). If I want to readed misleading, inflammatory, blown out of proportion crap then I would just head down to the supermarket and open the Enquirer!
For those of you who didn't bother to actually read the ordinance before spouting off an opinion, The SF ordinance applies to people actually campaigning and doesn't specifically mention blogging. It says that if you are running for SF political office you have to disclose your expenditures. Standard policy. If you follow the editting marks in the ordinance, you'll see that it previously only referred to "expenditures". The revision added a lot of verbage to include "electioneering communications". Presumably that includes newspaper ads, radio spots, billboards, spam emails, a web site, setting up internet blogs, etc. I would be upset if a city didn't require candidates to disclose their expenditures.
The ordinance does not apply to the average Joe on the street. It does not apply to newspaper articles and blogs not commisioned by the campaigner.
This is just a toe in the water, bait on the hook, whatever you want to call it. Attention is being diverted away from the real issue: the continued erosion of the Internet as a more-or-less uncensored, low-cost, peer-to-peer communications medium, and the fact that it poses a real threat to anyone in power now. This is not a conservative vs. liberal, democrat vs. republican issue. This is a haves vs. have-not issue. This is a small tip of the mammoth iceberg that sank the Titanic, only this time, it's the country itself that is on the verge of taking on more water than it can handle.
Each year, it's some little bit here or there, and each year, our freedoms and our rights continue to shrink. Does it matter if this passes into law or not? Not really - because those who have something to loose will try, try, try again. They'll keep trying until they get what they are really after - the ability to strip away that thin mask of anonymous posting that allows dissenting opinion into the public ear. Opinions that point out that the ship is sinking and that we need to do something now, while we have strategic time to do so, are marginalized, while the few that are keenly aware of what is happening have time to lower their own lifeboats ("screw the others, what do they matter to me?")
I know conservative friends who are thinking the same thing (yes, it is possible to have conservative friends when you are liberal)...and I know that as long as we continue to divide ourselves and let ourselves be herded around like the sheeple we are, we will continue to wear our little "blinders of (anti-terrorist) safety" and listen to that voice that we just can't see beyond our periphrial view - the one that is urging us to move forward, keep moving, nevermind the screams of those being slaughtered ahead of us, they're not around you, so how can it possibly hurt you...
We're the proverbial frog in a pot, and the boil has just started. To hear both "conservatives" and "liberals" banter back and forth...I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic. Republican or Democratic frog leg meat tastes just the same - like chicken. BBQ, anyone?
Some would say that the United States is turning into a fascist police state and a cultural melting pot.
You need a lot a money to immigrate to Canada as a skilled worker. Which I don't have. I find that people applying for refuge status have it much easier when immigrating to Canada.
So the faster US citizens looses it freedoms, liberty and privacy, the better. They're just making it easier for me to move to Canada as a refuge.
So I say bring it.
Well, at least the McCain-Feingold Act is preventing all those big corporations from making huge bribes to our elected representatives! Surely that limit on freedom of expression has worked, right?
Oh, wait...
Issuing threats is for pansies. I think you'll agree that real men write laws. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make it a crime for any federal judge to not "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government"?
I especially am delighted with the title of the bill-- the "Constitution Restoration" Act. It's really annoying that the courts get to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the legislative branch. That should be made illegal. Only way to "restore" the Constitution. Sounds like another April Fool's joke that's not.
This, my friends, is what theocracy looks like. We have the advantage of watching it unfold before out very eyes.
Once the money starts changing hands, you're not some guy with an opinion and a stump. If that's all you ever wanted to be, tell he who would be King to keep his money to himself.
The goverments that constitue our republic have, for a long time, had powers to regulate commerce. If you don't like it, there are areas of the developing world without effective government for you to chose from.
Its dumbasses like you, people who get their version of American history from a pastor, a gun show, womynist meetings, or worse, who've got us on the precipice.
Maybe before clicking "send" on that letter you should read the actual ordinance instead of taking the highly inaccurate summary as gospel. Blogs are not being singled out. They're not even mentioned. The legislation has to do with political contributions, not speech.
Surely the people will not allow the very freedom to communicate and do so widely and instaneously that my generation of geeks worked hard to produce - this generation and ours shall not suffer this great gift to be shut down because it worries those in power. They have reason to be worried because they have done evil things. Now they have even more to be worried about because they are threaetenig to silence the people. They act as if the Net and the Web is their property. They are not. They are the property of the people.
I never thougt to see in my time this awful mixture of great evil from politicians and the people making excuses as to why removing their freedom is just fine. Is their no level of political evil and spitting malice from our supposed servants that will cause us to stand up in masse for freedom, for justice, for our lives, for anything? Are we rotten and empty to the core?
Read the article you dolt.
make judges pay a price for usurping the lawmaking powers that are NOT the province of judges.
Judges cannot write laws. They never could.
So what's happening?
The GOP talking points now dictate that what used to be called "judicial review" or "separation of powers" should now be called "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench."
It's really an homage to the power of words. All you have to do is call it "legislating" and people actually think that judges are out there writing laws. It's fucking absurd, pardon my french.
Judges have not "usurped" lawmaking powers. This is an absurdity. Judges have not and cannot write laws. All that's happened is some Republican media mouthpieces started calling Constitutionally-denoted judicial review lawmaking. That's the only thing that's changed. Judges have done not adopted any new practices of extra-constitutionally writing laws. Let's not even mention that the executive branch would also have to be extra-constitutionally enforcing these pseudo-laws -- Funny how this "separation of powers" stuff works.
See, the problem is that separation of powers gets in the way of real power -- power that the Constitution incidentally forbids. Three branches of government, checks and balances and whatnot. Apparently that all means nothing if a few propagandists changed their wording slightly.
But, let's forget all of that. What I really want to know is what exactly you mean by making judges "pay a price". What are you going to to, kick their ass? Arrest them? What?
Please fill me in. I eagerly await further enlightenment.
I wish I had 10 dollars a day for lunch.
That's the problem with those of us that oppose Bush. We are poor.
Mmmhmmm. I'm sure it has a lot to do with how the Democrats raised about as much money as the Republicans in this election.
And that's not even counting 527 money, which the Democrats raised more of than the Republicans by a factor of about 10.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
In this context, a blogger's right to privacy is trumped by the public's right to know if a political statement made in the context of an election is genuine. Without this, it is just too easy for some scumbag to subvert the democratic process by making outrageous claims in a blog a few days before the polls.
Try rereading that bill that you quoted.
It doesn't say that it would be a crime to not acknowledge God. It says that the courts are blocked from having jurisdiction over matters concerning a government entity or representative expressing that view (that God is the source of our laws and/or rights, something that is at least partially expressed in the Declaration of Independence).
Similarly, the title of the bill is appropriate for the rest of the contents. Look at it again. It instructs the courts that they cannot look to foreign rulings, treaties, etc. The only exception to that is to look to our own legal historical tradition (i.e. US legal rulings back to the founding of the US, and English rulings predating that).
Any other source of interpretation would be extra-jurisdictional. That actually makes sense. Why? If you want to know what a law means in Virginia, you don't look to the laws in California. You look to the history of Virginia to see the context in which it was passed, and what the language was understood to mean.
Please tell me where the actual proposed legislation singles out blogs.
... and then they built the supercollider.
At first i read it as "SF wants to regulate nagging", and i was about to cheer my ass off
Table-ized A.I.
Are you seriously suggesting McCain is not a conservative? In fact, he is considered by many, a truer conservative than the current bunch of neoconservative radicals like Wolfowitz.
Would you grant the opposing side the same liberties? I am sure you are happy to scream about so-called "liberal" candidates who do stupid shit, but aren't actually "true" conservatives. So, who decides who is a "real" conservative or liberal?
And, if McCain is not really a true conservative, then why don't the Republicans kick him out already? You don't think it might have something to do with opportunism, and the number of votes he gets for Republicans, do you?
You also easily excuse Bush from agreeing to this as being pragmatic. Would you cut a "liberal" the same slack, or is this just a double-standard?
... and then they built the supercollider.
You are a sadly misguided. How much are they paying you to shill for the theocons?
I'm sorry friend. The founding fathers were scared of the average person's political opinions. This is the reason for things such as the electoral college: to prevent people from making bad mistakes.
The fact is, noone can truly have a good political opinion. It's like a chess program vs. an average human. The chess program can search through every possible eventuality and determine the best course of action. Whereas your average person uses "tactics" - a set of rules and guidelines by which they play. I.e. pawns are sacrficeable, etc. etc. . Most peoples' political views line up with their "life tactics." If anyone truly had the ability to comprehend, process, and judge everything about the world and everyone in it, then political opinions would be smart. Until then, well, it's basically a crap shoot and there's no real way to tell who's right.
Because I do not feel one should have to register with the government to engage in personal political speech acts.
An organisation, such as a union or coporation is a "fictional" entity, who's entire existence is tightly wrapped up with the state. I am not a fictional entity. My existential fact as a human precedes whatever I do as a human being. A corporation or a union does not exist prior to what it does.
Therefore, it falls outside the circle of human consideration and can therefore be regulated as much as we choose. utterances by people, however, are quite different. If someone says something and is in the pay of a corporation or union, this has no bearing on their right to express their political view.
It's like the KKK - they can say "White People Rule" etc, but when they go advocating bodily harm etc., the ycross the line, both as an organisation and as private citizens.
Free Speech matters.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
don't punish cynical quips
>His mistake was underestimating in just how low esteem Democrats hold the US Constituition.
s c-d95.html/
p rez.bush.marriage/
Bush?
Are we talking about George 'I love the Constitution so much I lock people up for 3 years without charges and without access to an attorney' W. Bush? Here is what those wacko ultra-liberal Democrats (NOT!) at the Cato Insitute have to say about it http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html/
Are are we talking about the George W. 'I love free speech so much I have the secret service arrest people that try to ruin my photo opportunities' Bush? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-d
Or are we talking about the guy that wanted to ammend the Consitution to prohibit one particular form of free speech, not so much because he actually cared (because deep down in side, he cares about nothing) but because he wanted to pander to the anti-liberty wing of the Republican party http://www.patridiots.com/000875.html/
Or are we talking about the George W. 'Pass the religious Bigotry and Homophobia act of 2005 and my signature will be on it tomorrow' http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.
Whatever else he is, W. is no fan of the Consitution as it is today, and certainly no fan of liberty. But hey, that's OK, he has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. Nobody in the last 100 years has proposed an Amendment to give people more freedom, we only seem to get amendments to take freedom away.
I think everyone is missing the most important part. ...yes, i do teach this stuff
This guy may be teaching your children.
The school system failed him. And now, he's passing that on to your children! Is your children learning?
freaks can do whatever they want... but "normal people" with opinions need to fill out disclosure forms...
somebody call the governator!!!
Get your torrents...
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Bloggers and "old media", are both incompetent. Just in different ways.
The one thing they share is keeping their incompetence hidden from you.
"Worse, you have single handedly made San Francisco an international laughing stock, and more over: They Are Laughing At You."
Dude, San Francisco has been a laughing stock for a long time. You must be delusional to think that it started with this minor issue... well, that makes sense. You choose to live in San Francisco.
The 1st amendment is about freedom of speech, which congress may not abridge, period. Any damn thing you want to say, no ifs ands or buts. So, all the crap about commercial and political speech has basically been tacked on illegally afterward, by a politically compliant judiciary, to allow the FedGov to "regulate" far beyond its defined remit.
;-)
BTW, free speech isn't a right because of the constitution - it's in the constitution because it's a right! (Oh, and guns likewise, might as well mention while I'm already up on the soapbox
As a resident, I'm not betting on this ordinance passing or lasting. I know the "conservative" slashdoters are getting their kicks in by making fun of our seemingly "oppressive" city. But stuff like this rarely passes or hangs around for very long.
Like every major city, stupid city ordinances get proposed. But the public learns about them, and they are remedied. You can't have 3/4 of a million people living in one place and expect EVERY proposed city ordinance to be pure gold.
Some crazy computer-less hippy probably proposed this. He will be dealt with accordingly. Go about your business.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The difference is that blogs (taken as a whole) are self-correcting because there are so many eyes on. Old media isn't.
Humorless sig goes here.
People who support these types of laws must remember they are a double edge sword that can and will cut both ways. Your particular political opinions may be supported for the time being with such laws and those you disagree with suppressed.
That's a load of unfounded assumptions. Where is there any indication that this law "suppresses" any speech, let alone speech of any particular kind?
What this appears to attempt to do is to get people to disclose what amounts to political advertising in blogs. That seems perfectly reasonable: we have such disclosures for other kinds of political advertising as well. Requiring disclosure of astroturfing would be particularly important; it's too bad that this law probably won't have enough teeth to achieve that.
If you have any support for your assertion that this selectively restricts free speech, please share it with us. Otherwise, your rant is just unfounded.
A liberal blogger? In San Francisco?
How fresh. How original. You should see if you could go into syndication, or get a job in the mainstream media.
Hey, Ted Koppel's resigning... there's an opening for a communi^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberal anchor in the mainstream media.
You can take away my human right to make outrageous claims when you pry my keyboard from my cold, dead, hands.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Actually ... I was planning to stun you with a brilliant riposte, then reach through your screen to wrench your keyboard from your twitching fingers and beat you to death with it :-).
This story was obviously put through the Slashdot Telephone Game. Someone proposes a City Ordinance. Someone misunderstands what is proposed and posts an inflammatory article. Someone sees this article and posts it to Slashdot without bothering to read the original proposed City Ordinance. Then a lot of people who also didn't read the proposed City Ordinance have a fight about the merits of proposals which have never been proposed. Par for the course for this place. Thank you, learn fast, I'm glad that there are some people who actually read the relevant stuff before posting. Has the internet made people so lazy that they can't click on a link and read the freakin' proposal?
And the proposed regulation does not take this right away from you!! What it tries to do is to force you to reveal whether or not you are in the pay of someone else. The public has a right to know this. In the same way that the public has a right to know when an supposedly independent research report on smoking has been secretly funded by the tobacco industry.
"Blog" is very much a media buzzword. Is there going to be specific legislation that defines what exactly a "blog" is? Regardless, and assuminI I lived in San Fransisco, I would still continue to post on the "daily news update" section of my website.
Blog schmog...
I like the posts that say "Oh, this doesn't matter much, it'll only effect you if you mention a candidate running for local office.".
Oh, ok. It's only regulateable speech if it's about something that matters. You can say "flowers are pretty" all day long!
I don't see how this doesn't violate free speech in unspeakable ways. Scream people, this is *worse* than the DMCA.
I think what bugs me the most is that the way speech used be "regulated" here in the US is that you couldn't talk about sex except with innuendo, and you couldn't talk about God unless you had something nice to say. Now those two aren't nearly as taboo, but the Supreme Court checked off the ability to regulate political speech, technical speech is regulateable under patents and the DMCA (recall that software is inherently speech), and people are really leery of mentioning brand names in ways that haven't been vetted by a team of lawyers.
Hence corporations: the new gods. Want to say "Wal*Mart sucks?" Sure, you'll have a case if they attack you. And they almost certainly won't. But, they can conceivably attack you- that's the problem.
Scientology sort of proves the point, with many of their amazing lawsuits.
No doubt these supervisors believe George W. Bush to be a fascist! (It is established fact that you must think that to be elected in SF.) I'd laugh except that I feel sorry for people ruled by such fools, even if they elected them.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
So when is someone going to fix the real election issue - ie when entire companies, their employees and their employees kids all **donate** the maximum $1000 each? what about pushing that limit down to $1 and see if political parties can just get their message across without some stupid dumbed down air-time, is politics ever going to be about the issues instead of about knee-jerk reactions and stupid catch-phrases like 'flip-flopping' and 'desertion'
Ah never mind, im sure this will work great too!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The other guy pointed out that you misread the law. All it says is that acknowledgement of God is OK and the courts can't say otherwise.
What do you have against God anyway? Did he make all the bristles fall out of your toothbrush or something?
It is unfair, because it singles out a form of free expression as a form of speech that requires regulation. Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre are regulated free expression. Blogs have no business being regulated like that.
"Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre" have no business being regulated either. Free speech is either free or it isn't.
Also, "unfair"? Since when is anything fair? For me, things stopped being fair when I was about 10 years old. I've long maintained that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives grew up. Save the "but it's not faaaaair!" stuff for the 3rd grade, ok?
Rewrite the Bill Of Rights, Rewrite the Constitution. Burn them for all that it matters. Those documents are nothing but paper.
None of those actions can take away my right to free speech.
Right you are.
And the same goes for the right to keep and bear arms. Pass any law you want. I would kill, or die, to defend my right to be armed, and that outweighs any worthless piece of paper.
The survival of freedom depends entirely on the willingness of people to resist their government, preferably non-violently, but with armed violence if necessary.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
The link to Patridiots Watch shouldn't have a trailing slash. It should be http://www.patridiots.com/000875.html .
I am really glad that this meme is taking root among the liberal chowderheads. It exposes their lame, vacuous intellects, stokes their feelings of marginalization and powerlessness, and reinforces the reputation of the omnipotent Karl Rove. As a hard-right extremist, I couldn't ask for anything better.
Keep it up, you thumb-sucking, bed-wetting little pussies!
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Uber Alles San Francisco Knock Knock at your front door It's the suede/denim secret police They have come for your uncool niece Come quietly to the camp You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp Don't you worry, it's only a shower For your clothes here's a pretty flower....
a proposal that all persons using pen and pencil shall be required to register with the ethics commitee and report all paper-and-pencil related costs which exceed 1000$. moreover, if they mention the name of a candidate to the local office and write more than 500 words, they must pay a fee.
My new blog
What? The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy?
I cannot bring to words how much contempt I have for the 'blogging' phenomenon, in todays world where protocols are attacked (torrents / p2p / http - same thing, but if you label yourself you can be a target) people have labelled 'putting information on the intarweb' 'blogging' because everything is a blog nowwadays.
/. is aggregating?
When are the movies out? check the movie blog. WRONG, it isn't a log, it is a news article with a forward thinking measure.
I also hate the endless endless agregation, why even link to engaydget.com from slashdot whenthey are blogging about the same thing that
Damn damn damn. bah. *exasperating lack of ability to voice contempt for blogging* (except blogs that are retrospective personal logs - not just blogs for the same of link/comment/spam/$$$/whoring - and only those because they are really web logs)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
It seems that 'campaign finance reform' is turning out to be the biggest Trojan Horse in the campaign to regulate free speech.
I seem to remember some of us fat cat theocrat Republicans warning you about this ...
Can I moderate the blurb "flamebait"?
Another fucking idiot for my foe list. Thanks.
CBS and others are pissed because now their job, getting the story RIGHT, has suddenly become that much more difficult with people who are both knowledgable in such matters AND able to make that knowledge widely known.
Despite all the conspiracy theories about the "liberal media", for the most part they report stories factually -- there have only been a handful of cases where the facts don't pan out in public.
Count all of the cases (Rathergate, NYTimes, etc) and you're talking well over 99% accuracy.
Compare that to bloggers like Drudge, who repost rumors and hypothesize stories by the handful only hoping to hit an occasional truth. On the Internet, even a 50% success rate is great, and political pandering and bias ensure a steady stream of advertising.
Now, I'm not saying all Internet bloggers and fact-checkers are bogus, but I am saying that they aren't held to the same standards as the professionals in the "traditional media". Instead, I prefer to think that blogging works rather like open source software -- thousands of eyes (or voices) make many problems shallow. I support the critical review of politics, media, etc as an important part of democracy, as well as anything that makes it easier for the masses.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Go back to your think-tank talking points and find some that weren't penned decades again, O trollish one.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Very interesting how this article was carefully worded not to mention that REPUBLICANS ARE AGAINST CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
...
Campaign finance reform (which this post mentions may be the crux to limiting BLOGs) is mostly a democrat and republicrat (John McCain) idea and push.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Campaigns are still free to say whatever they want through any venue they want, but they must disclose that they've spent money on these sites so you should take their gushing praise of the candidate with a grain of salt.
I think a better approach would be for "honest" sites to state their funding up front in a disclaimer... "this site is exclusively supported by commercial advertising", "this site is paid for by the author's personal funds", "this site is a corporate shill for MegaEvilCorp." It won't get rid of the phonies, but it will make it easier to pick them out. Now get some public-minded watchdog to maintain a list of known shills and hacks, and you start approaching a better solution without legislation.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Are you absolutely sure it only applies if someone pays you to blog? That might be the intent of the law but what does the actual letter of the law say? The DMCA was never meant to be applied to toner cartriges or universal remotes but it was (the court dismissed those cases but that dismissal directly contradicts judge Kaplan's precedent). Are you willing to provide full indemnification to any blogger concerned that it will apply to them even if no one is paying them to blog?
One thing you should have mind is that, no matter what your local neocon operative is telling you, the Courts haven't suddenly started interpreting the Constitution because Clinton nominated a few dozens "terrorist" judges. It has always been the role of the higher courts.
Just for me to understand your line of thought, please define the words "establishment", "religion", "prohibiting", "free", "exercise", "abridging", "freedom", "speech", "press", "right", "people", "peaceably", "assemble", "petition", "Government", "redress", "grievances". For extra cookies, define both the meaning the Framers wanted them to have and the necessary adaptations to modern day. Note that I am noting trying to be difficult here - but that's what the courts are for...
Most of the support for this Idea seams to come from those that are afraid that the reader will be fooled by incorrect or malicious information, usually with the assumption that there own view is by the power of there own exceptional intelect, unfettered. This is an expansive bit of intellectual arrogance. People are not the automations that the nanny's in our society assume everyone who is not as enlightened as themselves are, and will for the most part divine the truth when it is presented. How inconvenient for the nannies that the poor little lost sheep wish to make there own decisions. This kind of legistration for our own good of coures is always a disaster. But do not expect this to defer the nannies since In the Intellectual community of liberals an ideology's catastrophic failure in the practical arena merely demonstrates its Higher Truth to its anointed. And, more importantly, the anointed's ability to perceive that Higher Truth proves - to there own satisfaction, at least- their moral and intellectual superiority to the common people who allow themselves to be deceived by mere facts. Their right to control the lives of that common populace - for it's own good, of course- follows as their natural consequence. T.S. Eliot understood such people and their priorities. Writing in 1950, he said: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
Effectivly nulling the new law ...
...
Develop new technology.
It will basicly do the same thing.
Just a little bit differently.
Law can not keep up with new industry buzz words.
If it could
We'd just have laws like.
Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape.
And we'd be done.
-- The Dude
Next they will require that you retain all access logs forever.
Just in case a 'bad' person posts something unacceptable to the people in power, so they can track their ass down and harass/arrest them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Maybe I missed something but I looked at the ordinance here
And I think this article is extremely misleading.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE BLOGGERS TO REGISTER.
It requires the spender of the $1000 or more for electioneering to report it.
If there is a line requiring these audits, could someone please point it out to me.
Do you think this registration will be free? Several other states require several hundred dollars for registration fees so I bet you it won't be free. Why should I have to pay the government for the right to discuss politics?
Here's some news for you: if you make a comment supporting or opposing any candidate or campaign in your diary-style web journal, you've just turned it into a poltiical blog.
That campaign finance law would end up strangling free speech was predicted by its opponents from day one.
>Rewrite the Bill Of Rights, Rewrite the Constitution. Burn them for all that it matters. Those documents are nothing but paper.
>None of those actions can take away my right to free speech.
An officer's gun pointed at your head when you refuse to pay your blogger's registration fees (or the fines for failure to pay your BRF), however, is pretty damn effective.
You have the privilege to speak. You have the right to remain silent.
Yes, interpetign the Constitution has always been a power of the Supreme Court, if by always you mean "since 1803."
Does anyone learn about Marbury vs. Madison in schools nowadays?
and yes, it is BAD. No, the slashdot summary is not misleading, it is dead on.
...".
The ordinance defines "electioneering communication" as mentioning a specific candidate for city office within 90 days of the election.
It requires ANYONE engaging in "electioneering communication" to include in the communication "Paid for by
It also requires anyone who spends more than $1000 a year on such communications to file a report with the city UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
There are exemptions for person to person conversation and for major media outlets, such as newspapers and tv news organizations. It is very clear that the ordinance covers bloggers.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have distinguished spending from speech. It seemed like a logical distinction at the time, but we now are seeing the results of that sort of thinking... There is no a HUGE loophole in the First Amendment. Any form of speech other than direct person to person communication requires spending at least a little money.
Oh well, 200 years of (mostly) Free Speech is better than anyone else has pulled off yet.
He's never heard of Marbury vs. Madison, for instance.
The crap being peddled here is almost enough to make me actually register on Slashdot.
Unless you hold that the people who wrote the original text were omniscient, and therefore knew all the future, someone must interpret the text in modern terms.
Well, except that murder is murder. If you kill someone, you're up for murder. AFAIK, libel is only libel if its false, which can be a bit more difficult to prove. Not, of course, that there aren't grey areas in murder as well (But my wife wanted to die. She told me so years ago without witnesses.) but slander and libel generally require more proof that a crime took place in the first place, rather than clarifying whodunnit and whytheydunnit.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
You're talking about contemperaneous writings. Marbury vs. Madison is one you really, really need to pick up and look over. (And ponder: if the Supremes had the power to interpet the Constitution, why did they grant that power to themselves in Marbury? Try not to think about the logical problems inherent in a branch of governemnt deciding what powers it has. It gave Kurt Goedel headaches.)
The initial view of how things would work is that determining what was and wasn't Constitutional woudl rest in all three branches of government (this was why Presidents before Andrew Jackson only vetoed bills they thought were unConstitutional: the original use of the veto power was for that purpose, and Jackson just decided he could veto bills he didn't like, and the language of the Constitution did not forbid it), and if they failed, in the people, who would use jury nullification as a last defense against unConstitutional laws.
The reason why campaign finance laws are unConstitutional is because it is impossible to enforce them without getting into the business of vetting all publciations and mass media. George Bush recognized this when he was running for office (he said so in an interview with George Will) but, once he was in office, he was too cowardly to veto McCain-Feingold when it came in front of him: knowing Bush, he probably figured that the Supremes would shoot it down and give him poltiical cover.
The Supremes showed their usual sagacity, as previously displayed in cases like Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, and said McCain-Feingold was fine, by a 5-4 vote.
And now we're in a world where the FEC is going to limit spending on "political" blogs (guess what? You make a post in your livejorunal about how much you hate Bush (or Kerry, or Clinton) and your blog just became political) and where the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is going to try to shut down the speech of politicans they don't like by proposing blanket rules for blogs.
Don't worry. They're destroying the Constitution to save it!
They started by banning firearms. And before that measure has even been ratified, they turn to limiting free speech. Wake up people!
Do you honestly believe you can just hand the government your one page financial statement and be done with it? I am sure you will have to pay a filing fee to file that statement and it won't be a small one. As for the $1,000 in expenses, most computers cost more than $1,000 and your time is likely to be counted as well. Can you prove how much that computer is used for something other than the political website (remember, all idle time counts as time used for that website). Also if you spend more than 50 hours every three months on the site then you have spent over $1,000 on it assuming your time is worth $20 an hour (can you prove it is not?)
Let's assume for the moment that only 'well-regulated militia's can carry man-portable arms. I don't agree, but for the purposes of this argument, we will overlook that.
US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Hm. That would mean, at a bare minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, etc. Anything portable by "a man".
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks:
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
As for your funky 'shooting spree' comment, we already have laws that cover murder, etc.; no need to imply that without infringing firearm rights, we'd be legally sanctioning such offenses.
Yes I have read the law. Even though it is not intended to cover joe blogger it does because the law is broadly written. You aren't going to get very far in court by claiming "that law wasn't intended to apply to me" because the letter of the law is clear. Are you willing to fully indemnify any individual, non-affiliated sites that are concerned that this law does apply to them?
The two large cities I lived in both relied heavily on the fact that the local city politicians of both parties could do whatever they wanted without any news coverage.
The used this to waste an incredible amount of money (billions).
Parent speaks the truth and is not a troll.
Thanks GOD I will never put my feet on that shyttie country. THANK GOD!.
Now China is the best place on this focking planet!.
... and found people reading the FA and having rational discourse on the various interpretations and implications of the proposal! What is slashdot coming to?!
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
While you are wrong in regards to an individual's (not the states') God-given right to bear man-portable weapons, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are actually correct.
Who is a member of the militia? US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That would mean, at an absolute minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, switchblade knife, laser gun, etc. Any man-portable weapon (e.g., an "arm").
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks:
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
*waves the Second Amendment around as a battle flag*
It has to do with Legal Theory. Author's name: John Rawls. A law is considered a good law if it is Fair, Just and Reasonable. A bad law is one that is unfair, unjust and unreasonable.
Google on Rawls justice and find a wealth of information. After that crawl back under your rock you ignorant tard.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
MillionthMonkey wrote:
"Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment."
Not according to the text of the First Amendment itself:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is pretty simple and straightforward: Congress shall make *no law* abridging the freedom of speech. No exceptions are listed, nor even hinted at.
...only outlaws will 'blog.
The problem is that currently the checks on judicial power are not being exercised.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 put the appellate power of the court (the power Judicial Review comes from) squarely under the thumb of congress. Congress can not only regulate the appellate function of the court it can provide EXEMPTIONS(!)
I think the court has managed to be enshrined in such an aura of ultimate authority on constitutional matters that people wouldn't even believe that Congress is given a carte-blanche power to over-rule the court. Unfortunately with that check on judicial power taken off the table the court is essentially completely unchecked...
And, I'm sorry. the current unchecked state of their power DOES in fact show up as usurpation of both legislative and executive powers at all levels of government. For instance: In specific school desegregation cases courts have taken over executive power to the point of dictating precise tax rates and structures and precisely how the subsequent funds are spent. Who knew that the Federal constitution dictated the tax rate of Kansas City? Apparently though it does.
The courts don't of course "write laws" but they do rule on them through the lens of broad, general principles (platitudes really) rather than through anything in the specific text of the constitution. The problem is that vague principles leave decisions entirely up to the discretion of the person making that judgment. That is why vague laws are stricken down by the courts... the leave too much to the discretion of the executive. Well, the courts are subject to the same perfectly human temptation when interpreting a vague directive. It's even worse with the courts because they were the ones that conjured the vague directive out of the specifics of the constitutional text in the first place. The courts don't have the check on themselves in this regard that the legislature has in the courts.
Given (by themselves) very broad principles that touch just about every possible issue, and are even likely to conflict with one another in many cases the judges have no reason to ever let a law they personally disagree with stand. It's very easy for their personal judgments about privacy, liberty, property, separation-of-powers and all the other words that appear in constitutional platitudes dictate decisions. A judge bound by a constitution should often find themselves in the position of saying of a law: "stupid and wrong but (sadly) constitutional" or even "Great law, but (sadly) unconstitutional". Our judges no longer seem capable of such restraint. The vagueness of the principles we find in "penumbras" and other loopholes mean never having to.
For the past ~40 years this dynamic has benefited liberals who have won policy victories in courts that they couldn't win at the ballot box. But there is no reason to think that this trend will continue and good reason to think that a tide is already turning NOT to the judicial restraint of strict constructionism but to a "conservative" version of the same creative interpretation using the exact same loopholes. Witness Bush v. Gore. The ends clearly dictated the "interpretation" of the constitution in that case rather than any consistent application of principle (never mind that quaint anachronism: the written constitution). But in that regard it was no worse than most influential court cases of the last 50 years, the only difference was whose ox was getting gored (sorry for the pun).
I think with the switch of just one supreme court justice we will find a new liberal appreciation for "strict constructionism" just as Republican domination of the federal government has led to the new liberal attitude towards states-rights.
AC, your explanation of Marbury v.Madison is totally wack. I even double-checked my constitutional law outlines, and the holdings of the case. But you are all over the goddamn place, so it is hard to respond with a coherent argument.
The main holdings of Marbury v. Madison are that:
1) The Constitution establishes the fundamental and paramount law. Therefore, any act of the legislature that doesn't conform to it must be void by definition.
2) That the Judiciary is the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution and the law; if not, they would have to turn a blind eye to the legal foundation of the United States, that is, the Constitution, everytime a law in conflict with it was created by the Legislature.
If you are claiming that who has final say as to Constitutionality is not mentioned in the Constitution, you are correct. But since it is indeterminate, it was left up to the Judiciary to interpret what they felt the Constitution meant. Marshall made an assumption that the courts have the right to make the ultimate determination. But just as the Constitution doesn't name the Judiciary, nor does it name the other branches. There are practical reasons to think that Marshall's assumption was correct:
1) Federal judges, appointed for life, are free from day-to-day politicking (goes the story, at any rate).
2)The Legislature represents the majority, but the Constitution is designed to protect the minority, therefore it makes sense that intepretation would not fall to the Legislature, the most political branch of the government.
I have no idea where you got the idea that: "The initial view of how things would work is that determining what was and wasn't Constitutional woudl [sic] rest in all three branches of government (this was why Presidents before Andrew Jackson only vetoed bills they thought were unConstitutional: the original use of the veto power was for that purpose, and Jackson just decided he could veto bills he didn't like, and the language of the Constitution did not forbid it)."
If you are using Marbury as the foundation for this theory, you are pulling it out of thin air. I would like to know what text you are basing that on.
"Yes, I am a lawyer." - Star Jones
And why should you pay taxes for police who only stop you driving at 100mph on the freeway?
Truly liberal philosophy revolves around leaving people alone to do what they please. Now if you do that eventually some will rise to great wealth and others will spend everything down to the last dime. This makes liberalism inherently distant from socialism.
I think strict gun control is a compromise of liberal principles - eg. the US founders believed in a right to bear arms as one of their core liberal values. Give people guns and as long as they use them lawfully liberals say A-OK!
- If you're talking about pr0n on the Internet, they'll tell you that the First Amendment is designed to protect political speech, and that it doesn't apply to indecent or obscene speech.
- If you're talking about tobacco advertising, they'll tell you that the First Amendment doesn't apply to commercial speech, only non-commercial speech, especially political speech, and that we have to ban tobacco advertising to Protect the Children.
- But if you're talking about campaign financing, well, no, no, Elections are WAYYYY too important to allow unrestricted political speech, especially speech that people pay to print or broadcast.
- And anonymous political speech? We certainly can't have that at all! Why, people could say Bad Things about our Politicians, and the public wouldn't know not to believe them!
- And anonymous non-political speech? Unnamed Administration Sources say that that technology is too dangerous, because somebody might use it to talk about politics without filling out campaign finance papers, or to express terrorist opinions. Oh, or pr0n.
It's bad enough to hear this kind of demand for censorship coming from sources like "Right-Wingers For A Politically Correct Tomorrow!" But this is San Francisco, a city that's famous for hippies, rock&roll, beatniks reading subversive poetry, underground newspapers, anarchist bookstores, and proximity to Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement advocated the right to stand on top of a car with a bullhorn and call the [expletive-deleted] University Administration and the [expletive-deleted] Governor Ronald Reagan a bunch of [Expletive deleted][expletive-deleted]s.And if the Supes can't figure out that the First Amendment applies to political speech in all forms, well then [expletive deleted], it's time to start a blog just to advocate throwing the [expletive deleted] bums out.
And you don't get your stinkin' papers, either - only journalists working for established journalism businesses get press passes (except for the White House, where the Department of Toady Affairs can arrange them.) And by the way, if you're planning to enter the US and you're hoping that calling yourself a Journalist will get you better treatment, it turns out that foreign journalists have technically needed special journalist visas since the McCarthy witch-hunt days...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
slippery slope this is. accept this and how long until your blog is regulated? this must always always always be watched out for.