Slashdot Mirror
Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House
Fox Cutter writes "Today in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of 'public communication' in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002." If the bill passes, this would free the internet from FEC regulation.
Well, I'll be darned. After squirming over action items like "supporting the President in the War on Terror" and "Cracking Down on Indecency", I was concerned. We got a letter recently with a checklist of priorites, which included several of the buzzwords being bandied around by the radical right ever since they disguised fear and hate as "Moral Values" to win the 2004 elections.
And then, Jeb Hensarling (R - Athens) goes and opens the door to "these newcomers to our political process [...] bloggers and online activists." (from TFA). And in a show of rare bipartisanship (on an issue not involving oil or war), he's partnering with a leading Democratic Senator. And some of the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation will be third-party bloggers, Greens, Libertarians, and all the rest.
It's as if he has a sense of civic duty. Maybe it's possible, even today. After all, there are an awful lot of "R"s in Texas who were "D"s in a previous life.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
The chances of the government voluntarily passing up a chance to regulate the government is only slightly less improbable than them passing up a chance to solicit more taxes.
In short, this is a pr move; nothing to see.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
What's to stop the creation of another internet-specific regulation, which can flex its muscle solely on internet publication without worrying about collateral damage?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what possibly can?
especially after all the attention blogs have been getting lately.
This is what happens when the government tries to regulate speech. No, I'm not talking about the Internet, but campaign contributions which really is free speech in action. This band-aid solution shows how much the Campiaign Finance Reform censorship of the government has backfired, big time. We shouldn't need this provisions if some people in the government stopped trying to stop "big money" in campaigns, when it's really just another way for the incombents to stay in power and keep others from entering politics.
How could it be that a Republican introduced a piece of legislation like this? From my slashdot mind-meld, I was taught that all Republicans are evil and wish to take away all of my rights. Oh yeah... and they're ignorant of the internet.
Flame on!
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
A bunch of private citizens talking to each other over a non-government (aka private) network.
Watch the push-pollers start speed-dialing your cellphone via VOIP.
Yeah. Let's make a giant loophole to allow money to horribly distort rational political discourse. Spreading lies about the other candidate? No problem, as long as you do it on the internet. Is it any wonder this was promoted by republicans?
The short summary given in the article makes this out to be a very good thing. I understand how preventing the FEC from regulating the internet is a good thing but what's this about the internet not being considered public communication? It seems to me that the internet covers both public and private communication. Webpages without access control are certainly public, are they not? Also... what exactly does it mean for something to be considered public communication? I'm not terribly familiar with the specific laws involved but I assume this is saying that public communication must be regulated in order to protect the public at large. Definitely not something we want.
Isn't this just room for a replacement?
I believe the avarage senate seat now costs over one million dollars. The president raised over $60,000,000 of hard money. The days of going door to door, meeting people is over. The days of long talks about what you believe and why is over. The new 30 second soundbyte is in, and the negative attack ads.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The chances of the government voluntarily passing up a chance to regulate the government
Are much greater when doing so means that legislators get to keep their jobs. If they pass a bill knowing that it is an unconstitutional regulation of speech, their behinds are on the line at the next election.
The Supreme Court ruling that the existing legislation was constitutional? The precedent has sadly already been set, that's why this bill is trying to lessen the damage.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Im sure there is some evil plan behind this.
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
Next we need to free the internet from RIAA regulation >.>
Apathy, the hallmark of the centrists, means that this will be all but unopposed. Then because it's patently ludicrious, and completely impossible to bring out of fascist candyland into the real world, the "activist judges" will smack it down. And kick it and spit on it for good measure. Hannity will turn off someone's microphone, Jon Stewart will make fun of it and reaffirm his status as a modern day folk hero, only to win the presidency in 2016 as a write-in candidate. In 2018, a diplomatic gaff by vice president Lewis Black will start a war with canada. And by 2020 hockey will have have replaced baseball as America's passtime and our porn industry will be experienceing what will come to be called the "Alberta Gold Rush." I saw we just let what will be be, and burn down that bridge if it comes to it.
More money in politics, yeah!
I say 'you' because I'm here in Canada where we still have a semblance of democracy left. Or so I thought, but recently a classic and rather large scale case of political corruption has been uncovered here (Tom Delay style).
The one good thing I can find in this whole affair is that people here don't seem to have accepted this sort of corruption here to the degree they have in the states.
And if it had been introduced by a Democrat, you'd be singing it's praises from the rooftops.
"All hail the Democrats! The see the true power of free speech!"
Oh wait. It was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. D-Nevada
The bill introduced by Hensarling is a companion bill in the House. Bipartisanship in action.
Perhaps... perhaps we shouldn't /. this as "good news". I know we all hate M$, and love linux, and hate sw patents... but maybe we should sit down a sec and think about what this bill is doing.
/. "hypocrisy is ok as long as it agrees with me" logic should take a back seat to common sense. Giving extremist political groups more room to shout their message for money is another thing we all think is "a bad thing(tm)" right?
The Internet is "not" a public communications medium, so... it's a cheese bagel?
This is not about free speech, free speech is letting me say what I think w/o going to jail. This is about the net as a political medium.
That said, I am not against this bill, but the
I disagree with the supreme court ruling that says $ = speech, because that implies rich people have a louder voice than poor people, which seems not so good.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
If politics on radio and TV should be censored, then the Internet should be censored too.
The entire campaign finance law needs to be repealed. Not modified. Not limited. Repealed.
Restore freedom of speech before it's too late.
Click here to donate through my PayPal Account!
Please select the amount:
[ ] $50,000
[ ] $150,000
[ ] $250,000
[ ] Supreme Court Seat
With the internet, I can see money being raised in foriegn countries, then having websites promoting candidates unregulated on the internet. So what if there is a $1,000 maximum on individuals contributing to candidates. Who is going to stop China from helping Clinton get elected http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1smXmfU5JwEJ: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000 /000/001/990axijx.asp+gore+china+fundraising+scand al&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
Everyone knows that money elects people, not idea's. Campaigns hire people to run advertising. They have buzz words, speeches filled with little phrases perfect for a 10 second soundbyte on the news. They make more negative attack ads than advertising about ideas. And often those negative attacks can be ridiculous lies, but they work.
Right now, China can't buy commercial space on TV for promoting a candidate in a USA election. Who is to say they won't do just that with the internet? Or Isreal. Who is to say that Isreal won't secretly fund a candidate, then in return have weapons secrets leaked to them?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I'm all for campaign reform, but it just seems odd that anyone could limit 'public communication' with respect to the Internet. Granted banner ads add a whole new dimension to reaching an audience. Even if they could place restrictions on overt campaigning, its the shadow tactics that have more effect anyway. ie You can shape someone's opinion by what you don't print/say sometimes more than what you do. I myself read news from many sources and people I know and talk with point me to articles on all sides of the coin. Unfortunately some people out there can't get past their one news source. (Fox/CNN/blah/blah they all have a bias folks) But people aren't changing view at that point anyway.
Of course even if they did try and limit things. If they can't control porn/spam/gambling/etc on the net now, they sure as hell wouldn't be able to do anything about people blogging on servers outside the US.
It is a good start. First, the Internet. Next, make sure that all other media are free of the FEC censoring someone for expressing a view about a political candidate or issue.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Harry Reid? Minority Whip Harry Reid? Ain't the Democrats (along with a certain camerahogging grandstanding RINO) the ones who revoked the 1st Amendment in the first place with McCain/Feingold?
Sorry, but I'll wait a few days to see what sort of poison pill is buried down in the language of the bill before rejoicing too loudly.
How about a much simpler way to ensure the Feds keep their grubby paws off of our Internet?
Something with an old school charm in the phrasing. Dunno, how about:
"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."
And if that one doesn't work I guess there ain't anything to stop Democrats from stealing our liberties.
Democrat delenda est
It is not about "giving", but it is about allowing others to express their opinions, despite our opinion that they are "extremist". Censoring? Now that is a "Bad Thing".
"I disagree with the supreme court ruling that says $ = speech"
$ is often speech, especially when we are talking about laws (McCain-Feingold) which cut off money as a means toward censoring political speech.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
As a centrist (look it up, there is such a thing), this bill is wrong from both sides. This is not a democratic or republican bill, its a political bill aimed at increasing the ability of the parties to rally their constituencies. Kinda like the US and USSR in the arms race, both sides think they can win with more money, more media, more influence.
This bill is in the interests of dems and reps, but not in the interests of normal human ppl who don't see every detail of the world as part of a huge ideological struggle. All 4 of us...
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
I tried searching around, but was unable to come up with the full text of the act this is proposing to amend. Call me paranoid, but without seeing the context, I can't feel jusified in having an opinion on the proposed amendment.
The Wikipedia article did link to a partial report, but I profess ignorance in how to decipher where Paragraph 22 is, if it's listed. Other links I've found seem to rely on a couple 404's at Cornell, subchapter I and subchapter II.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
We CANNOT let this bill pass AS IT IS NOW. While we WANT freedom (i.e., eff) and we WANT to see cute girls, WE CANNOT RISK the FACT that WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, i.e., rules, IT WILL BE CHAOS and ANARCHY.
WHO is to say that TERRORISTS won't use the internet to communicate now!? Who is to say that you won't find pictures of your son or daughter on the internet now!?
YOU MUST CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. DO NOT LET THIS BILL PASS AS IT IS NOW!!!!!!!!!!! We DO NOT want more 4chan or wtfux etc. WEBSITES running around. That will be chaos for society as a whole.
It was well known that M$ has purchased politicians. Remember when Clinton was in office, he ordered the department of justice to start anti-trust investigations against Microsoft. As soon as Bush was elected, he ordered Ashcroft to end those investigations.
One anti-trust law. Two administrations. Shouldn't the law be applied the same? Or did money get into the decisions?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
..completely...just to make sure it's not a poison pill in a candy wrapper.
...ps.. all other freedoms are forfeit."
I have visions of an act that says "users have x and y freedoms, isn't this a great act!
Remember the "Patriot Act"?
Big benefits to big money, little benefit for thee and me.
(and if people think the Repubs are the only big money party, look around a little)
An open letter to all political assholes.
Stay off our internet. We don't need you "running" it. We don't WANT you running it. Right now theres ALOT worse crimes going on in the real world (rape, murder, muggings and such). Which need solving before "OMG someone said I wasa jerk on a blog!" or "OMG He downloaded a song! 12 years in jail!".
Go fix the real world an leave the digital one to people who know about it, not just jerk off with it.
I like muppets.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution it says that freedom of the press is only allowed if what is being said it considered to be "fair" by the government. (the backers of the "Fairness Doctrine", which censors broadcast media that the government does not like, seem to think so). They must have a different Constitution. Any idea where I can get a copy of it?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Of course it would. The parent is actually demanding that the government give large sums of money to people like this who are already rich. His exact quote: "Every candidate running for a particular office should be allotted an equal amount of money that would be gathered from the public, most likely via taxes"
Talk about one of the worst wastes of money ever!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Isn't it nesting season soon?
I know dems can't handle free speech. However your defense of censorship is thoroughly amusing.
This isn't a freedom of speech campaign, this is trying to get PAC money on the Internet and not allow restrictions. Basically it allows campaigns to do what they can't do now, pay for "free speech."
I don't see freedom in this. I can still blog away, as long as I am not accepting regulated campaign funds to do so. People bat this around like they are making us more "free" when all it does is allow the guys with money to influence our true freedom of speech.
This is like paying the New York Times to write a nice acticle about your campaign. The FEC doesn't allow that, nor should they allow money to influence one of the last bastions of true free speech.
Think about it people!!!!!!
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Another politician that thinks we need to reduce campaign regulation.
Wonder if he believes in freedom of speech for non-pols? Was he around when the votes came up for CDA and son-of? How did he vote?
(and if people think the Repubs are the only big money party, look around a little)
You mean Libertarians? They're just Republicans without a conscience.
In my experience as a 37 year old American, the only time I've ever engaged in long talks with people about what I believe and why were occurred during the three years I lived in Washington, DC. People inside the Beltway talk about this sort of thing all the time. You go into a bar and instead of asking someone what their sign is, you ask them who they work for and what their party affiliation is. Then you start arguing politics. It's quite fun, actually.
But even though I took a lot of PoliSci in college and have worked in the nonprofit and in federal government, the days of long talks about what I believed and why never existed outside my time in D.C.. In my experience the only people in America who are truly interested in the truly deep details of politics are people inside the Beltway, who have a much more sophisticated view of politics than you might imagine, because in order to get things done, they have to know the details.
For the rest of America, politics is unfortunately either a yawner or an excuse to shout about deeply-held beliefs without ever investigating the details. Negative attack ads have been a staple of political advertising for as long as I can remember, and they just keep getting worse, per your statement.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Actually from that story, people just don't want blogger's posting people's home addresses and such. From that very survey 52% of those asked said that they thought that bloggers should have the same protections as traditional journalists (27% did not). My guess is that if you ask people if newspapers should publish people's home addresses when they write stories about them, they'll say no there as well. I hardly think that people just feel that way about blogging. Personally I think that ZDNET story was poorly titled and sensationalist.
Media is speech (Constitutionally). Then it becomes "They regulate funding of speech, not speech itself". You are splitting hairs.
' Money != Speech '
That's a great argument you use when you push for cutting off funds in order to silence someone. There is no difference between money and speech when the money involves speech.
Look at Ol Jugears and his predecessors, especially the ones of much older days who had a lot of power. All they had to do was be born in a palace.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
COLONY
How is that relevant? Companies never say a word. However, individuals in these companies do talk, and they also have 1st Amendment rights.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Huh? I thought that the Bush administration were Republicans without a conscience.
It is their programming. They have a right to say whatever they want. Including opposing views is an editorial decision they might or might not make. It is exactly the same as the New York Times choosing to print whatever views they want in their editorial pages. (and whether or not you count CNN as an opposing view, it is one. Not that it matters).
"BTW, in case you haven't noticed, these guys are the establishment now. Playing the "poor little stomped on me" "
Freedom of the press does not go away even for a large company. Besides, anyone is "poor little stomped me" if the government threatens to muzzle them.
Here is Mario Cuomo making an argument against censoring broadcasters just because someone does not like their opinions: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."
I support the right of content-creators in all media (TV, internet, radio, newspaper, etc) to exercise control over the political content of their own material, even if someone does not like it and wants it censored.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Bad idea? Really? Who gets to decide which ideas are bad and which aren't?
Oh, right. The incumbents - R and D - in government. Naahh, they won't have any vested interest in squashing speech critical of the government.
I just read about them.
Dare I ask which ultra-conservative publication? (a given considering what you posted about them.)
They are one of these "astroturfed" interest groups formed mainly to censor those they do not like, such as the Sinclair Group.
Sigh. Media Matters is an organization headed by David Brock, formerly a part of the Republican propoganda machine, a true insider in the Republican party. They weren't too happy when he saw the light and jumped ship. (Read his book "Blinded By the Right" for more info).
The mission of Media Matters is to act as a watchdog- to highlight false or outrageous statements made DAILY by conservative pundits. MM generally cites the true facts behind these claims, and also does a great job of pointing out where certain "news" sites editorialize while trying to appear impartial.
Media Matters is a Web site and has no ability to "censor" anyone.
They are making the false accusation that the Sinclair Group is "abusing the airwaves"
The ultra-right wing Sinclair Group *is* abusing their ownership of the public airwaves. Just off the top of my head, there was the "news program" (ie, swift boat smear propoganda) about John Kerry they ran just before the election. Then there was the time they ordered their affiliate stations to not air the Nightline episode honoring the fallen American soldiers in Iraq. 97% of the Sinclair executives $68,000 campaign donations went to Bush, btw. Seems unbiased to me.
by expressing opinions that Media Matters does not like, and they are pushing for the government to censor the Sinclair Group.
They should lose their license. They have abused the public airwaves for long enough.
Whatever happened to tolerance for opposing views? Why must groups like this work so hard to get the government to censor those they do not like?
Please ask the Sinclair people, and then get back to me. Media Matters is bringing these issues, which otherwise few people would know about, to a public forum.
I am not a fan of the Sinclair Group, but I believe in the First Amendment, and that expressing political opinion on the airwaves is a Good Thing (tm) and is not "abuse".
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I suggest you do some research first. Media Matters is one of the very few sites that actually hold people accountable for the misinformation-- No, I'll say it, LIES-- they regularly spew on those right wing cable/radio crapfests and the conservative media that would-- and did-- otherwise get away with it.
Rally their constituencies? About issues they care about? About how they should be governed? Lordy, we can't have political parties doing that to the voters, now can we?
I'm sure we'd do so much better relying on such obviously unbiased news sources as Fox News and the NY Times to educate the electorate.
(Interesing how those two - among others - get a pass from campaign finance reform...)
I think that the point here is that the internet WOULD obviously fall under "public communication" as it's defined in the statute. They're trying to avoid that, because (insert your own reason involving the Illuminati/Majestic-12/Rosicrucians).
He's the power behind all the leftist and progressive 527 groups like MoveOn.org (ironic name, that) that pretty much set the agenda for the current Democratic Party.
And it appears he was also the impetus behind campaign finance reform. Then Mr. Soros spent something like $27 million of his own money to get W defeated.
Interesting. He cuts of funding to the Democratic Party, then offers another source of funds to same - himself.
Could billionaire Soros be looking for the best President that money could buy? Funny guy - how many millions of dollars did he make off currency speculation when the British pound was devalued?
This now means that you can't get in any legal trouble whatsoever for anything you say? Are you a mexican jew lizard? We can now state that with all of our pride!
George Carlin would be proud.
Memo to the Baker: The First Amendment protects claptrap.
"Once again we see that ignorance and a high user ID are strongly correlated."
Once again we see that ID number is directly proportional to IQ and respect for free speech rights....even for "claptrap".
Once again, here is that arch conservative Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It says simply
Now, let's google a little further for the bill that this bill amends. Strangely it's missing from any of the summaries I've seen. Ah, here it is (warning: large PDF).
Here's the text of the section being amended (431:22):
The last bit of emphasis I added. Just as an exercise, let's see how this would look as amended:
So, this bill would exempt all campaign regulation relevant to advertising spending so long as it was on the internet.
No, FEC, not FCC.
There is a reason we have an FEC and why it regulates campaigning. Exempting an entire communications medium may end up neutering the FEC entirely and seems unreasonable.
By analogy, let's say there was a lot of political activism on amateur radio. Great, your Congressman says: we should exempt all radio-based communications from FEC regulation. Oops--all of a sudden, TV and commercial radio are off-limits to FEC regulation.
I don't see why the Internet needs any special legislation here. Paid election-related activities on the Internet should be regulated the same way they are regulated in any other medium. And, yes, that may mean "registering a blog" if that blog was created for a PR firm that is getting paid millions of dollars for its work; astroturfing is, in some sense, worse than other kinds of commercial advertising.
Unpaid, personal activities should be unregulated on the Internet, and they should be unregulated anywhere else.
6 cubes of tennis balls, each 1000 tennis balls wide/across/deep, I'd guess a single ball is 3 inches?, so 3000 inches, or 250 feet each edge, almost the length of a football field.
Freedom is slavery, after all, and war is peace.
Along with freeing us from the bonds of cruel internet censorship, I hear they're also increasing our chocolate ration.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I was going to amplify what you said... but you said it perfectly. Indeed, it's dismaying that so many "pro-freedom" (or maybe "pro-Democrat") commentators are seeing this as a good thing.
People! When someone with A LOT of money (like incumbents) says, "Sure - this great tool should be used by EVERYONE!," how can you not think they're setting it up so they _themselves_ can take advantage of it?
You are correct in that this bill doesn't really benifit either party more than the next, but this is not designed to increase any ability. The bill is to restrict the powers of the Campaign Fiance Reform Act from extending into, not removing it from, the internet.
What most people are pissed off about is the fact that it does in fact regulate speech. You cannot run an ad in favor of or against a candidate within 60-90 days of an election. That means technically you can't run an ad in a local paper which might be something you and your buddies could easily pay for.
I could understand TV and radio ads that cost more than say.... $5,000 because you could argue that the average person couldn't be behind that. Yet the problem here is that eventually they can and will call your website hosting fees an expenditure for the purposes of this law. That means that if you make a flash ad for your site that's anti-Bush you're now in violation of the law.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This has been one of the least-informative posts I've seen on Slashdot. The exposition gives very little information, the links are just "this is a good thing!", the little editorial commentoid is useless, and people are responding without really understanding what's going on. No, I mean even worse than usual. But, dig around, and it becomes a little more clear. This proposal aims to prevent the Federal Election Commission from having any power to regulate political advertising on the internet. This means that, contrary to all other advertising media, a candidate or party with deep pockets could spend an unlimited amount to buy opinion online. Think how far $5 million could go to, for example, influence Slashdot. Is this really a good thing?
You didn't spell woohoo, right either. FCC
If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
I think campaign contributions, at least the way they occur in today's climate, are an influence that taints the political process - and that's putting it mildly. Corporations don't vote, and yet they make some of the biggest contributions. As such, a candidate is more likely to consider their interests over those of John Q Voter. Individuals can make large contributions, and even though this still sucks, I'd argue that it makes for a more representative process.
The whole problem is that people and entities with more money, have more access (and more influence) than people that don't have money. Last I checked, the government's role is to serve the interests of ALL citizens, not just those with money.
You are betraying your own extremism. In reality, there is no ultra anything that has a foothold in politics. For another, free speech is not abuse. To make a false claim that it is is usually part of a call for censorship.
If the spectrum is relative to inside of the states, yeah, certainly, there aren't any extreme groups with vast political power. However, in a wider context of ideologies, the States is very Right-Wing, and far from moderate. At least, that's the spectrum from my vantage point.
In other words, I'm defending his claim that they're ultra-rightwing, with my claim, substatiated from my point of view but far too hard to go into right here, that the organizations and people you're both referring to as "left-wing" are hardly as left-wing as they may relatively seem in the context of American politics.
But of course, my comments smack of idealism. And that's unacceptable when discussing politics, unless it's coupled with a rabid opinion . . . as you've pointed out, in your way, but I'm saying even your impartiality betrays a tremendous bias.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Simply enter your zip code and get all your representatives contact info.
http://www.vote-smart.org/
And remember, calls and _hand_written_ letters work 10,000 times better than emails.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Here's free speech, and the freedom to assemble.
Here's free speech and $1000 to tide you over (a legal personal campaign contribution).
Which speaks louder? This is what happens when political money gets into the Internet.
Yes, it's ostensibly one person, one vote, but one person or organization or funds transfer can shout far beyond a single voice.
The Liberty Amendments:
1) No campaign may accept contributions from outside of the political district represented, and non-personal transactions of any kind must be limited to organizations principally residing within that district
2) No contribution from any individual or organization in aggregate may exceed $100. No campaign for any elected office shall exceed $100,000 more than the salary paid to the elected office. All excess monies not directly used for campaign expenses shall be donated to the United States Treasury within one month after the election for that office. No funds raised may be used to pay for any family expenses other than personal travel, including actual cartage, actual hotel with reasonable per diem expenses, and reasonable food.
3) No political party or organization may transfer its funds to a specific candidate for elective office.
4) Monies spent to publically publish information about an issue or campaign shall be considered a contribution to that issue or campaign, and are subject to the limitations in Amendment One.
5) No foreign entity of any kind shall be allowed to make a contribution of monies, or materials to any elected office or political party or organization advancing the cause of an election or publically-voted issue.
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
Maybe we should try these.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The Internet is primarily end-to-end and takes place on a combination of public and private networks. The airwaves are considered fully owned by the public, and a broadcast hits every antenna it can reach.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
Ok, then...
Bush Bush Bush Bush, Dick Dick Dick Dick
Bush Dick, Dick Dick Dick
You're missing the point. This law is forbidding the FEC from getting involved with the matter. In other words, it is government saying, "We won't approach this; we don't have a right to."
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Time and or space? If someone buys time on a channel or space in a publication for political purposes, require them to provide equal time and or space to all of his political opponents for free. It kills two birds with one stone.
1: Free speech. The people with money get to say what they like about their opponents, and the people without money get equal exposure.
2: Fewer political adverts. There's then a disincentive for taking political advertising.
Deleted
"In 1970, one year after he was hired by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, an FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing classified information with an embassy official, while Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a U.S. weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an AIPAC staffer."
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3478
Although everyone is allowed to participate, fundamentally the Internet is just a collection of private networks, based upon commonly agreed-to protocols, which have coordinated interconnections to each other. It is a private construct. Furthermore, AFAIK, everyone who participates is bound by some contract with upstream providers, right to the backbone. Even "public" terminals, such as might be found in a library have,in theory, responsible supervision, meaning someone is responsible for misuse (ex. sending spam). It's also not something which can be regulated, because the Internet is a concept, not a thing. There are things, such as routers and links which the Internet uses, but the Internet per se is the actual communications between different private networks. It's ethereal.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Does anyone think the Congressman acted out of principle?
My bet is that his party saw how well campaign-paid blogging worked in South Dakota to upseat minority leader Tom Dashle. Basically, the Republican Party experimented with the internet this election and concluded that, yeah, we can work within this system to effectively spread propaganda.
So it comes down, as it does so frequently, to whether speech is free absolutely or whether outright lying should be prohibited (ala European laws) when there is a net social impact in how the lies influence the foolish. There is no clear answer. We prohibit false advertising claims in the U.S. all the time. Why not make it a federal offense to finance a blog that claims, for example, that presidential candidate John McCain has an illegitimate black baby?
Personally, I want to come down on the side of absolute freedom of speech. I just have the sinking feeling that I'm being played for a fool in doing so in this age of concentrated mass media.
When I read "Free Speech Act," I imediately thought "like the Clean Air Act protects clean air?"
Then I was pleasantly surprised to see it didn't.
Not that I don't support the first amendment in every facet, but why should the internet be different? Seems to me that either the old law should be stricken, or not.
What is "centrism"? When the Republicans want to put gay people in camps do you just settle for bisexuals? When the Democrats want to prevent Paris Hilton from getting yet another tax cut do you just settle for cutting her taxes on her sex videos?
What is this "centrism" which doesn't let it get yanked around by others? Is "centrism" really nothing more than being a fluttering flag in the wind?
the internet is such a new technology, i'm relieved we aren't going to have to wait as long as it took the Government to deregulate the radio.
"When you debate enough Republicans"
How many, exactly, is enough? No offense, but I don't need to debate a single one (although I've debated many) to see that the actions of the Republican party, and especially the actions of its leader, have been pretty damn evil. I direct your attention to the ridiculous, bald-faced lying concerning our reasons for being in Iraq. I would hope no reasonable person would deny that we went to Iraq, initially, fueled on the FUD surrounding the events of 9/11/01, misled by our President and his Republican government into believing that Iraq somehow was connected to those events. Even now, when I ask random people "Why are we fighting a war in Iraq?" they invariably say something about "Al Qaeda." Please. More heinous than that, though, are the new lies. The lies that say we are in Iraq to "free them" from their evil regime. That's so preposterous I can't even comprehend the notion that someone would believe it. What about North Korea? Or Iran? Those are some pretty goddamn evil regimes, much more dangerous to our interests than Iraq ever was. But, we aren't world police, so what the hell are we doing "freeing" people in the first place? Let me break this down for you: we sent American men and women over to Iraq to DIE, not for defending our freedom, not for upholding the constitution, but to "free" some other country from its own government? That is completely and utterly ridiculous, insane, nonsensical, etc.
There may be individuals who are Republicans, who are not "vampires," as you say, but supporting an evil cause still makes one evil, and that bad reputation which you so gallantly try to dispel is quite deserved.
Would this apply to newspapers, and radio and TV news? If so, that pretty much means that if the President is mentioned in the New York Times ONCE during the Campaign season, he's used up his campaign budget.
Or any candidate for said office. Which gives the New York Times Editor a great deal of political power - since any given candidate can only be mentioned once, and cannot campaign otherwise, it just takes some careful picking of the particular article: "Bill Clinton Accused of Rape", "George W. Bush Pardons Jose Padilla".
Note that retractions in case of error would be illegal, so the patent falseness of the latter article (Clinton WAS accused of rape, though of course there was little evidence and no conviction) would never be acknowledged, nor would the slanderous nature of the former be acknowledged.
This rule, of course, would completely muzzle use of TV in campaigning (which, if it had been in place in the distant past would have resulted in no Kennedy in the White House - remember that people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on radio though Nixon had won, people who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won), since the costs of TV commercials are far too high to fit within those budgets.
Which, of course, means no mention of any politics on TV news.
Alternatively, it might be argued that "the Media" would be exempted from this particular rule. Which STILL vastly increases their power, since their's would be the only unfettered voices in politics. Or it would be dealt with the old-fashioned way - if you want to influence politics, buy/build a TV station, and go to town, in an unregulated sort of way....
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
I especially like this rule. If I don't like someone, campaign against him, defaming him constantly. His election is held in abeyance forever! Noone gets to fill his seat! More power to every other elected official.
Alternatively, the President decides to acquire dicatorial powers - make sure defamation occurs in EVERY congressional election! So no House, no Senate, just the President.
Of course, if incumbents get to hold their seats until a valid election occurs, the incumbent has a great deal of incentive to defame his opponent (or make it look like his opponent is defaming him), since he gets to stay in office till the defamation stops (which stoppage would occur...NEVER, since I might lose an election, but I won't ever lose office if there is no valid election).
In other words, these ideas were not well thought-out. To say the least.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The 'laws' limiting campaign funding are passed by those who are both spending the money and the benefits of the expenditure. It's all about whether the law will give my camp an edge or not while reducing the overall costs to the camps involved. Of course if the money is there, so are the loopholes, as you've mentioned.
The proposals to limit internet political commentary are an attempt to balance the control of political speech in favor of the competing groups above and limit the chances of some 'wild card' calling the kettle black. loudly enough and long enough to wake people up.
It's great that legislation is about that might make other legislation to limit the 'wild cards' threat more difficult.
Sit in on some corporate board meetings and follow some legislation via the congressional record, through all the meetings and testimonies. It quickly becomes apparent that for the most part, everything is run in the context of self interest, held in check only by the fear of going too far and being found out. The only reasons the system doesn't fall apart is, this fear, the systems inertia, and the fact that most meetings between more than two people are non-productive.
God bless inertia, incompetence, and individual greed....without them we'd be in real trouble!
Wow. I would expect a bill called the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" to be something that establishes mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for the crime of blogging, etc... What's going on??
I believe this "protecting personal information" is a very clever disguise. Well, not really. I can see right through it. It seems to have riled up the natives a bit. First, it was censored because it violated IP law. Then, it was censored because it was classified "top secret". Then, it was cansored because it had no socialy, artistically, scientifically redeeming value. After that, it was censored to protect personal information. What's next, eh? Keep it up, and you all will become mute.
What?
Good points. In #4, perhaps the insertion of the phrase accredited news agency as an exception. In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down. Just thoughts.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I'm a Republican. After your law goes into effect, I'm going to get 1,000 of my closest friends to pay $100 each for the hosting of my "Hilary08.com" website. Since the President's salary is about $200,000 last time I checked, and she only gets $300,000 total for her campaign, I just used 1/3 of her warchest. Did I mention that the site will be very poorly done, contain gems like "Vote for Hilary because she doesn't look good in purple", and only be viewable in Netscape 3?
Yeah, I know that $100,000 is rather expensive for a year of webhosting. Did I mention that I coincidentally own that business? Not to worry, though - I plan to use the $100,000 of profit to throw a little party for my 1,000 closest friends as a business expense. Granted, you might be able to get a judge to issue an injunction against me, but I live in a Red State and it might take until sometime in December '08 before you're able to find one that accepts your claims.
I wouldn't ordinarily say this so bluntly, but your idea is stupid and has no redeeming qualities. Never in the history of government has someone managed to write a censorship law that only censors the groups they oppose. The same laws that would neuter the mean, nasty Republicans will also choke the Greens, Libertarians, and Democrats. The real solution to "problematic" speech is always to allow more speech. Always. To believe otherwise is to make your high school civics teacher cry.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So, who gets to "accredit" news agencies? The government? What a wonderful way to reinforce "Congress shall make no laws..."! We change things so that that is synonymous with "Congress shall regulate every aspect of..."
Seriously, that's just more incumbent protection. The accrediting authorities are chosen by people who have a vested interest in the accreditation favouring them. So if I'm on the committee to choose the members of the accrediting authority, I have a powerful incentive to choose like-minded people, so the news agencies are in my pocket. At least....
In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down.
So, if I can make it look like my opponent did the defaming, I get elected automatically? Great idea! That'll make politics much more entertaining.
Just thoughts.
Bad ones. ALWAYS consider ways the system can be gamed when looking at politics. because it WILL be gamed. Right now, our Political Parties are gaming the system by setting up Congressional Districts to ensure safe seats (and occasionally to remove the district entirely of a particularly able opponent).
Not that this is a new problem, but the current problem is enhanced by Justice Department requirements that a certain number of Congressional Districts by black-majority. That requirement makes it all but certain that some or all of the remaining Districts be, how shall I say it, fancifully drawn...
It is inevitable that money "contaminate" politics. Or do you really believe that you'd care enough to vote in an election where you had no clue who the candidates were? Restricting political expenditures are intended primarily to enusre that some or all candidates have little or no name recognition. So, candidates spend money to increase their name recognition. Live with it.
In other words, even if the system works poorly, I doubt seriously that you (or anyone else in /.) is wise enough to come up with a better system.
By the way, that I don't entirely disagree with the original six points. Nor do I endorse the ones I have not previously mentioned. The only one I endorse even a little is number five, which is completely unenforcable (and redundant to number one, as well), since it requires that foreigners outside the USA abide by our campaign-finance laws.
Note that a Brit who bought a "GW Bush is teh debhil" commercial to air on BBC would be in violation - good luck on prosecuting him, or on convincing the UK to restrict his rights for you.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You use absolutes, where they're silly.
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually.... not the canned packaging of nitwits we have now. Lincoln said (as others) that it's important that people know the truth. What we have today is propaganda, marketing, and "issue warfare"-- primed by the greed of money in politics. People confuse capitalism with democracy, and they're two different things; one is a economic system, the other, a political system. Combined, they can do good but also skew each other.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature (see Chomsky and Campbell). While there's nothing inherently wrong with blogging or web content, it can become a part of obscured intent, and obscured intentions. Anonymity, one of the pillars of the web, obfuscates political speech in ways that again, skew the rights of individuals as voters versus aggregated intentions whose origins and context therefore blind the reader. This is bad. Context is a part of speech. Exemption, while superficially the allying of free speech, instead, obscures it.
Campaign contributions are out of control. Political parties fear criticism; look at the arrest situation for protesters in both Boston and New York during the presidential election last summer. This polarization inhibits contrasting views and posits that there are only two choices, where there should be more. This is what gives us red vs blue. It's contrived, and a sham.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
'That will be awful waste of taxpayers money. my 2 cents.' probably something like that, maybe a few more, depends how tax evasion works out.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
but the riaa isn't a regulating body? oh wait, they have the riaa 'enforcers' who dress up like swat teams and 'storm' premises where they belive there to be breaches of riaa doctrine.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
You use absolutes, where they're silly.
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
You are now arguing that "Congress shall pass no law..." really SHOULD be rewritten as "Congress shall tightly control all aspects of...". Sorry, I can't buy that.
Perhaps you're not thinking clearly about possible ways to take advantage of sweeping restrictions on freedom of political speech. Let me spell it out for you:
1) No minor party will EVER become a major Party under these rules. Simply because the current major Parties would be in absolute control of the process of handing out "exceptions".
Once either major Party reaches a critical mass (61 Senators, a simple majority of Representatives, plus the President), the other major Party will NEVER win a meaningful election. Again, the ability of the politicians in power to grant "exceptions" would allow for the complete breakdown of the system.
An imposed limit of ~$300,000 for ALL campaign expenditures by ANYONE for a single election means that the candidates have negligible ability to get their message out. NOT an enhanced ability, but a LESSENED ability. How will you tell people what you believe when it takes every dime of your legally mandated budget to finance ONE 30 second spot in ONE major market?
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually
How many people live in California? 50 million or so? How many of them will a candidate for the Senate be able to meet in six months? 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 26 weeks, 30 minutes per crowd, 10,000 people per crowd...hmm, if we get that extreme, then the candidate could actually be in the same place as all the voters.
Of course, rental of wherever it is the speeches are to be held, plus transport to-from same will eat up his budget in the first couple weeks, so cut that back to a more realistic 1% of the potential voters...Yeah, that'll make things more face to face.
Do you know why candidates do sound bites and propaganda? Hint: because there isn't enough time or money to do more, even with the free-spending system currently in effect.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature
Of course, we're not actually talking about identifying the authors. We're talking about forbidding the expenditure of more than about $300,000 by ALL interested parties on behalf of a candidate. So, for instance, *I* can sabotage someone's campaign by buying a TV commmercial advocating his election - there's the $300,000, and he is now legally forbidden to spend ANYTHING on his own behalf.
It is arguable that anonymity is a good thing in politics. Of course, the people who argue it is a bad thing usually have no problems with things like the Pentagon Papers, or other whistleblowers. Who frequently act anonymously to prevent retribution.
One might also note that in 2004, the nation spent rather less than $2 billion on the Presidential election. A whopping $6 per person. Which, interestingly, is about 20% of what I expect to spend taking my family out to dinner tomorrow evening. Hardly an outrageous amount of money...
Frankly, people who want to shred the First Amendment in the name of "Campaign Finance Reform" frighten me every bit as much as those who want to shred the Second.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
There's no shredding. These aren't and never have been absolutes. What we have is a case where speech isn't free. It's bought and paid for. It construes the fact based on money spent, not the individual characteristics of the electorate and the elected.
To exempt the Internet opens up still another route around the concept where $$$ elects candidates, not the issues or the public's sentiments about them. Campaign financing reform is a ruse, as it's applied today. The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Limiting contributions can work. You can see your favorite politician at an arena-- instead of the publically financed ball game playing there. No, not everyone can have a sit-down discussion. Alarmingly few ever make it to Washington, let alone go up on the hill for an up-close-and-personal visit with a politician. I have, and on numerous occasions though I live more than a 1000 miles away. I've also sent letters, emails, and signed petitions. These have unlikely done much good, but they're a part of participatory democracy. People don't care about democracy anymore; the fervor of taking issues and really understanding them has been reduced to sound bites on RSS feeds.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office. Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That's a really good point. Politeness is definitely the social lubricant that keeps us all from going homicidal at one another. I definitely wouldn't say that politics should be the most important topic of everyone's discussions. But I do seriously wonder if the topic of politics has become so charged and polarized these days that people are less willing to talk about it than they were in, say, the 1970s or 1950s. I think social cohesiveness moves a bit like a pendulum, and we're currently in one of those phases (like the late 1960s) where politics has become so extreme that to even bring it up can provoke recriminations.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
> he whole problem is that people and entities with more money, have more
> access (and more influence) than people that don't have money. Last I
> checked, the government's role is to serve the interests of ALL
> citizens, not just those with money.
Except you are forgetting an important detail. We little people already have a way to compete, it is called the PAC. Why do you think we slashdotters donate to the EFF? So they can combine our $20 contributions and not only speak Truth to Power, they can do real lobbying. The NRA has stood up to determined and well funded efforts to eliminate the 2nd Amendment powered mostly by small annual memberships. Same goes for the AARP, labor unions, Greenpeace, etc. on every portion of the political spectrum. Yes Exxonmobile can fund its share of like minded congresscritters, but so can the Sierra Club.
And it isn't JUST the money a PAC can wield, the fact they have so many REGISTERED VOTERS fired up enough to write a check does not go unnoticed by any congresscritter who plans on making elected office a longterm career choice. Texaco can money launder you a hundred thousand dollars, Greenpeace can hook you up with fifty thousand in cash AND a mailing list of a few thousand registered voters from your district to draw additional contributions and campaign workers from.
Democrat delenda est
Ok, I overlooked the PAC. So the little people have PACs, the big people have their own money, and then there's corporate money. With all this money floating around, where's the net benefit? I'd argue that there is none. Sure, the candidates get to spend more time engaging in the typical soundbite circus that characterizes most elections, but to what end? So John Q. Voter hears for the *50th* time that one candidate is better than another, justified by abstract, unrealistic promises that are never kept. So what? Just so some politician can assure his continued employment?
That's another problem. The political process should be returned to the notion of service . That is, serve the country for a term or two, and then get out. It would put an end to the pathetic empire-building, deal-making, etc. that is all too common.
Then why not let the people decide? Leave the government out of it. Also, your argument is rather false. I am in an area where TV stations outnumber newspapers. This makes newspapers a "limited resource". Time to censor them?
" stewardship of OUR airwaves, these companies agree to serve the public interest."
Which is something they best do by expressing opinions freely. If they don't serve the public interest, the ratings go down.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They do, actually. They advocate pressuring the government to censor the Sinclair Group. They are very intolerant of differing opinions.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Others properly pointed out that Sinclair pays a lot of money to operate, and it is not a recipient of welfare. However, even if your false assertion were true, no-where does the Constitution deny welfare recipients free speech rights.
Again, and again, you are looking for a flimsly excuse to strip people of their Constitutional free speech rights. Why not face up to the fact that there are people who do not agree with you, and will express different opinions? Can you live with this without pushing for getting them censored?
Final word on this one:
1. Read the Cuomo quote. Anyone who is any sort of civil libertarian would think it is great.
2. Read the Bill of Rights. There is no exception made in the first part "....except for claptrap."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How about this idea: the public interest is best served when it comes to the airwaves by ensuring that basic Constitutional rights are preserved, even on the air.
Treating airwave freedom the same as newspaper print freedom is the best way for this. If there is any problem, it should be solved by the government granting many more licenses, not by the government censoring.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
That is it exactly. There is one guy on Slashdot who actually made the argument against the Fairness Doctrine: if radio stations did not express opinions they wanted, they'd better go back to airing music instead. I've seen this elsewhere. It is clear from him and many others that the "Fairness Doctrine" is not about fairness. It is about censoring undesirable opinions, even if it means censoring all opinions on the way to it.
Also, it was not only "losing their licenses". The chilling effect was to the point where if you aired something controversial, an intolerant twit could petition the government to demand "equal time" at the station, in which case the intolerant twit has now become the station's program manager. What station wants this? Why not air music, as to keep outsider boneheads from micro-managing your schedule?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Too much of it is paranoia and non-existent overarching conspiracies. The Right has done books like this, as well. Realize where Brock is coming from now. He's a hardcore partisan. When he was blinded by the Right, he engaged in one-sided bashing of the Left. Now he has been blinded by the Left, and he is doing the same sort of thing the other way. The guy is an unstable individual: look for him to flip back the other way again sometime, losing more and more credibility with each flip between "angry obnoxious left-winger" and "angry obnoxious right-winger".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Make that into "have you ever taken tax money to say something" and it looks a lot less meaningless.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The marketshare claim is irrelevant. Even if it were true, since when do you lose freedom of speech because you are popular? A little more relevant is the fact that Sinclair owns a tiny minority of the total TV stations out there.
Let's look at the facts. As of the end of 2003, there were 1,733 full-power TV stations in the United States (a href = "http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting _fcc_fullpower_tv/">source). Sinclair owns 49 stations (from Sinclair's own site). Do the math.
Sinclair controls less than 3% of the TV stations in the country.. It is a baldfaced lie to claim that they control a significant part of broadcast bandwidth.
"This is not a "free speech" issue"
It is nothing but a free speech issue. Sinclair said something. You do not like it, and want them censored. You even think that free speech is a "privilege". Surprisingly, refuting this is similar to the censorship war against "Clear Channel". I'd never heard them or heard of them until the fight to deny their first amendment rights a year or two ago. One of the frequent claims was that they were a monopoly. The station ownership facts for them shows that they control less than 8% of radio stations.
It used to be that the term monopoly meant anything. Now it means "anything I do not like, no matter how small". 8% and 3% are rather small. No amount of "I hate Sinclair so I want them censored, Constitution and facts be damned" lies can get around that.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They easily could. There is a lot of unused bandwidth, and through packet and other technologies, many channels could share one Channel 13. This is the kind of change that would be more worthwhile, instead of pointless V chips, "you must use HDTV" and broadcast flags.
Yet, this is not being done. Still, you have more than 80 VHF and UHF channels. In any one market, only a few of these are being used.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This will never happen...it would enhance freed of speech...that will never happen...it's against the Communist Manifesto!
... tick ... tick ... tick ... tick ... tick ...
The revolution is coming
Andy Out!
point by point:
Quebec doesn't have any laws banning personal communications, it's a public-domain law that insists that you must have French in a vast range of types of advertisement, signs, etc . . . it certainly doesn't ban other languages, merely insists (somewhat arrogantly, I won't deny) that for any official/commericial kinds of communication (storefronts, etc) you have to include French. Other languages are optional. A bit draconian, but they're holding on as tight as they can to a culture that's been slipping out from under them for hundreds of years now . . . and, might I point out, other than that Quebec is very left-wing. Talk about welfare state, wow. And all the other little things, like acceptence of homosexual unions, rights for minors, and so forth.
The others I can talk about less; for the Netherlands, it's usually more the decision to stop treatment/support, not actual execution; other than that it's generally consentual (not necessarily from the person, more from legal guardians . . . you can still argue it's wrong, yes, but the way you put it gives an incorrect impression of the specific nature of it, as if there was some sort of systemic execution of those who are disabled. All this being said, there is severe objections within the Netherlands; here's a link to a paper, written in and for the Netherlands but hosted on a Right-To-Life website in the states . . . note how the sides are set, however). As for France, many idiots does not a cultural identity make . . . and Europe, alas, has a terrible history of anti-semitism (we've managed to mostly shake it here in the new world, but we too still carry some of the baggage). And Austia is actually rather Right-Wing; furthermore, there's recently been quite the resurgence of that side of the political spectrum in many places in Europe, despite the American view of Europe as flower-child hippy liberals.
Feel free to bring up more concrete examples, though; the discussion of societal biases is always something valuable to debate.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
I think we've established our grounds here, but I think I should at least clarify one point: I DID mention the advertising thing. When I said personal communication, I meant something more "peer to peer" . . . anything like advertising is regulated, yes. In the same way that it's regulated nearly everywhere else for content . . . in the case of Quebec, these regulations include the restriction that all advertisements must be in French, but they do not prohibit other languages like English, they just can't be the only language. Much of the time this results in little things, like advertisements all throughout Canada which have both French and English. In Quebec, they're just very obsessive about their language. In the States or most countries, it's no problem, the predominate language has no fear of being overrun (or at least, no readily visible threat is present), Quebec is in a very unique set of circumstances. Most countries don't need to restrict things like advertising as far as languages go; if someone advertised in French in Ohio, they'd find it quite ineffective. These kinds of situations don't arise many places (though France itself is, as much as it differs from and looks down upon Quebec, doing some of the same things from my knowledge. Must be a french-speaking thing).
And other than that, as I pointed out, Quebec is very left-wing. See, that's the thing. Where something falls in the political spectrum can't just be decided by one single part of its politics, the spectrum is a pretty over-simplified way of looking at it anyways. And furthermore, it's quite possible for parties and peoples and countries to be all over the map in different areas (thus, you could argue that Quebec is ultra-right in its language laws, but that doesn't stop all of it's progressive policies from being astonishingly left-wing even compared to NDP-run provinces in Canada).
And, err, I hope you were just making a joke and knew what I meant by homosexual unions . . .
Anyways, whatever; the idea of the political spectrum is so hilariously at odds with the actual complexity of the world, I can only feel terribly foolish for establishing it as part of my line of argument originally.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Umm, Free Speech is about Freedom, not about Price.
The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Of course they were - I guesstimated California's population based on what I remembered of historical trends regarding same, and used it in its entirety, rather than guesstimating number of registered voters. For the pedantic, there were 16,557,273 last general election, out of 22,075,036 eligible voters.
Adjusting my statements for the correct numbers, we can change the "1%of the potential voters" to "3% of the potential voters". Note that 97% of the voters don't get to hear ANYTHING about you, still - since ANYONE mentioning your name comes out of your $300,000.
Of course, you esteemed incumbent opponent need merely create a "Bill to Mandate English as the Only Legal Language" (or Spanish), and get mention in every paper in California.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
Yes, actually it is. Free Speech (as in Freedom, not Price - where *have* I heard that phrase before?) is all about everyone saying whatever they'd like. Not about YOU deciding what is legal for them to say. If everyone cansay what they will, the truth will out. If virtually everyone is muzzled, it won't.
Keep in mind that your plan WILL be used against you by and by. If it were passed, and it passed Constitutional muster (it won't, and it won't). Because everyone involved WILL look for ways to take advantage of it to their own best interests. Not YOUR best interests, but their best interests.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office.
Likely enough. Of course, the Framers didn't intend the Congress/President to have much real power - they assumed that virtually all government would be done at the State level. You ready to go back to that mode? No EPA, no Education Department, no Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no WIC? No Federal Reserve Bank, no FDIC, no FSLIC?
Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
Two billion is horrendous??? It took me half an hour this last year to earn my family's share of the entire four years worth of Presidential campaigning! When measured over a four year election cycle, it's around 1/220th of one percent of our GDP. It's utterly inconsequential, given the power of the Office.
Sure, if all the President could do is sign the odd Treaty now and then, and open a bridge, it might be a bit extreme. But the US government has changed a lot since FDR got hold of it in 1933 (he's the only President who got an Amendment passed to prevent anyone else from doing what he did, you know). Instead, we have on Office that, at least theoretically, has an impact on everyone on the planet. Is an office like that worth $2 billion? It's worth a damn sight more than that, frankly.
And note that the $2 billion wasn't spent by any one candidate, but in aggregate by all of them (and the PAC's, the 527's, everything)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So each geographical area should have 3 or 4 channel 7s or 13s? Spectrum is like land, they ain't making anymore of it.
That may of been true yesteryear but with technology today using the same spectrum, station or channels can be closer together thus increasing the number of possible broadcasters without experiencing interference.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
I don't know about how long it takes but the '80s conservative, seeking a small and limited government, was at one tyme liberal. That's what Thomas Jefferson was, a Liberal, and believed in a small and limited government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Please remember that not all Republicans are God-exploiting neocon fucks. Some of them still stand for the positive things Republicans stood for before Reagan.
Ah, you mean Libertarians? Before Nixon came along, that's what Libertarians were, for the most part they were Republicans.
FalconShould there be a Law?