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.
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.
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.
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.
I believe the avarage senate seat now costs over one million dollars. The president raised over $60,000,000 of hard money. The days of going door to door, meeting people is over. The days of long talks about what you believe and why is over. The new 30 second soundbyte is in, and the negative attack ads.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The Supreme Court ruling that the existing legislation was constitutional? The precedent has sadly already been set, that's why this bill is trying to lessen the damage.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Sorry but... why pass a law to establish the first fucking amendment? Here's an idea Congress, how about some bills that prevent censorship of TV and radio.
And if it had been introduced by a Democrat, you'd be singing it's praises from the rooftops.
"All hail the Democrats! The see the true power of free speech!"
Oh wait. It was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. D-Nevada
The bill introduced by Hensarling is a companion bill in the House. Bipartisanship in action.
Perhaps... perhaps we shouldn't /. this as "good news". I know we all hate M$, 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.
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.
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.
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."
Oh that was America 1.0. We're living in the New and Improved(tm) America 2.0, where the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says -- it was just joking and a little drunk when it said what it did. By "freedom of speech" it was referring to how, you know, hound owners teach their dogs to sound like humans. By "right to keep and bear arms", it of course meant ARMS. You know, silly-billy! Those things connected to your torso with the hands on them. I can't say any more -- the FEC might be waNO CARRIER
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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.
" If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what possibly can?"
They're just trying to get themselves out of the hole they dug when they passed the Campaign finance reform laws. Someone pointed out that these laws should apply to the internet as well, so they decided to make up some nonsense about the internet not being a tool for public communication so it is not affected by the campaign finance laws.
Vote for Pedro
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.
Republicans are generally against campaign finance reform, even though republican John McCain started this whole mess. Bush only reluctantly signed it.
What's more important is the slashdot mind-meld. I'm a Republican and a poster on Slashdot for only a few months. It is true that I sometimes cringe and laugh out loud at posts here. But that is the world we live in, and for every "Bush=Hitler" post there are many more with thoughtful criticisms of GWB that are worth reading and responding to. When people engage in such debate, there is at least a tacit level of respect between all parties concerned. When you debate enough Republicans, you realize that although you disagree with them, they are not vampires, and you can have them as friends and colleagues. Again, through debate, you realize that I'm not evil, that I don't run over kittens with my Hummer for fun, and that I love it that both I and the people who disagree with me completely can debate.
Oh yes, I also use Firefox. That at least will get me a good mod.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
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
So, if the opinion does not agree with yours, it must be censored? No, they are our airwaves. The government has rightly seen to it that this "medium" is much like the newspapers, with freedom of content. Also, last time I checked, it was free speech for someone to say that their opinion is true.
"All I'm asking for is to present both sides as just that -- opposing views"
You can ask, but you cannot force your views onto someone else.
"Moore offered Sinclair his movie for free. If they were truly interested in political neutrality, they'd play F9/11 right after Stolen Honor."
So? Who said that "Sinclair" was political neutral? I certainly did not. I don't think they are. All I am doing is defending their right to make their own programming decisions, regardless of someone's opinion of neutrality. If someone were calling for the censorship of Dan Rather (assuming he was a liberal bogeyman), I would defend him as well.
"Again, you might own the licence to the spectrum, but they're everyone's airwaves. Respect that"
Yes. Allow the maximum freedom of expression on them. That is thebest use. Again, a great quote by 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.". He made it in opposition to censoring. electronic media.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The spectrum is limited. The spectrum belongs to the people. The spectrum is licensed temporarily to broadcasters for use in the public interest. Anyone acting outside the public interest is subject to having their license revoked.
The Internet is unlimited. The Internet belongs to no particular person or group. The Internet scales to arbitrary size. Because the Internet is not a limited resource belonging to the people, nobody needs a license to use it.
Hence, use of the spectrum is and should be regulated and use of the Internet is not and should not be. You might want to consult the Supreme Court, rather than governors of New York, for guidance on this matter.
I'm confident that even your puny brain can understand this basic concept. Have a nice day.
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?
There are two broad "wings" to the Republican party. The first is the (quasi-)libertarian wing, which wants smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations. Then you have the social conservative wing which wants to use government to create/restore/preserve their vision of society.
The Republican party as a whole is a compromise between these two viewpoints (there's also a few minor factions). But I'm thinking the divide between the two camps is widening. The social conservatives have tasted power, and they don't want to give it up. To them "small government" was merely a tactic to use while they were out of power. The libertarian wing, on the other hand, is starting to wonder what the difference really is between their big government Republican brethren and the big government Democrats.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
In this sense, I think the Internet is not "public communication" because it is listener initiated. In other words, individual members of the public have to request the materials (by visiting web sites, viewing blogs, subscribing to mailing lists, etc.) to be contacted.
This is no different than you or I calling up or visiting a local campaign office. The candidate or his staff can "campaign" at us all they want if we choose to walk in the door of their office.
If this is the definition from which they base "public communication" though, then politicians resorting to Unsolicited Political Email (is there a name for that? Pork?) would still have problems. (...as they should, but not because it is political, but because it is unsolicited...)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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.
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.
Actually what it comes down to is "Press" is not clearly defined in the constitution. SO since the internet wasn't around during the constitution. the bill is defining the internet as both press and speech. Nothing strange or unusual.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
> After all, there are an awful lot of "R"s in Texas who were "D"s in a previous life.
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.
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"