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.
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 $60,000,000 of hard money. The days of going door to door, meeting people is over. The days of long talks about what you believe and why is over. The new 30 second soundbyte is in, and the negative attack ads.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The Supreme Court ruling that the existing legislation was constitutional? The precedent has sadly already been set, that's why this bill is trying to lessen the damage.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Im sure there is some evil plan behind this.
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
Next we need to free the internet from RIAA regulation >.>
And if it had been introduced by a Democrat, you'd be singing it's praises from the rooftops.
"All hail the Democrats! The see the true power of free speech!"
Oh wait. It was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. D-Nevada
The bill introduced by Hensarling is a companion bill in the House. Bipartisanship in action.
Perhaps... perhaps we shouldn't /. this as "good news". I know we all hate M$, 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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"Ol Jugears" does not have anywhere near the power his dictatorial predecessors had, his influence is comprabe to any other rich celebrity. Politically and religiously he is a mere figure head who travels around in funny costumes cutting ribbons and rasing money for charity.
Being born in a palace in "the much older days" was only part of the road to power. To get to the throne you had to outlive your parents, uncles, aunts, and older siblings/cousins that were an obstacle due to pedigree or influence. The routine path from palace crib to palace throne was via murdering your relatives. This is also why Europe's royal families suffer from inbreeding. Once you had fought (and fucked) your way to the throne you then had to fend off all internal usurppers and external invaders to stay there.
"Ivan the Terrible", (First Tzar of Russia), had a large frypan specifically made for executing his political enemies in a public stirfry. More often than not, "nobility" were not executed, "a king's ransom" was far more lucrative. Modern democracy is often said to have started with the Magna-Carta, since it handed substantial power to the Parliment. Parliment at the time was, (some say still is), a group of wealthy merchants who's power was derived from the wars and ransoms they chose to finance.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
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"