Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act
not so anonymous writes "The Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FEC rules." From the article: "In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules. The vote tally in the House of Representatives, 225 to 182, was not enough to send the Online Freedom of Speech Act to the Senate. Under the rules that House leaders adopted to accelerate the process, a two-thirds supermajority was required."
FEC - Federal Election Commission
FCC tells you what you can say on the airwaves. FEC tells you what a politician can say (during elections).
Learn the difference.
Daily Kos has an article on this with a bit more information. This one actually goes into reasons why the Dems voted againt it. Daily Kos disagrees with the Dem's reasons, and was in favor of extending the free nature of blogs.
0 /088
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/11254
Note that the act can still be brought up for a vote under normal rules and passed. The defeat was under special rules intended to speed the process.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And Daily KOS supported the bill's passage. The actual story is *slightly* more complicated than the /. headline would suggest.
This is not an encrouchment on your right to free speech. This just applies existing election campaign laws to internet communication.
You can still post your political party bashing blog. Now you just can't get paid insane amounts of money to do so with out the backing party acknowledging it.
Nothing to do with your rights. Everything to do with campaign finances.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I know that it's still a cottage industry in many ways, but I'm surprised that web hosting companies in the US aren't up in arms about this. To eliminate Free Speech on the web would be enforcable against US companies, and could possibly send some out of business (SpeakEasy comes to mind).
There are lines between political speech and paid political speech. As long as somebody is speaking his/her mind without being paid, free speech for political reasons is nearly absolute (short of slander and libel, but even then, the burden of proof bar is set pretty high). As soon as money changes hands (e.g. a person being paid to say that a candidate is wonderful, someone being paid to say that they use brand x toothpaste when they really use brand y, etc.), the rules change dramatically and always have.
The bill, as written, would have substantially blurred those lines. If you are taking money from any political group, whether through ad revenue or otherwise, you have an obligation to disclose this fully. That's what these laws are about. It's that simple. Exempting bloggers and online communication would just mean a whole new flock of internet advertising with no money trail, potentially with the ability to say nearly anything, no matter how outrageous, and get away with it. Astroturfing is just the tip of the iceburg. Under the relaxed rules proposed, we could see all-out news stories that border on political party-financed libel, again with no disclosure.
I'm not saying that I think bloggers should have to go through the same legal hurdles as somebody doing ad copy for the RNC, but to say that all internet communication across the board is exempted, and to not put -any- rules on blogging (including blogging that is paid for by advertising dollars from political groups) would be disastrous.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
As they don't take money, they're not subject. This bill is all about trashing campaign finance reform laws. The passage of this bill would mean that corporate donors could pump unlimited soft money into *paid* online promotion of their agendas.
Individuals can say whatever they want. The problem comes when they're spending gobs of money from a few, wealthy vested interests to promote their ideals. There's a popular concept in America that money shouldn't win elections; that's what campaign finance law is for. This is simply a bill that is designed to plow a hole into the McCain-Feingold act wide enough to sail the Jahre Viking through, and the summary that Slashdot gave is an heavy distortion of the truth.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
This is how it always works. It's called a poison pill, and both sides do it. You put together a basically good-sounding bill with some riders which are either pork or serve special interest groups. Then if it doesn't pass, you say "Look! The other side is against national security / eductation / freedom of speech / whatever."
Besides, the fact is the campaign finance law does regulate speech. It limits parties' freedom to "speak" (e.g. buy advertising) for a candiate. Now, I happen to be in favor of this particular restriction of speech because I think it serves a greater good in preserving democracy (including free speech) in the long run... but you have to realize a lot of people are against the campaign finance laws and see them as an unwarranted limitation on free speech.
from TFWA:
So 1 democrat + 2 republicans = democratic project?
In Slashdot, always read TFA, not just the comments on it. In politics, always read TFB (The F'ing Bill). What it says, and what people *say* it says, are often two different things.
The bill doesn't say "bloggers can post what they like." It says "all Internet communications are immune from federal election rules." That includes not just bloggers, but major media corporations and advertisers.
The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?
TFB needs to be more precise. But amendments weren't allowed, so it was voted down.
As I recall, MoveOn is an organization like, say, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which has an agenda that aligns with a political party but (theoretically) isn't officially tied to that party's fundraising machine. If either group got money from the Bush or Kerry campaign, that's a violation, but as long as they do their own fundraising, they're already exempt -- whether they're on the Internet or not.
It's all about where the money's coming from.
I've got to call BS on your comments:
Slavery and a lack of rights for women and minorities was against the Consitution.
This is just patently false.
1. Article IV Section II establishes slavery as a legal institution:
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. "
2. Article I Section II establishes the disparate value of free whites and "all other persons":
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
The original Constitution emphatically does not provide for the equal rights of all citizens: it differienates between free and non free, recognizes forced labor and the ownership of forced laborers and generally does not do anything which you claim!
Free speech should be exactly what the Constitution says it is, and that we need additional regulations to protect it means that the Consitution is being shit on, and that makes me sad.
I wish I could just blindly say I agree, but the Constitution is intentionally vague. Does reporting on your financing abridge your right to a free press? How about forcing food manufactuers to print a lable and put that on their product? How about requiring porn makers to label their stuff with a legal notice? Are these all equal abridgements of the 1st amendment?
If it really were so black and white I think you'd be sorry.
I've come to expect dupes, glaring ommissions, and outright falsehoods from Slashdot, but up until now it had resisted posting blatantly partisan rhetoric.
You've got to be kidding. Slashdot has been blatantly partisan for years. Because it was leaning in a direction you agree with you obviously either missed it or ignored it.
So when a similar light-on-the-facts, misleading headline article appears to say something equally heinous about Republicans, that's okay. But if it happens to Democrats that constitutes a conspiracy?
Staying more on topic, I'd like to know why ANYONE in Congress is allowed to attach a rider that doesn't have a thing to do with the original bill. Congress would have to change their rules to prevent it, but both major parties apparently are addicted to this sort of nonsense.
Daily KOS supported the bill's passage.
Did Daily Kos happen to mention the huge whack of cash he received from the Democrats for "consulting work" during the last election?
The bill (One of the shortest you'll see) says:
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
The existing law section 22 is:
(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.
So yeah, the Democrat's are against Free Speech on the Internet. The (GP) argument that they are also against Free Speech in general and Free Political Speech in particular isn't some sort of massive loophole trying to be created, it just means that they are being consistent in their opposition to Free Speech.
Those of us who agree with the Constitution that "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." wish the bill was simply to delete all of the laws that prohibit political speech in the U.S. That way maybe people who aren't billionaire liberals like George Soros might be able to compete without having to hire a bunch of lawyers first to find the loopholes.
And yes, "paying for advertising"="speech".
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Oh, and at that time voting against something called the "PATRIOT Act" was political suicide.
But in some cases, seppuku is the most honorable thing one can do.
That's clever to accuse me of ommission and claim "I guess unions would be Democrat" with a snide bit at Republicans when clicking the profiles of said union 527s shows they pay for ads promoting Democrat candidates and they give money almost exclusively to Democrat candidates. Hmm, 99% of the State/County/Muni Workers Union's spending went towards Democrat candidates. There is no "I guess" about it. Unions are Socialist in nature so of course they fall in well with the Democrats who have as many Socialists as the Republicans do free marketers. Same goes for the League of Environmental Voters. They spent all their money running negative ads against Republican cadidates and for Democrat candidates. Also no need for "I guess" and a snide comment.
527s that appear suddenly with massive amounts of cash
Checking the 2004 expenditures, the Swift Boat Vets with their $17M is "massive" compared to America Coming Together's $79M. Sorry, $17M isn't much in the scheme of big politics.
Bloggers (and everybody else) are already exempt from dealing with those hundreds of pages of crap, because that crap has no authority in the first place. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech... and even if it didn't, government has no authority other than what comes from consent of the governed; so anybody who wants my simply choose to not allow the government to regulate their speech.
Repeat after me: Government has NO intrinsic authority or dominion over anybody; We The People are the ultimate and final source of ALL political power and authority... the government has ONLY what authority we grant it; and what is granted may be taken back at any time. Sovereign individuals not belong to, and are not subjects of, the United States government... they answer to us, not the other way around.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
You are yourself making the assumption that unions are always for the in support of the working man and that environmentalist groups are always for protecting the environment. Often I find that that they are more pro-democrat (or pro-racket in the case of unions) than pro-the cause they claim to support.
Republicans can be against a Union, yet still support the views of the working class, or be against a conservationist group yet still want environmental protection.