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."
And Daily KOS supported the bill's passage. The actual story is *slightly* more complicated than the /. headline would suggest.
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.
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.