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."
Ok, so I'm dusted. I see that the most liberal of parties opposes what is effectively Free Speech and the party which brought us the Patriot Act is advocating the it.
This means there's some reason other than what this post appears to say 'Hey, Democrats hate free speech!', like something has been attached which allows oil drilling in Yosemite National Park. From TFA:
Ah, there's the Why, a loophole for Campaign Finance law.The heading Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act and omission of the Why certainly colours this article. Why the omission? It appears the article poster favours websites/blogs which are covert mouthpieces of a particular interest group spouting dubious facts and leaving out highly relevant facts. Slashdot has effectively been trolled. Was this intentional, Zonk?
When black apears white or pigs appear to have sprouted wings, there's usually politics behind it, that's where Critical Thinking separates the herd. The Fine Print: We're probably not responsible for content, but in any event we are, we'll deny it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
From TFA, here's the full text of the bill:
That means that, if it had passed, anything posted on the Internet would be exempt from campaign finance laws. That means advertisements, editorials, etc. That means it would be perfectly legal for a political party to use campaign donations to hire people to write political blogs that they might not otherwise have written on their own time, initiative, and opinions. That means hiring people to comment on message boards and other people's blogs. In other words, it means astroturfing.
You may think this is a good thing, in which case it ought to be extended to the print and real worlds -- just remove all those limitations in the first place. But if you think we should be limiting the effect that money has on election campaigns, what makes the Internet special?
As it stands, anyone blogging on their own time already has free speech on the internet. So let's not cast this as a blogbing issue.
This is a joke. The Republicans control the House. In the House, the majority does what it wants. While the bill was brought up under a rule that required 2/3rds majority, the Republican leadership could right this very second bring it up as a normal bill that requires only a simple majority.
It is impossible for the Democrats to stop anything in the House.
The Dems must have decided that the Republicans get more advantage from blogging than they do.
No principles here, move along...
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
While I'm as big a proponent of free speech as the next guy, I have to say this will likely have little to no impact on actual internet speech. There won't be a "chilling effect" as some would have you believe. In the end there just isn't the budget or the manpower to enforce the same FCC political advertising guidelines online as are enforced in major boradcast media. and the big topper is that the first time Big Brother tries to enforce this we will quickly see it in front of 9 of the US's top justices whom will in all likelyhood vote to remove FCC regulation from the whole realm of internet publishing.... Anyone who tells you otherwise is just a chickenlittle...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
According to the Supreme Court, campaign finance laws do not violate the 1st Amendment. The argument basically goes like this:
So, now we're talking about the Internet. And here's the problem:
If someone has a political blog, that is probably free speech.
If someone pays a large number of people to have political blogs to support their view, is that still free speech, or is that diluting free speech?
What's the difference between paying for an advertisement on television saying that "Candidate so-and-so likes to have sex with black people and make bastard babies, don't vote for him!" and a company buying up advertisement on the Internet saying the same thing?
So, while I don't think that either the Dems or the Repubs have noble interests at heart, this is an interesting challenge. Do you just say "The Internet doesn't have to worry about campaign finance", and give the possibility of the delution of "pure" free speech as discussed by the Supreme Court and previous campaign finance laws, or do you try and put some language saying "If you get money based on your political views, you have to reveal who did it and how much and can only accept X amount".
I'd rather see a law like the "truth in advertising" - if you're getting money for writing the blog/hosting an ad, you have to state on your web site where that comes from and how much. This way people who are just running ads can say "Google adsense", and those getting it from campaign groups can disclosed if they are a hired gun or not. Granted, there is more to the language than this, but this is just my thumbnail sketch, so if you need to split hairs, at least come up with your own complete language to cover the complexity of the issue
It's an interesting question, and one that *should* be debated for a good and long time. If you notice, this was the failure not of a majority but of a "mega-majority" of 2/3 to pass the bill. Some further debate and clarification of the language should make it palatable to that majority in the end, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Sites like the Daily Kos can now be subject to campaign finance laws. Which means, essentially, their speech can be regulated during election seasons.
The above should say FEC not FCC.. whoopsy!
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
they are, as long as you agree with them :)
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!
In the end there just isn't the budget or the manpower to enforce the same FCC political advertising guidelines online as are enforced in major boradcast media.
All it takes is one example. They don't have to go after every blog. Just a couple of them. A couple of high profile prosecutions will make political blogging a different sort of beast. FACE didn't require that every abortion protestor be prosecuted. A few prosecutions and everyone with half a brain and something to lose will conform.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why does there have to be an Online Freedom of Speech Act? Why does there have to be anything other than the First Amendment? I am tired of how much our "free speech" has become regulated since the founding of this country.
The other thing that bothers me is the two party political system. Why wouldn't democrats want to protect our speech online? It seems all they're interested in is opposing the republicans these days (I used to be a republican, but I don't think they stand for conservatism anymore, so I'm libertarian/independent/non-incumbant now).
We need politicians that will bring us back to the freedoms our country enjoyed two hundred years ago, but everyone is interested in towing the party line--it seems even the voters. If you are of voting age, and in the US, please consider third-party candidates in the '06 congressional elections. I want to be part of a larger group than 0.5% of the population.
I mean, why go to all that trouble to screw with my freedom to talk? Wasn't McCain-Feingold bad enough as is? Surely the Dems could just inspire better bloggers, and then not feel so insecure about the impact of non-liberal bloggers on elections? Because the measure in question was, I think, absolutely central to free expression (my right to post things on my own damn web site, or even to pay someone to help me write that content, or even to pay people to help me get traffic to that web site)... and whatever those opposing the measure were thinking, they sure weren't thinking "First Amendment."
I can't stand (and thus, don't read) the wingnut blogs from the far end of either party... but if I want to catch up on how a pending election is going to realistically impact something I actually care about, I want to be able to read what some people would certainly consider political blogs, and right up until I cast a vote. And considering my ecclectic interests, I know that the people posting meaningful content covering what I can't see through the normal media sure as hell can't afford to do what they do and even begin to think about whether they are or aren't compliant with election bookkeeping rules. Blocking this measure was stupid, counter-constitutional, and just objectively the wrong thing to do.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
is my understanding of u.s. politics so backwards? i would have expected the party breakdown to be 180degrees opoistite this...
can someone explain?
Actually, it controls their money flow: they can't be paid by certain sources to blog politically.
Then again, the court has decided that spending money is a form of speech, which is the basis of restrictions on campaign finance laws, so perhaps we're really saying the same thing.
Remember who signed the DMCA--Clinton. I think free speech in the slashdot, eff sense is really quite orthogonal to party lines.
What is the threshold to be covered by this?
Could you, as an individual blogger, endorse a candidate or discuss political issues on your blog? Or are you enjoined from making any political statements on your blog because that is now included as part of someone's election campaign?
How much of one's blog would have to apply to other things in order to not run afoul of this?
I'm a little mystefied as the article is unclear. On the one hand, I can see that they don't want massive campaigns by parties which circumvents the electoral rules. On the other hand, you can't supress every single private individual from having a political opinion.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Yeah, but they aren't the standard-bearers for astroturfing.
(At least not in this case, anyway)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
...were you paid to submit this here?
--
Once upon a time, I was a Democrat -- and damn proud of it. Democrats have a wonderful and storied history of going to bat for the little guy. Be it gender, race, disability, religion... you name it, the Democrats were willing to support those unfairly accused or biased against.
And then came the 90's.
Bill Clinton still did many good things -- but one of the worst things he did (IMNSHO) was to cause the Democratic party to lose its identity. He frequently took Republican initiatives, rubbed off the serial numbers, and called it "Good." Then came Gore & Kerry -- both of whose campaign platforms could be summed up as "I'm not George W. Bush."
Then we have stuff like the DMCA and the Sonny Bono act, both of which should have been squashed by traditional Democrats... and instead are supported by them.
I'm disgusted. Bring back a JFK. Bring back a Roosevelt! Hell -- even Carter! He made some really dumb mistakes, but nobody doubts his sincere willingness to try to do what he felt was best -- as his continued works with Habitat for Humanity show.
Instead, we get Ted (The One That Wouldn't Go Away) Kennedy, we get Tom (I'm a waste of space and air) Daschle, we get antagonists, footdraggers and backpeddalers.
God, I hope McCain runs next time. I'll vote for him before most any Democratic contender I can think of. Perhaps that's why I'm now a registered independent. *sigh*
While your thoughts is correct there is a reason that the Democrats opposed this. With the nomination of Alito the White House has asked all the conservative blogs out there for their help in shaping public opinion.
While this is nothing new, both sides have been doing this since they realized the power of blogs, this also translates to the nonsense that went on in the last presidential election.
The Republicans ran a better smear campaign but were able to disavow any association with those who opposed Kerry while simultaneously providing these folks with information. Thus the best of both worlds.
The Democrats don't want a repeat of this and so objected, and now defeated, this measure.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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 must be new here.
"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Can't quite place it.
Effectively by NOT passing this law, Congress continues to end run the constitution and maintains their control over defining what speech is free. Control which they explicitly do not have in the first place.
This helps the Democrats more since the Moveon.org's of the world will continue to be powerhouses on the net, while TRUE grassroots organizations get f'd.
The amendment would have created a loophole in campaign finance reform and allowed unlimited political spending on the web. The amendment would actually suppress free speech to the extent that independent views could be drowned out with politically financed astro-turfing.
In the fine tradition of many other laws and bills that have surfaced over the past five years, the intent of this amendment was the exact opposite of that implied by its title. If Orwell were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Slashdot: faux infotainment for nerds.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
This article--being an obviously biased love letter to the Republican party--could also be considered a political contribution.
At a time when effectively everyone has their own press and, IMHO, should be treated no differently than "professional journalists"--the term, of late, really should be in quotes, not least because so many "real" journalists are shills of the shrillest variety--unless we're going to say that the entire budget of Fox should be considered a political contribution to the Republican Party or the NYT to the Dems, it almost seems absurd to be counting ANY of these beans any differently. So, 'screw it, let's just return to the time of Hearst and allow total yellow-journalism and vote-buying. At least it would be open, obvious and readily understood by all for what it is.
Ultimately, the Democratic position would probably limit free speech among bloggers to a certain extent. The problem has to deal with the "Schenck v. United States", where a person has a limited amount of time to make a decision based on statements that he/she has no ability to verify (because of that time).
New campaign laws seek to limit the type/amout/method of information being disseminated in the weeks directly before election. Let me give an example...
Lets say a large group of bloggers decides they want to impact an election. 2 days before an election one anonymously blogs that Candidate X was accused of date rape in college and that the accuser is afraid to come forward. The day before the election, all of the other bloggers pick up the story and start talking about it in huge numbers. Then, the day of the election, every voter has to make a decision of risking to vote for a date rapist. I know this sounds silly, but it was a very effective strategy against a college student body president campaign at my alma mater only a few years back. A similar strategy was employed against a Republican candidate for house in 1996 in NC (although it wasnt bloggers, it was a mass mailing).
While there is no precedent against bloggers, it seems silly - I think - to give them a complete immunity when it is very possible (if not inevitable) that such an immunity would create a haven of this kind of attack.
The most important speech that must be protected is the vote.
They are, just ask Lawrence Summers.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
You thought wrong.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Can you even imagine having the RNC pay 5-10 people a day to create a bunch of accounts on here to post on political articles of relevance? You may be thinking that no one would care enough to do it, but with the kind of money involved, they could hire 50-1000's to do it on as many American news sites/blogs as they wanted. All of that aside, its nigh impossible to enforce broad internet legislation that is not copyright oriented (so the RIAA pays for its enforcement).
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
Remember who signed the DMCA--Clinton. I think free speech in the slashdot, eff sense is really quite orthogonal to party lines.
And a Republican congress passed the law to begin with. Both major parties have similar agendas in this regard--most people, sadly, choose to ignore that fact and simply spout "my party is all that is good and light. Your party is teh suck" tripe.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Breakfast served all day!
Consider this scenerio:
Some PAC raises one million dollars from unlimited, unreported donations.
They use the money to pay 1000 bloggers to promote their issue.
They don't need to report that these bloggers work for them, or how much they get paid.
Rinse. Repeat.
Is this free speech?
Go back to 1999. A little known and not largely respected son of a former president is considering a run for the Whitehouse. He really hasn't done anything of note in his tenure as a governor and the nation's attention is on other things. I was astounded to hear that George W. Bush already had $70 million in his war chest, months before he actually appeared on the GOP Predidential Candidate RADAR. He was a made man, as the Mafia might put it. Some people weren't happy with McCain, who had broad popular support and was a distinguished veteran, but he didn't have deep support in his own party. Where do you suppose that $70 million came from? It certainly didn't come from public donations, nobody knew he was even going to run at that point, outside the kingmakers that is.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Stop spreading republican lies, the liberals aren't anti freedom of speech!
Meh.
The Democrats have neither sufficient numbers in the House, nor rules favorable to allow them to defeat anything. In the House the Republicans rule. Everything that happens in the House happens at the discretion of the Republicans. The title of the article should have been "Large numbers of Republicans break ranks to defeat bill...", but that's not something a right-leaning reporter would ever say because it implies that Republicans are not 100% in agreement on something.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Democrats have a wonderful and storied history of lynchingn blacks, catholics, and jews. It was the Republicans actually doing the work of the Civil Rights movement up until the 1960's when liberal (lower case "l") Democrats from the West Coast joined the bandwagon.
Or did you forget that your Senator Robert C Byrd was once a Grand Dragon in the Klu Klux Klan, and still has a bad habit of making racist remarks today?
Politicians of all stripes are asses. Democrats certainly aren't an exception.
The heading Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act and omission of the Why certainly colours this article.
I don't think the article poster or the editor did anything wrong at all. The article they were linking to was headlined Democrats defeat election-law aid for bloggers which is essentially the same thing as the Slashdot article.
like something has been attached which allows oil drilling in Yosemite National Park.
The whole point of submitting it the way it was submitted (suspension calendar) was to prevent exactly what you're talking about. The Republican leadership wanted the bill introduced a certain way and wanted to preclude anyone from adding other things. Don't believe me? Look at Nancy Pelosi's diary where she states:
This is an issue that must be fully discussed in open debate on the House floor through a process that permits amendments to be offered and voted on. The Republican Leadership brought this bill to the floor through the suspension calendar which does not permit such an opportunity.
Clearly, she didn't want this fast-tracked and wanted the ability to add whatever amendments she and her colleagues desired.
I'm a big tall mofo.
The summary leaves out quite a bit of information:
... so long as its over the Internet, its exempt. Now, some of you "money is speech" libertarians might like that, but I, for one, am not.
First, this bill was brought up on the suspensions calendar, which is reserved for bills that are supposed to get about 2/3 of the vote. These bills are not amendable and are only debatable for less than 30 minutes. This bill will now go to the Rules Committee, which will consider amendments and longer debat
Second, the Democrats don't necessarily disagree with the legislation, but want to be sure, via amendments, that the Internet is not wholly exempt from all FEC campaign finance laws. The text of the bill is simply
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.'.
I'd want some amendments that make sure that any interests, be them liberal, conservative, etc., cannot give unlimited amounts of money, so long as done over the Internet. That could be reasonably interpreted from the law
Hi All -
The reality is that neither party respects our liberties (i.e., fully embracing both the enumerated and unenumerated, and retained rights as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution). They tell us to look at the US Constitution and ask "where are you given that right?", rather than asking the question Madison would have, which is, "where did you give up that right?"
Both political parties have a shared monopoly on power (I think we called this a duopoly in Econ 101), and will resist any attempt to take away this power. Yes, they will jostle for advantage over one another, but when this duopoly is threatened they will unite against it (see, opposition to any redistricting reform by the mainstreams of both the Republican and Democratic parties in California).
Looking back at the 2004 election, the mainstream of the Democratic party was hit right between the eyes by the power of the Internet and Blogs, as demonstrated by the insurgent campaign of Howard Dean. The look at this and wonder what it might have been
Couple this with that there are still a few Republicans who value liberty (as understood through the lens of enumerated and unenumerated rights), over staying in power, and you see why this got fair broader support among them.
This isn't the first time something like this happened. Rewind back to the election of 1968, and TV was the breakout media. Eugene McCarthy used it effectively in New Hampshire to force Johnson from the primary process. Nixon and Wallace (running one of the most effective 3rd party campaigns since Teddy Roosevelt (even if I despise what he represented), used it to great benefit.
So, in the Congress following this election what happened? An incredible level of restrictions on TV in political campaigns were put into place, which effectively put access to TV in the hands of those in power.
Like McCain-Feingold (and I say this with the greatest respect for both of these gentleman), giving the FEC oversight of Bloggers will only diminish the level of free speech and dialog in the public square. The internet and blogs dramatically reduced the barriers to entry to commentators, because as A.J. Liebling noted, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." All of a sudden, a whole lot of people now could own the equivalent of a printing press. And the result is as you would expect (applying Sturgeon's Law that 90% of everything is crap), with a lot of nonsenses and garbage spewing forth, but a few gems mixed up in the overall stream.
If I had my magic legislative wand, and could make one change to improve the political process in this country, I would wave it and do away with our FEC as it exists and our various restrictions on political spending and embracing Justice Brandise maxim, "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman", I would require the following:
1. That within 24 hours of any political donation being made, that this fact be posted for all to see and search on the Internet. Any legislation in which this party has an interest will also be identified. If this donation was made by a PAC, then the membership of that PAC must be clearly visible (i.e. I can follow the money).
2. For scheduled meetings, 24 hours in advance, and for unscheduled meetings within 24 hours, any meeting with a lobbyist (defined as someone educating on an issue or requesting legislative action) will be disclosed for all to search on the Internet. The topic of this conversation will be disclosed along with any legislation discussed or related to the topic of conversation. The source of funding for this lobbyist, organization, or individual, must be made transparent, all the way back up the chain. If Lobbyist A was hired by Organization X who received funding from PACS 1, 2, and 3, who in turned received funding from PACS 4, 5, and 6, I should be able to follow it all the way back to the companies and individuals making the donations.
3. The calendar of all members of the Legislative and Executive branches, along with their staff members, will be made available and search-able on the Internet. Common, unique identifiers will be used to enable cross referencing.
Yours,
Jordan
In addition to the "no ammendments" stipulation, debate is limited to 20 minutes for each side.
Slashdotters are constantly complaining that bills with major implications are given little to no debate and yet, here they are, complaining that a bill with *huge* implications wasn't passed with little to no debate.
The suspension resolutions are meant for bills renaming post offices and "We like puppies" declarations that no one really opposes, not legislation that has has huge ramifications for free speech.
Ask yourself... why are people so eager to rush this through the House *without debate* and without considering ammendments?
But the abstract to the article makes them out to be evil, evil vermin bent on destroying free speech.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
I'm really glad the government is limiting our free speech in order to protect the "fairness" of the election process.
Because apparently we're too stupid to form our own opinions based on facts and rational thinking. Instead we just say "oooo shiny" and vote for whoever spends the most money.
We're sheep for shearing in the springtime and cannon fodder during wartime.
That is all. Go back and watch another football game. Nothing important here.
Agreed. Even though I agree with the liberals far more than I agree with the conservatives (and have voted that way for the last few elections), why does everyone assume the Democrats to be champions of free speech? Hillary, Lieberman, Tipper Gore... all names that should ring bells in conjunction with the desire to censor.
That's the amusing part about liberals. They claim all the time how tolerant they are, how intolerant everyone else is, and how all about free speech they are.
:) In truth, they're as intolerant as everyone else who has a political viewpoint. And they're funded by big shadowy billionaires like George Soros, so the "greedy" claims they make about Republicans and their money also falls apart.
:)
But if you disagree with them, they'll hold petitions and scream in your face, call you an idiot, throw Oreo cookies at you (Democrats threw cookies at a black Republican politican and called him "Uncle Tom"), and make commercials comparing you to Hitler.
Liberal tolerance extends so far as the party line.
Yep, Virginia, you're all idiots too.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Bear with me, this connects
Not to long ago, an idea was presented to link voter registration with getting your driver's license. The underlying idea, reportedly, was that, by making it easier for the average adult to register to vote, there would be a greater population of registered American voters thus making elections more reflective of "the will of the people".
Seems like a good idea really, but the debates on C-SPAN went a little differently
The Republicans were not happy and saying that this was just a ruse to get a disproportionate number of Democrats registered to vote. The implication is kind of interesting. Apparantly, Republicans (and likely Democrats) were of the opinion that persons of the GOP were more likely than Democrats to register without the assistance of the "motor-voter" legislation - at least that was my interpretation.
With the present situation, the implication seems to be that Republicans have more cash reserves than Democrats and, by making blogs not susceptible to campaign fund contribution limits, they can more easily use that advantage.
So, both sides seek to exploit a "hidden" advantage in a particular legislation. It's like the old saying, for every endeavor there is a "good reason" and the "real reason".
and the games go on
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Until you get rid of those party lines, you'll always be making a mockery of democracy. Every US political debate breaks down into red vs blue, instead of one point of view verses another. It's a great way of avoiding constructive debate and actually getting anything done. This benefits them, but not you, not your country and certainally not freedom or democracy, supposedly the pillars of America.
Of course, as long as the general population believes that this system is "democratic", the wool will continue to be pulled over their eyes. You'll continue to choose between a douche and a turd and never once question the system that presents those choices. And before moderating me off-topic, realise that this is directly on-topic, as this bill refered to the whole campaign finance issue. I tend not to deal in euphansims, and as such I call "campaign contributions" for what they are. Political Bribery. Corruption of the highest order. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's not only legal, it's a key, essential part of the electoral process in most western democracies. Certainally in the US, there is an undebatable correlation between campaign spending and campaign success. The people who make these "donations" use phrases like "return on investment", not "charitable donations".
I don't know how many times I've been called a "liberal Bush hater". No, I just hate corrupt murdering fuckwits. The fact he has a elephant on his party logo is not relevant to anything. But so long as you can divert the discussion from issues to bipartisan mudslinging, you don't get your real bad laundry aired in public.
In my ideal world of the future, all politics is done on a board similar to slashdot, with everyone posting as an annoymous coward. Once the debate is over, the owners of the comments are revealed. Being caught colluding (mod me up, nudge nudge) results in the members being temporarilly banned, with public exposure. Of course, this will never happen, as it's humanities nature to form tribes then divide and concquor. The two-party system is a direct result of this.
I've noticed that there are a whole lot of conservative leaning Anonymous Coward posts on this thread.
Coincidence?
It all comes down to who they want to control (A)
.....
... then you have "political issues". And political issues are all about fear and anger right now.
in order to "protect"
what/whom (B).
Tipper wanted to control the music industry
in order to "protect"
"the children".
Now, some control is necessary. For example, controlling chemical companies so they don't dump toxic waste into the water supply is a "good thing".
As long as you get to define what is "toxic" and "waste" and "water supply".
Which gets down to the level of "threat" posed by A and how much we fear damage to B.
Poisoning every child is usually seen as a "bad thing".
The same with every 10th child. And 100th child, 1,000th, 10,000th
But when you're talking about 9,999,999 children being okay for every 1 that gets sick
The other thing that bothers me is the two party political system. Why wouldn't democrats want to protect our speech online? It seems all they're interested in is opposing the republicans these days (I used to be a republican, but I don't think they stand for conservatism anymore, so I'm libertarian/independent/non-incumbant now).
We need politicians that will bring us back to the freedoms our country enjoyed two hundred years ago, but everyone is interested in towing the party line--it seems even the voters. If you are of voting age, and in the US, please consider third-party candidates in the '06 congressional elections. I want to be part of a larger group than 0.5% of the population.
I stitched together a quick article on Polarized Pluralism from information in my political science book. Our country is headed this way; the liberals are further along than the conservatives, but I don't know how far it will go before the conservatives fly out of the scope of reality too.
Basically, a normal two-plus party (we have two-plus) or multi-party system has parties along the political spectrum, from hard-left communist to moderates to hard-right facist. In a healthy system, most of the political power and support is near the center; there are moderate leftists and rightists. This encourages compromises; both sides are willing to sit and listen to eachother, and meet somewhere half-way. In a healthy system, conservatives are -conservative-, and make changes slowly if at all; while liberals are -liberal- and want to immediately dismantle shit and rearrange it, typically breaking things worse. Compromises keep the system healthy by avoiding stagnation or sudden random changes.
With polarized pluralism, the system is sick. The liberals are out in left field and lost reality somewhere along the way; they don't care if changes are right or wrong, good or bad, as long as they're loud about it, have power, and a following. The conservatives are way in right field; they want to change as little as possible, they target one or a few problems, they speak loudly, and they yell overtop of the liberals so only they can be heard (at this point this isn't a good or bad thing; both sides suck). Neither side wants anything to do with the other; upon solidity of power, they will do all they can to silence the other side. This was the scene with the Communist party (left) and the Nazi party (right) immediately before third-reicht Germany, leading into a far-right balance of power; take bush, and turn the dial a thousand times farther right, and you have the Nazi party.
As long as the voters percieve something wrong, they'll tow the party line. They'll go along with any silly plan their leaders come up with. If one side has screwed up and lost voter confidence, the other can screw up freely and blame them for it repeatedly while taking credit for all their accomplishments. Effectively, whatever good happens is attributed to party X and everything else goes to party Y, regardless of reality.
The liberal spread is a nice election hack, btw. Conservatives vote republican; liberals vote Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and Independant. In the end it's easier for a conservative to get to power on a hairline, because everyone running who's not a Democrat is effectively a half-vote for the Republicans. Frankly, I love it; I don't trust minor parties and I damned sure don't trust liberals.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
A sane and logical post that respects more of our rights than anything currently on the table.
:-)
You must be new here.
(yes, I'm being sarcastic, I see your user number...)
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
There. I said it. Come get me.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
I'll have to disagree with you on the "good site" description. After browsing through some of the absolutely insane rantings on that site I can see why you felt the need to post as AC, though.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
The merits of the bill aside, if the only reason it couldn't pass was the fact that they used a special rule in an attempt to fast-track it, why bother fast-tracking it? Makes it seem like they didn't care about it passing. They probably just wanted to make the dems vote "against free speech"
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Democrats making a stupid decision? SHOCKING! Shocking I say!
Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
Don't worry. In a few month's time the Democrats will find a way to make the public think that the Republicans were responsible for this. Remember the draft bill proposed by two Democrats that was widely believed to be Republican sponsored?
They aren't, because they are politicians and politicians are never the standard bearers of free speech. People are. And politicians aren't people!
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Strange, that you think the Democrats would support it.
Here you have a bill that would create an exception in the laws that would allow common people (i.e. internet users) to post whatever political opinion they want on the internet while receiving payments for creating said content.
The Republican party has long triumphed free speech with respect to political positions, where "free speech" is synonymous with money spent to advertise their platforms. The current campaign finance laws "restrict free speech" by restricting the amount of money (and where, and when) a political party can spend on their campaigns.
The Democratic party, which has long proclaimed themselves a "party of the little man" and "enemy of the corporations" have a very hard time raising money from said corporations. So, it is in their best interest to restrict the amounts of spending by their competators, to make it "fair".
Adding this exception would allow their chief competator (Republicans) to use their (larger) campaign funds in a media that is fast outstripping traditional forms of media (TV / newspapers) among voting audiences, increasingly so among younger voters (who statistically are more Democrat). So, is it really that strange that the Democrats would oppose it?
This is disgusting! Mods please RTFA before you allow these crap summaries to be posted.
Please don't mix the green party with the libertarians. That's an insult to us libertarians out there ;D
I do like the idea of "truth in advertising" laws to reveal the origins of political speech financing. That's got its own problems, of course. By prohibiting significant anonymous support, you make it easy for a winning candidate to retaliate against his opponents supporters after an election, and you thus discourage any challenges to candidates who are particularly vindictive or who are in well-entrenched seats. But at least it's a reform measure that comes from the right philosophy: the cure for questionable political discourse is more discourse, not less.
I'm probably being naive here but -
The internet is still international right? So what's to stop me from setting up my "illegal" unregulated free speech website in the U.K.? Cambodia? SeaLand? - whereever
What jurisdiction does the FEC have over foreign hosted political websites? What recourse whould they possibly have?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Looks like I'll be contributing to the growth of digg.com readership...
And don't forget Al Gore, who championed the Clipper Chip.
They just want ot keep Ralph Nader and other troublemakers out of elections for present and congress. And you. They thing Dems and Reps do not agree on is how. Someone call the UN to protect our freedom on the Internet.
Original statement: 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.
Edited statement: Free speech should be [blah] we need additional regulations
And Jesus spoke, saying "All of my teachings can be summed up in this one thing: Love [blah] thyself." See, kids, editing can be FUN.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
And that's a pretty big loophole, and only going to get bigger. Consider:
This is the equivalent of, in 1900, creating a loophole in some law for anything produced using electricity.
I saw the article in the Boston Globe referring to this vote and I thought I was reading about a different bill. This Slashdot article heading is so slanted and deceptive that it would make the New York Post blush. Slashdot has really crossed a line here and the people in charge need to explain themselves. The reason why the Democrats joined to vote against it (as noted above) has NOTHING to do with the heading of the article. Someone clearly has an axe to grind and is willing to deceive to do it.
Slashdot, stick to technology news and stay out of the yellow press business.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
amen
I usually don't respond to AC's, but...
You obviously have no understanding of the phrase "signal to noise ratio."
Either that, or you're intentionally obsfucating.
Campaign finance reform is at the heart of this. When you try to take the money out of politics, free speech gets hurt.
A better solution would be to get the politics out of money.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A ``noisy'' political process is a characteristic of one where freedom of political speech is central, yes.
The problem here is with those willing to trade away that freedom in exchange for a slight reduction in the noise level.
Yep. Your choices now are for The Party of Big Government or The Big Government Party.
Of course, this isn't surprising. No political ideology based on removing power from those who hold it is going to gain traction amongst those in power. In some ways, the R's have a tougher row to hoe, because they have to pretend they want to limit government power while simultaneously managing to increase their own power.
(Which, of course, is what leads to appeals to morality, because they can't win voters based on what their party's core principles should be)
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
The Slashdot editotial policy is pretty obviously slanted Libertarian. Go back and look at the accepted political threads, and you'll see Libertarian coverage in massive disproportion to that party's ability to actually do anything.
This article, decrying laws prohibiting anonymous funding of political speech is exactly the same as the Libertarian position. It is expressly not a position that a majority of Democrats and Republicans would take; both want limits on anonymous political donations, they just disagree on exactly what.
Speaking of BOTH sides, now let's hear from a Libertarian or a Progressive.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
> Bill Clinton still did many good things -- but one of the worst things he did (IMNSHO) was to cause the Democratic party to lose its identity. He frequently took Republican initiatives, rubbed off the serial numbers, and called it "Good." Then came Gore & Kerry -- both of whose campaign platforms could be summed up as "I'm not George W. Bush."
At the risk of me-to-ism, above sums up the real problems of the Democratic party. As 43 said (full disclosure: I didn't vote for him and hate all the Reaganauts for their crimes): "A list of complaints is not a program." I doupt I can vote for McCain but Hilary is gonna be tough. We've got to get back to Tip O'Neil's 'all politics is local'.
To reiterate: Mod parent up.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Agreed, but at least he's thinking outside the Republicrat box. That's the first step to enlightenment.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
That aside, it's not clear to me that the rules are such a bad thing. They basically say that if a political party spends campaign money on the Web then it has to be reported - just as the case if said party spends money on TV ads. This is perfectly reasonable. Despite what some party-funded astroturfers would have you believe, this does NOT restrict J. Random Blogger from posting whatever he wants. It just says that if he gets money from the RNC, the RNC has to report it.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Here's my take on this bill:
1. It was not intended to pass. If Republican leadership had wanted the bill to pass, they wouldn't have invoked the rules requiring a supermajority: They could have just brought it up as a regular bill, voted to close the debate (a majority vote in the House) immediately, and then voted to pass the bill.
2. Reasoning from (1), the bill was a setup. Republicans wanted Democrats to vote against this bill. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they took the bait, because if Democrats really wanted to stop it they still had the filibuster in the Senate.
3. From (1) and (2), the whole point of this exercise was to create "proof" that "Democrats hate free speech, bloggers, and the Internet". Expect that to show up in websites (case in point: the headline of this article), debates and campaign ads starting in a few months.
This is the same sort of technique as creating a bill that states:
motherhood and apple pie are good, and we will kill kittens.
When people vote against killing kittens, then their political opponants can say "Look here, this guy's against motherhood and apple pie". And as John Kerry (and many others before him) have learned, it's no use explaining that you were voting against killing kittens, and because of that were forced to vote against motherhood and apple pie.
I am officially gone from
Damn, I wish I had my mod points from yesterday back. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. On the one hand, you've got the (conservative) Republicans shoving the Patriot Act down our throats, while the other hand, the liberal (Democrat) SCOTUS is busy allowing people's homes to be taken from them and given to private developers to increase the tax base .
A pox on both their houses...
Dave Walker
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Economic conservatives endorsed Kerry mainly because Bush was and is so incredibly bad. The damage from Bush deficits will be with us for years to come.
Clinton, while less than perfect, at least had some economic sense. Republicans now attribute his success to luck. From Clinton's 2000 DNC speech: "The Republicans said then they would not be held responsible for the results of our economic policies. I hope the American people will take them at their word."
With the nomination of Alito the White House has asked all the conservative blogs out there for their help in shaping public opinion.
Wow. I didn't get that memo. Usually I get all my talking points from Georgie, but not this one. I wonder if I've fallen out of grace with Rush? While I did get the memo from Bush telling all us conservative bloggers to vociferously criticize Meiers, I simply do not recall the latest one telling us to shape public opinion around Alito. I'm checking my in-box now... Nope, not there.
Could you please forward me that memo? Or at the minimum provide a link to objective evidence that there ever was such a memo or order or command from the White House?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"So in the end this is simply about people being able to say what they want, where they want, when they want. It is freedom of speech. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise because it makes you feel better about yourself and your relationship with the world."
Exactly. Political speech is still speech.
In some sense, freedom of speech, in the manner in which they have defined it, also relates to freedom of choice by the American citizens to elect the candidate they feel is most qualfied. When citizens are constantly bombarded by one side that has resources that far exceed those of a competitor, they aren't being afforded the opportunity (or the right, some might even say) to make an educated choice.
back in the day, they said McCain-Feingold would be found unconstitutional because it clearly limited speech. That's why many politicians voted for it. (besides the fact that campaign finance reform is favorable to incumbants) Supreme Court was fine with by a 5-4 vote or so. I'm not going to rest on the Supreme Court to protect my freedom of speech.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
ROFL
Huh. When I saw FOS I thought "Full Of Shit". Then I read the summary, and wondered why Democrats, who are largely in favor of freedom of speech, would be opposed to this bill. Then I read the article, and I realized that not only was my first thought correct (this bill is full of shit), but that indeed it could apply to the article summary as well. I guess balancing things out means we have to post lies from the other side every once in a while. Only problem is, what if you're not on either side and just interested in truth?
Nathan's blog
Then why isn't it called "\." ?
Haven't read through quite a bit of the comments, I can understand the issues related with the bill. What I still don't understand is though why it would actually matter? Passing a bill that essentially exempts the Internet from campaing finance laws opens the Internet up to massive campaign spending for US based services. Having the Internet though regulated by campaign finance law would at least curb that, but where does it stop applying? What if the campaign ad is hosted on an international server, but the actual Internet site is US based and only subscribes to an ad service from abroad. How will you ever apply campaign finance laws to this?????? Regulating the Internet has proven to be a pretty tough thing to do for one nation alone. Just remember the CanSpam act and how spam has dramatically increased since that law was passed (the only success I can see is that one indicted spammer who was dumb enough to be US based). As much as I support campaign finance laws, I really have to wonder what they matter to the Internet in any regard. In my opinion, whether to actually apply them or specifically exempt them is a mute point, as circumventing their application is a piece of cake.
It's all about the OOOOOIIIIIILLLLLLL!!!!!
You are missing the point. If you are paid to shill by a candidate, you should disclose it. The problem with campaign finance restrictions is when you are paying to speak your mind. Say you run a popular blog and pay $500 a month for bandwidth. By endorsing a candidate you may violate campaign finance rules since you are contributing money, in the form of advertising and bandwidth, to a candidate. This is the problem. It becomes more pronounced for the larger blogs (Daily Kos, Instapundit, etc) whose bandwidth costs are substantial and require outside funding to pay the bills. They can easily pass monetary thresholds required for enforcement of the laws.
A recent case in Washington illustrates exactly this problem. Radio personalities in Seattle had been speaking out against a gax tax proposal. The local government decided that amount to an in-kind contribution to the anti-gas tax campaign, so they violated campaign finance rules. They were expressing their own opinion and were not paid to by gas tax foes. This same scenario applies to internet speech. If you pay for bandwidth and express an opinion, you may be violating election laws.
I don't think this is what free speech in a democracy is: say what you want, just don't spend too much money doing it, and be careful in which format you choose to speak, and try not to mention candidates by name.
"In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill..."
This sentence is an oxymoron. The debate "broke largely along party lines" yet 3/4 of the democrats voted aginst the bill.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
They even say that they're fair and balanced.
Fox wouldn't LIE to me, would it??
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Bzzt. Wrong. But you do get this case of Turtle Wax. TFB says:
The bill is precisely about allowing one party or another to spend unlimited amounts of money online.
Sheesh.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
Where does this idea come from that spending money is speech? There's no restriction on speech per se here. What's being restricted is the right to be a paid shill.
If Joe wants to post about how great Bush is, there's nothing in the law to stop him. It's only if he wants to earn money from saying how great Bush is that there's a problem, and it's the money part which is the cause of the restriction.
It's actually kinda like the iTunes DRM thing. A lot of people on Slashdot trash the iPod for having DRM, and ignore the fact that you are completely free to put unrestricted MP3s on it and never have any DRM restrictions imposed on you. The iPod does not restrict your use of music; it's buying from the iTunes music store that causes the restrictions to come into play.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
An act in Congress to defend free speech? Hear that? No. It's not your new fan-like subwoofer. It's the Founders spinning in their graves. Either that or our government just sounded another brown note. There is absolutely no need for this. It's covered by the first ammendment. And, if the SCOTUS doesn't back us up on that, then the court of last resort has failed. Then, when the court of last resort fails, it's time for the formation of a new government, just as the Founders formed a new government. I just hope we can keep the bloodshed to a minimum.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Politicians have voted against a bill that would make it easier to criticize them with impunity?!? What possible motivation could the politicians have to do such a thing? Surely, like all other human beings, they must openly welcome criticism of themselves!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
Your think you can improve the internet's SNR through legislation. Bwahahahahahaaahaa.
Good Luck!
Top Democrat bloggers discuss this setback for free expression.
--
make install -not war
... if we can't rely on the Democrats to protect our freedoms
When have you ever been able to rely on Democrats to protect your freedoms?!? This is the party that doesn't acknowledge your right to retain the fruits of your own labor, which implies that they don't respect your right to property at all. Well, if you don't own property then you don't own yourself, so who do you belong to? "The government?" "Society?" Do you really want to know?
Democrats don't have one bit more concern for your freedoms than Republicans... I'm amazed that there are still people in this country who haven't figured that out yet.
, then who are we to rely on?
I would suggest that, if freedom is an important concern to you, you look to the Libertarians.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Many on the far right would claim that fox's slogan is in fact a play on the rest of media claiming it is fair and balanced, while in fact biased to the left. (Witness CBS releasing and standing by fake documents in the last election)
These are the same people who will call Fox mid left, and everyone else extreme left. That most of Europe would consider the US media mid right is not important to them.
Here is the complete bill text:0 6:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.16
Online Freedom of Speech Act (Introduced in House)
HR 1606 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1606
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2005
Mr. HENSARLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Online Freedom of Speech Act'.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
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.'.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The US constitution say nothing about what color or race slaves must be. According to the constitution if I captured a German I could make him my slave (if I was in an area that allowed slavery), even though that person would be white. There were even 1 or 2 cases of this in history, but there was a large supply of slaves coming out of Africa, and no Government to object. In my example the German government would object (though back when slavery was legal in the US, Germany as we know it isn't exist) and it is likely the US government would make me send my slave back.
Color was never a requirement for slavery. It just happened that black slaves were in supply, so blacks became slaves.
Oh.. now the liberal and emotional readers of Slashdot will have to figure out a way to pretend that Democrats really do protect free speech. The way I see it though, Dems have been foaming at the mouth since the advent of talk radio and blogging because the mainstream media can no longer spread liberal tripe unchecked. If they could do it, dems would ban talk radio and blogging altogether.
...and about forty Republican congressmen, it would appear. Sounds to me like a bipartisan defeat.
Actually your post gives us no information about the political parties involved. It could be 3 democrats, 3 republicans, or any mixture of the above. All we know is that the spouses are composed of 1 democrat and 2 republicans.
I personally know many married couples, where both are politically active, and one is a democrat and the other a republican. I also know many instances where both belong to the same party (with plenty of instances of each party). It is completely incorrect to draw any conclusion about someones party based solely on their souses' party.
You presume too much.
Having worked on several campaigns including a presidential campaign, I'm more than qualified to know a smear campaign when I see it.
Note I didn't say that I supported Kerry. I merely made an observation based upon my experience.
Nice knee-jerk reaction though.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is not an encroachment on your right to free speech. This just applies existing election campaign laws to Internet communication.
Existing campaign finance laws encroach on free speech.
For all practical reasons, blogger can say what they want. They know this.
What this does is allow a party to go after another party if the mis-behave.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There's nothing in the freedom of speech clause that says its only free speech up to a certain artificially imposed spending limit.
And just where in the 1st Amendment does it say that money is equivalent to speech, and thus Constitutionally protected?
...
Yeah, thought not.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
We've now had thirty years of campaign finance reform.
Would you say things are better now (now that you have to hire a campaign finance lawyer and an accounting firm to run for office)?
Communication technology expansion makes campaign finance reform a joke. It was a joke to begin with anyway, as it has only been used by incumbents to protect their political power, as evidenced by a higher number of incumbents winning races.
Actually, I misquoted. It is not the White House per se but rather the Republican party. I heard the comment the other day. Maybe even the day Alito was nominated.
I did a quick search after I posted but couldn't find the specific quote I was looking for but I haven't given up. I am still looking for it.
Bear with me.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The media is not liberal. there are liberal aspects, but people like Rush would ahve you believe that all media is liberal and spins liberal. This is simply not true.
Clinton cheated on his wife, and was beaten to a pulp publicity wise. Even when most polls showed that a large percentage of american didn't care, it still went on.
Bush lied to get us to war, Haliburton id getting no bid contracts, etc ad nauseum. he hasn't gotten half the negative press Clinton did.
I find that the media is a lot closer to center, and all arguements I have heard otherwise have just been strawmen.
AS far as this issue goes, it is very completcated. AS we all know, they can't enforce this accross the board and go after every offended. What they can do, is shut down the occasional site for violating these rules. They do exist for a reason.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
'nuff said
If I have unlimited money, and I want to spend my money endorsing a candidate, how is it not a restriction of my speech to put ANY restrictions on how I spend it?
Limiting spending is limiting speech.
Actually the Libertarian Party and the Green party are cordial enough. Both organized the "alternative presidential debates" and have organized joint protests of the Iraq war.
Basicly, the mainstream left (and the right too, but that doesn't apply to the Green Party) in the U.S. are hardcore dedicating to supressing all political parties except the Democrats and the Republicans... if we can get them interested in another party like the Green Party, maybe the left wouldn't be so rabidly hostile to a true multi-party democracy like they are now, and would help eliminate all these legal restrictions that give Democrats and Republicans total politcal power.
Hmmmm...next time someone claims the Democrats are all about protecting the Trial Lawyers, maybe people will pay attention.
Yes, this is flippant. No, it is not a troll or flamebait.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Creating protection for bloggers must be very, very carefully written to avoid creating such massive holes in campaign finance laws. Adding the words "except for communication on the Internet" to the existing laws doesn't meet that standard....
The radio personality issue is a grey area. I won't attempt to give an opinion, as I don't have all the information presented in that particular case.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Is it that hard for you guys to assimilate new information that doesn't fit in with your preconcieved ideas? Face it - the Democratic party is capable of doing something you don't like. They are not the "good guys" and Republicans the "bad guys" each party acts for complicated, calculated reasons and its possible they weren't with you on this one.
This bill is all about trashing campaign finance reform laws.
No, it isn't. It's about exactly what it says it's about, which is exempting some opinionated dude in his pajamas from having to hire lawyers and accountants in order to exercise his first amendment right to free speech.
Actually it's about both. That's because the campaign finance laws were intended, from the start, to stifle the free speech of grass-roots campaigners.
Grass roots actions have been very successful, primarily in unseating Democratic candidates: Roberti, Roos, and Foley to name just three. (Tom Foley was the first House Speaker ever to be voted out of office, and that was entirely due to a grass-roots letter campaign.) These grass roots actions were organized via internet communication tools: Newsgroups, email, and blogs. (Campaign finance laws were "reformed" to make such grass-roots organization more difficult immediately thereafter. Now that blogging has been similarly effective on its own, it's time for another round of "reform" to spike it.)
Major media gets the Democrats' viewpoints on issues out while the Republicans' side gets out mainly over talk shows (which preach to the choir), part-time on Fox News, and via internet outlets such as blogs. When the media omits or distorts in the Democrats' favor it's mainly the blogs that act as a truth squad to expose the omissiions and falisifications. (Think of Drudge and the Monica scandals, or Powerline and LittleGreenFootballs vs. Dan Rather's forged letters.)
The Democrats also get lots of free publicity from major media and billions in campaign contributions from certain organizations (notably: labor unions) that were carefully exempted from the campaign finance laws. Practically the only place Republicans get such unregulated support is internet blogging.
And then there's the likes of George Soros. (If you had any illusions left that "campaign finance reform" was really about keeping a few billionaires from trying to buy elections and control over political party machinery you need only look at what he's been up to, and how it was enabled by the last round of "reforms".)
So it's hardly surprising to see the Democrats - with a solid lock on the media - trying to stifle grass-roots free speech, or the Republicans - its main beneficiaries - trying to defend it.
However, that's not the only factor: Both parties tend to attract compensated psychopaths and put them in positions of power. But the two parties attract psychopaths with different styles of compensation. Democrats tend to get the "anything goes" type, Republicans the "rule-bound" type. So it's also not surprising to see Democratic politicians voting for whatever is most expedient for their own plans and programs, Republicans for whatever their theories say is "right" - even if it's not necessarily to their benefit. In this case theory calls for free speech, limitation on government power, and the people discussing candidates and making informed choices about who to select. This is perceived as a benefit for Republicans, so among Republicans both the idologues and the pragmatists are on the same page.
"Campaign finance reform" is also known as "the incumbent protection act". It helps them keep their seats despite what they do to tick people off by erecting barriers against speech for anyone not part of the established power structure. (The big guys have the time and money to run the maze, while you and I would get stuck if we tried.)
The Internet is the main way we little people have escaped the institutional roadblocks and shaken the power structure. So now the power-brokers are moving to extend their controls over political speech into the internet. Since the internet community's main power base is internet free speech, we should recognize and oppose this move - regardless of what candy-coating is applies.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I will talk about about what ever i want with whom ever i want. What could i say that would have me ending up in jail?
If he wanted to be a lawyer he wouldn't be working at slashdot. Now you're probably thinking that now I'm putting the blame back on democrats who shot down this "pro-blogger" bill. Not the case. This is just typical congressional garbage that we are all just supposed to put up with. Rider laws have become the norm, and it's just wrong. Unfortunatly this isn't a them-vs-them issue, it's an US-vs-them issue and nobody is likely to take up a fight with congress.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
jeez. The FCC should just get their Hand out of the Internet and go do something unplesent to themselves.
Government + Technology != Happyness
Val(-Government) + Technology = Happyness
*/troll*
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
The DMCA doesn't say "Don't Steal", it says "Don't say or do anything that could in any way, intentiallly or unintentionally, help someone to steal".
If I post on a website how to backup my copy protected video games, I can end up in jail! If I post a security flaw in a piece of software, I can go to jail.
Ok, so does this mean I can't say "Bush sucks big hairy donkey balls" on my blog anymore?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
The Dems didn't like this for the same reasons that Dems don't like talk radio -- they don't control it. They like the fact that Big Media tends to lean left (no, not exclusively, but that's the tendency). In turn, Big Media hates bloggers -- it undermines their control over popular opinion.
Despite what they say, the left likes to limit free speech, so long as it is free speech on the right. The Campaign Finance Law itself is a limit on free speech -- you can't take out an ad supporting your favorite candidate why now? Be suspicious of anyone trying to limit your freedom, whether that's the Patriot Act or Campaign Speech^WFinance Reform or restrictions on blogging. Actually be more suspicious of the latter -- a limit on what you can say is more pernicious than a limit on what you can do -- with free speech you can at least complain, and maybe bring about a change.
When black apears white or pigs appear to have sprouted wings, there's usually politics behind it, that's where Critical Thinking separates the herd.
Indeed. You might apply some of that yourself.
-- Alastair
ITs not regulated.
You can say whatever you want. The freedom of speech applies to you.
Lets say however you and I get into a nasty lawsuit? We go to court and I promise the judge $10,000 for being a nice guy towards his re-election campaign. Now the judge rules in favor of me.
This is bribing that is legal called campaign financing as far as I am concerned. The idea of the bill was to let those under the guise of web organizations to have special powers immune to the McCain campaign finance reform laws. Its trick made by some republican and lobbiest laywers.
Pat Robertson who supported bush in the republican primaries called bribing free speech as the anti abortition movement is one of the most powerfull lobbying groups in the country and that scared him. To this day opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill still call it free speech. Odd since he rallied agaisnt the teachers union slamming them as the most powerfull lobbying group in the country. Can you say hypocrite?
You have freespeech all you want but purching advertising time is different. Its no different from only a selected few *rich* people talking on megaphones to the public while you can not.
http://saveie6.com/
If, as a political candidate, I pay the American Steel Industry Journal to run an editorial endorsing me, it is somehow fraud and I get in trouble with the FEC.
If, as a political candidate, I promise to give a billion dollar subsidy to steel manufacturing, and a billion dollar subsidy to the American Steel Industry Journal to promote "Steel Manufacturing Awareness", and of course they endorse me, I am A-OK?
So why is it wrong to bribe people with your own money, but great to bribe people with other people's money?
Those are the dixiecrats and are conservatives. They joined the republican party by the 1950's and 1960's. Ronald Reagan and controversial Strom Thurmond who ran on teh states rights party were part of the conservative democratic movement. Jesse Helmes is another conservative dixiecrat turned republican.
President Johnson finished the split after the 1964 civil rights bill.
More information is available here. You right about one thing. In the past the democratic party was teh conservative one.
http://saveie6.com/
I'm sure this thread has already gotten into a "right vs. left", "dem vs. repub" flamewar.
I am confident, though, that the majority of Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to see how that debate keeps both parties in power. It is an unholy doupoly that has paralyzed this country.
Both parties are corrupt. Before you pick a banner to stand under, look at the entire party platform, not just the few issues that drew your attention. They polarize you on hot button issues, the things you care most about, but look deeper and you will see that there are huge portions of each parties platform that are ideologically inconsistent. Chances are you personally, yes you, are neither a republican nor a democrat. You are probably something else, a party that doesn't even exist, with issues that fall on "both" sides of the "political spectrum" (ha, what a concept.)
The problem is that neither party represents a progressive, mainstream coalition of Americans that DOES EXIST and could actually be MOVING THIS COUNTRY FORWARD. Chances are, you are in that progressive, mainstream coalition, even if you are a gay stock broker who has a complex viewpoint on abortion. WE ARE MORE ALIKE THAN THEY LET US THINK.
So please, think about whether its about choosing sides, or in fact, getting rid of the people who force you to choose.
Moderators....First post was Flamebate! Not insightful.
The Dems still believe Kerry should've won, because 60 Minutes should be God!
But, those pesky bloggers smelled a rat.
They have very little benefit from the Web.
Sites like Move On Dot Org were supposed to have Repubs trembling in their shoes, but, in reality, when instead, most people see it as a front to the Socialist Party.
The point of the legislation was to remove the ambiguity regarding in kind contributions with respect to internet sites. If you believe that government should not allow people to spend too much money to advocate their position, then you can argue that this particular exemption was overly broad, but it does not alleviate the obvious need for free speech protections for individual bloggers. You should read the brief submitted by the EFF in regards to FEC regulation of the internet.
Why would you think the Republicans would oppose it? The Democrats have been having a hemorage about talk radio for years now, and have made several attempts to stop it. From my perspective, if they thought what was being said on talk radio was BS, they should get the facts and point it out at every opportunity, NOT restrict free speech. That'd be as bad as Republicans trying to shut down that liberal talk radio syndicate, Air America. They should BOTH exist. Let the people talk.
a p/National/Maryland_Racial_Politics.html
Is it because you think the Democrats always do the right thing?
Far from it. For example, lately they've been doing things like this:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/
Not exactly enlightened in this day and age.
It isn't Republicans or Democrats - time to look at the Libertarians
Here's what I believe. I believe our election system is fundamentally broken at nearly every level. I believe that those restrictions are a good start towards where things need to go.
In my ideal election system, people would be required to get a certain number of signatures to appear on the ballot. The government at the appropriate level should allocate a portion of their budget to creating a fund. This fund should be distributed equally to anyone who has obtained sufficient signatures by a certain date.
Apart from advertisements paid for by those funds, I believe political advertising should be abolished, including -all- third-party campaign ads promoting the election of an individual. (Third-party ads for ballot initiatives are probably okay, since those are inherently fairly local.) I believe that private funding of campaigns should be abolished, since all it really does is ensure that, with very rare exceptions, only career politicians and very wealthy individuals can run for any office above the local (or sometimes state) level.
If this sort of campaign finance limit were put into place, and third parties (PACs, etc.) were disallowed from paying for advertisements, then this wouldn't be an issue at all, as all candidates would have equal opportunities to advertise, and thus equal opportunities to influence the media, etc. through their contributions.
Given that such a change to the system is unlikely, though, there are some very narrow changes that could help bloggers without resulting in overly broad loopholes:
Without the first change above, free speech is compromised. Without the second change, the system fails to achieve what campaign finance laws are trying to achieve. The problem is that this bill did not contain the second limit.
And, of course, bloggers with political agendas can steer clear of the situation by simply not accepting advertisements from political groups. If they are popular, they will be able to get plenty of advertisements from other groups wanting their share of those eyes. This avoids the problem entirely. This is not only the most legally safe bet, it is also the most ethical way to proceed, and thus should be encouraged.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The left is just as disgustingly evil as the right.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
> "It is impossible for the Democrats to stop anything in the House."
b uster)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
> Nice try though, playing the victim. You are perfect Democrat material.
who the parent up as insightful??
first of all, the filibuster is only in the house, one of the US's 2 legislative bodies. the article was about a vote in the House, not the senate.
secondly, the Republicans can take away the filibuster in what the *Republicans* called the Nuclear Option http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(fili
I emphasized the "Republicans* in the previous sentence because a Republican came up with the term..."Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposal's leading advocates, coined the term before Republican strategists judged it a liability and urged Senate Republicans to adopt the term "constitutional option" instead."
More info at
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180006
no more free speech for y'all americans, ey ?
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
[patiently waiting]
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Your comment is false. True republicans have a simple majority in the house. That means they have more than 50% of the seats. However that doesn't not mean they control everything, some votes require more than a simple majority. This vote required a 2/3rds majority to pass, and the republicans do not have that much power. Even if all the republicans vote for it (so far I have not found any list of how the republicans voted so I'm not sure) that is not enough to get it to pass. 20 something (23? I saw the list but forgot the count) democrats voted for this, and it still wasn't enough to pass.
My state (not federal, state) congressmen is resigning. There is an election scheduled latter this month for his replacement. If this law directly affects how that campaign is run.
If you live in an area where there is no election anytime soon there is no real urgency. However if there is an election you need this protection.
Indeed as you point out bloggers on both sides of the fence and even the middle were all for the passage of this bill.
Which makes it even more rediculous the Democrats by and large sunk it! Take a look at the list of people voting against, hardly any were Republicans.
This bill being killed was all about the people not in power disliking the freedom blogs had to say what they wished, the freedom of blogs on thier own side be damned. Perhaps the Republicans would have acted the same in the same position, but all we know for sure is that the Democrats DID kill this bill. The people of the U.S. who are members of the Democratic (and Republican for those few cases) parties need to REMEMBER the votes on this bill come primary and election time.
It really is as simple as it looks this time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ask the people running Daily Kos or Instapundit how mcuh it doesn't cost to run a blog.
If you are writing a blog about your dog scooter and the day he spent looking at squirrels out the window - yeah that pretty much doesn't cost anything. But for sites with a lot of volume, tens or hundreds of thousands of readers a day - well that costs in terms of bandwith and server load. And some of these guys are doing it as a full time job.
I mean, if you want to see your favorite political blog shut down (like the Daily Kos or other) then it's a bright day. Because a lot of political commentary online is going to go away as a direct result of the FCC ruling.
Is it so hard to believe an idea coming from the FCC is garbage when they have so many other ideas it's generally agreed upon are poor ones?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since when have unions been there to benefit the working man and not union leaders? You noted historically they backed some Republicans - I guess that was when they were still healty and honest. There's nothing healthy about a union supporting only one party.
And you mistake the environmental groups listed for the only way to help the environment. There are plenty of Republicans for environmental groups like the Nature Conversancy, that are there to actually help the environment through brokering deals with buisness and outright buying large amounts of open space. The ones you mentioned are just there to keep themselves running and every now and then send out glossy flyers to members proclaiming how much they care about litttle flowers. That's great but what have they really done to help? As an avid outdoorsman and naturalist I prefer results to words.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If people would pay more attention to their actions than their rhetoric (especially over a period of time greater than a decade), they'd find they're disturbingly similar.
Generally I think of them as the same too.
But in this case, careful observation finds they are distressingly dissimilar. If they were the same the bill would have passed.
Basically I find myself a liberatarian who is slowly being forced to vote Republican more often than not because when the parties do diverge, the Democrats are going the way I don't want to go.
Often now I find myself wishing Perot had won the presidency years ago so there would be a viable third party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can buy 1 million blogs. But that doesn't mean anyone will read them.
That is entirely unlike TV advertising where my purchase of all ads means a specific number of viewers WILL be watching those ads.
People seek out what to read on the internet. They are told what they will watch on TV. That is why campaign finance reforms for the internet are utterly ridiculous and harmful.
The blocking of this bill is all about Democrats feeling that conservative blogs are, by and large, handing their ass to them on a platter. They want to see it all shut down, even if things like the Daily Kos end up taking collateral damage.
If this bill was so wrong, why did it enjoy such a preponderance of support from the blogging community at large both conservative and liberal (and otherwise). Surely if it were bad some of the more rational thinkers (pick your favorite on either side of the fence) would have been against it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Vagueries in the bill open up a fund-funneling loophole through which you could drive a convoy of trucks.
But only on the internet, which has no limited detailed audience like other media does. The internet can take a convey of trucks, swallow them whole, then say "give me more" with not a single truck left to be seen.
People are talking about "scary" things like the possibility of someone starting up a million blogs in favor of one thing or another. So what? Who is going to read them? On the internet the reader is empowered as to what he reads and when he reads it. It's just not the same area at all and is too young a medium to have rules for other media blindly applied. Just like in other cases where rules from other realms have been applied to the internet with disasterous results, so to are the new FEC rules going to be applied in ways that will make your blood boil - be you liberal or conservative. This is going to enable nuclear level conflict of lawsuits aimed at blogs on boths sides with the public taking the brunt of the damage.
Are you worried about popular blogs taking kickbacks? Well there was a little bit of that going on in the last election and fellow bloggers outed them. As many have noted, bloggers police (vet) fellow bloggers far better than anyone else could ever hope to. The kind of runaway problems you are envisioning just don't happen because blogging is a self-limiting activity. People only read blogs they find credible and so bloggers cannot risk things like undisclosed kickbacks because it WILL destroy them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'd want some amendments that make sure that any interests, be them liberal, conservative, etc., cannot give unlimited amounts of money, so long as done over the Internet.
Outline ANY scenario where dumping an infinite amount of money into "the internet" gives one party any advantage whatsoever.
The speech that people listen to on the internet is chosen by the people themselves. Would you also argue that you should cap the number of books it is permissible for Republicans or Democrats to publish in one year? Why would you ever argue to limit the number of books availiable in what is essentially a global library.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm confused how I am using 527's for anything, when I have nothing to do with them. They are more related to old media than major internet activity. While they provide amusing diversions they are not as relevant to political activity on the internet as most bloggers are.
Nor are unions in the generic sense my "Political enemy". I do not think all unions to be corrupt, just the large ones (the ones with all the lobbying money and thus the ones on that list). Like any human organization they grow beyond a useful size, whcih is why generally it's best to not have them in the first place or limit the scope they operate in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Don't take any money from any political party, and enjoy the freedom of speech you've always had.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Liberals and Socialists hate the freedom that the internet gives people.
Look at the effect that the internet has had on China even the government there can't controll it and the freedom that it gives people.
This is just another example of how far we have come as a country from our founding fathers intentions.
The only kind of government that requires controll of political speech is marxism and that is simply not acceptable in the USA.
Hillary, Lieberman, Tipper Gore... all names that should ring bells in conjunction with the desire to censor.
Santorum, Delay, Ashcroft, Fallwell, Dobson, Bennett, Corborn... That's more than twice as many Republicans, and that's just what I could come up with off the top of my head. The "religion & morals" crowd is currently the dominant wing of the dominant party...just look at how they sank Mier's nomination.
Let me clue you in on a secret, smarty-pants. People don't like being told they are simpletons and tools. Until the would-be philosopher-kings on the Left learn this lesson well, they will be stuck on the margins of political power, and nobody will benefit from their radiant cosmic enlightenment.
William F. Buckley once said he would rather be governed by a hundred people picked at random from the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Posts like yours make me agree with him.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Hi -- comments are closed in the "Start of Life" discussion; if you're interested in continuing the conversation, feel free to drop me an email. slashdot@my domain name.com
Cheers,
Rob
I do not give a damn about corrupt Republicans or corrupt Democrats. What is important is to get the lobbyists, large business interests and career graft-surfing politicos out, but most importantly the Medieval Inquisition of Greed known as the Neo-cons. And in that regard, I am afraid that the Democrats stand far better chance of winning, at least the 2006 round, then the Republicans as the American public is finally taking notice of the activities of the Neo-cons and the resulting stench of death, busted open bank vaults and the image of plain, frothing at the mouth insanity of the prominent members of the White House is begining to seriously scare the voters. One has to only look at the recent polls by virtually any polster.
One way or another, I am a Canadian and our political landscape is considerably different.