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.
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.
they are, as long as you agree with them :)
Wrong! The bill was brought this up under the Suspension Calendar rule which allows a short debate and no amendments. Democrats had problems with the wording of the bill. Because they could not amend it, they had to vote against it.
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!
Remember who signed the DMCA--Clinton. I think free speech in the slashdot, eff sense is really quite orthogonal to party lines.
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
can someone explain?
Sure. In a nutshell, you've been lied to. I would never assert that the Republican party has always vote pro-Freedom (yeah, we wrote the Patriot Act. Sorry about that.), but censorship has often been a Democratic pastime. Remember, the DMCA was signed by a Democrat president, and the PMRC was a pet project of Tipper Gore.
And yet, to hear liberal groups tell it, it's always the Evil Republicans (tm) who want to silence everyone. The truth is far more complex, but how often do you hear of both parties' sins?
P.S. I don't know which party Jack Thompson affiliates with. I won't blame either party for that nut.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Disclaimer: I am mostly Republican.
The issue is that the bill would have allowed almost unlimited political spending on the Internet. The Republicans almost always have WAY more money than the Democrats, but how they can spend it is sharply constrained by campaign finance laws. The Democrats do not want to allow the Republicans to 'buy' the election by spending vast amounts of money on unregulated messages over the Internet.
Rep: "Pass this bill" so we can pay people to blog for us with no oversight.
Dem: "Stop this bill" or we will lose our asses in the next election.
It's not about free speech, really. It's about campaign finance and tactics.
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
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.
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?
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?
from TFWA:
So 1 democrat + 2 republicans = democratic project?
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
Myself, I vote for politicians (while holding my nose), not for parties.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Remember, the DMCA was signed by a Democrat president
And passed by a Republican majority congress. The sins of both parties are legion, and whenever someone comes around to challenge the status quo, left or right, they band together and squash the threat.
It is so funny to me to listen to the Democratic Party's newly found fondness of federalism, where for 40 years prior they treated support of states' rights and federalism as mere code words for supporting racism and segregation, and out of touch with core American values. Now that they're outnumbered at the federal level, they have all kinds of respect for checks and balances and fiscal responsibility.
Amusing conspiracy rant but it doesn't have anything to do with 527 groups. To make my point, here is a URL for the list of the top 527 groups nationwide:m tes.asp?level=C&cycle=2006
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527c
Note that of the top 10, only numbers 4,5 and 7 are Republican and only one, 9, is reasonably non-partisan.
Somehow the parent was modded 'insightful'?
Ignorance has covered the land, eh whos suprised?
This bill in NO WAY will effect your ability to post whatever you want on your website, UNLESS you recieve money from somebody in a political party to post said content. You can post or publish ANYTHING you like, as long as you do it with your money. In no way would that restrain your ability to read other people who run, and edit THEIR OWN blogs. And then, EVEN IF these websites recieved such money, the only thing you would notice is the disclosure of WHO paid money.
For some reason, this is being posted with a title that disparages democrats, when in actuality they struck down a bill that would have made the funding source similar to CLOSED-SOURCE software, ie you cant look at it. Or by striking down this bill, the funding stream FOR EVERYONE has to BY LAW be disclosed just like everywhere else, ie OPEN-SOURCE. I mean isnt that the republican line on all this Patriot Act smoke and mirrors? The basic line of thinking, if you arent hiding anything in your funding sources, why wouldnt you want to disclose them? If you stopped listening to the rhetoric, you wouldnt get caught up in such inconsistancies of logic.
Stop being such an uninformed alarminst!
On a side note, I stopped having stories posted by 'Zonk' display on my slashdot homepage, because they were just garbage and it made me start to stay away from this site. The only way I noticed this article was by logging in on a computer that wasnt mine. It was amazing how much removing just that single editor made a difference in the percieved, and actual, quality of slashdot.
And the Republicans AND Democrats have way more money than every other political party...where's the laws bringing that into balance? Oh wait, we third party people don't even argue about that... We just want elections that are fair where when we get on the ballot we don't get dragged into local courts by the big parties with them arguing we should be taken off because we have no chance to win...because we aren't them... where our Presidential candidates, if they are on enough ballots to (in theory) get enough electoral votes to win, can participate in Presidential debates...where the ballot boxes aren't stuffed and voting machines aren't rigged (both big parties guilty of this)... In other words, we want Free and Democratic elections in the United States (well....everyone sems to want them for Iraq, or this or that third world piss poor country, only fair we should want them here.) That would be election reform. Who gives a shit about "campaign finance" at a stage where everything else is broken?
Then why isn't it called "\." ?
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.