Slashdot Mirror
Political Bloggers May Be Forced to Register
Thebes writes "Under Senate Bill S.1, political bloggers with a readership of over 500 who comment on policy matters or hope to incite 'grassroots' action amongst their readers would be forced to register with the Federal Government as lobbyists."
Huh. I thought it was only the Republicans who were after our 1st Amendment rights. But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again by trying to control who says what.
<sarcasm>Oh, never mind, they just want to make sure we have "our papers in order" before we can criticize them.</sarcasm> And we thought that they would be for our rights. But it looks like they are just interested in using the power to stay in power.
It's time to lose the naivte and realize that politicians (whether Republicans or Democrats) are only interested in one thing--getting re-elected.
how else would Congress know where to send the checks?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
"Political Bloggers Bay Be Forced to Register"
Alliteration is cute, but this is stretching it.
I, for one, welcome our new Democrat overlords.
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
ooops
Even if this passes, I can't imagine a judge would uphold it in court.
Your Rights Online: Political Bloggers ***May Be Forced to Register
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
*cough* *choke*
If this isn't just an internet rumor, let it stand as further proof that no one in DC understands the "intertubes." As if we needed further proof. Gah.
This would be a good thing. Just think of how 99% of all blogs would then disappear, freeing up HUGE amounts of wasted bandwidth and reducing the Google Index by 1 good 2/3rds!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Is there a Freudian slip there? ... or just bad typing?
Are they trying to buy Sealand too?
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
I mean, it's not like lobbyists don't exist elsewhere...tobacco? Oil? Gun ownership? Various unions? Alcohol?
What about all the "bloggers" (holy vaginal discharge I hate that word) who would be considered a lobbyist under this new rule? Do they have to register as well?
Living With a Nerd
i hear there be dragons in Bloggers Bay
/. editors bay be forced to work soon.
Our civil servants are committed to being our uncivil masters.
/. members who can to vote "NO" to *anything* regarding McCain, and hope that this poor little non-accomplisher can exit to the well-deserved status of non-entity.
The one upside to the US is that the process is documented and public *as* *it* *happens*.
I would encourage all
668: Neighbour of the Beast
So how exactly are you supposed to accurately count the readership of a blog? By the number of web hits? Comments? "Friends"? Death threats? What if the two people who do read your blog print off your rants and distribute them to thousands of people that you have no idea are reading your blog?
Maybe it's just a common sense judgement because the 500 people figure falls in the valley between having a blog that anyone cares about, and having a blog that you really, really, wished anyone would care about.
Each of my blogs has only 499 users.
But if one of my blogs did indeed gain an extra reader, how would they ever know?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Call your fascistly selected leaders and demand the arrest, trial, conviction, and
sentencing of the Al-Qaeda Commander-In-Chief
Thanks for your patriotism,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
The bill just redefines what it means to be a lobbyist, and seeing as this comes from a grassroots lobbyist, I would argue that this exact article is exactly the type of lybbying the Senate wishes to be kept informed of.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
but before i begin, i'd like to ask the 501st of you who are reading this comment to stop right now. thanks
i think that the us government...
wait, what?! why are you still reading!?
OH NOES I'M DOOMED
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now what will happen to the blogosphere :(
Or will it become illegal to do so?
Go fuck yourselves. Hard.
I use to be Republican. It isn't about sides. It's about freedom (ours) and power (theirs).
If we are to remain free, we should be able to criticize the government WITHOUT revealing our identity.
The idea is that we, the people, can overthrow our government IF it goes too far. It is our duty to do so.
These laws always seem to get written in a way that merely protects the status quo of the two-party duoply and create barriers of entry to any new forces that might upset the apple cart. This is a bipartisan problem that seems to affect all who get power.
If the blog is supposedly a bunch of game fans saying certain games are great, but it's really Sony paying people to pose as gamers to promote a product, I can see the usefulness of this. If an editor of slashdot starts posting alot of fluffy MS is awesome articles :), and is being paid by MS to do so, that should be disclosed. Just trying to prevent the funneling of money through fake grassroots organization. Where they really messed up is in their definition of paid. Paid should mean they are given money by a third party to promote an agenda. I will agree that the clause is horrible, but I would say that ruins what is otherwise a descent peice of legislation.
...or news commentators have to do this? This is, pardon the crassness, total and unmitigated bullshit.
Loading...
Slashdot: Propaganda for Knee-Jerkers. More sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard _Viguerie
500 is such a low number that it's clear all the government wants to do is keep tabs on bloggers. Lobbyists are required to file reports of their activities quarterly. Other laws regarding lobbying are mostly to do with spending money on a politician (not really relevant here, since bloggers *aren't actually lobbyists* and so they probably don't do that anyway). Also, politicians are banned from becoming lobbyists for 2 years. That means that politicians wouldn't be able to keep political blogs (since I assume their readership would be > 500) for two years after leaving office. How is that a good thing? While lobbying reform from earlier in 2006 was mostly a good thing, it also emphasized that being a lobbyist was worse than not being one from a number of perspectives. What the proposition aims to do is effectively restrict the freedom of political bloggers. Some might indeed be in need of some restricting, especially if their viewpoints clash with mine :cough: but really it's just too sweeping of a suggestion.
I like basketball!!1!
The good folks at M-W.com http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lobbyist have this to say about lobbyists:
intransitive verb : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
transitive verb
1 : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
2 : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action
Shouldn't this then mean that when a blogger has 500 or more public officials as readers?
If a blogger is being paid by a lobby group, it simply makes them a shill, and has no more influence on lawmakers than actual public opinion might. This is, after all, how public opinion is formed, by listening to our peers, the news, and other sources and making up our own minds.
Should political magazines be required to register as lobbyists? Would a preacher/priest/etc. be required to register as a lobbyist if he mentions politics from the pulpit and the church has more than 500 members? This would cause tons of problems for certain demographic groups in the US.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
For those who would like the full text of this bill see here. The article is just a bunch of FUD. The actual text that has the author so concerned, about a readership of greater than 500 counting as paid, is actually being misread. The actual text is "The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public." (from here). This means that you can be paid for grass roots lobbying and not have to register if you have less than 500 readers, which actually protects your rights.
Clones are people two.
The article is rather misleading. The section in question applies to astroturf operations, not bloggers:
...so it explicitly does not apply to what we normally think of as bloggers.
--MarkusQ
defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or
more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
What's the penalty for not registering? Fines?
Are you actually going to go out into cyberspace and make sure people do it?
How are you going to make sure we have 500 readers? Are the hosts going to be subpoenaed for page views?
Is 500 readers mean per day? Per post? Per month?
It is my personal belief that your government has been subverted by traitors to the American way. One hopes they will step down as required by law in two years, but this regime's callous disregard in that matter is certainly cause for alarm.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Suffice it to say that anyone who wants to post to slashdot would definately have to register. Aaah... sweet civil disobedience of posting as AC. Won't that just ruin the moderator system?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
500 hits per day? 500 unique readers in a ten year span? 500 "friends" linked on your myspace page? 500 links from incestuous follow-backs or google bombs?
Free speech is one of the most important rights we have; why is the government so keen on regulating it? You can't regulate a right, it is a right. I can understand regulating the lobbyists for organizations, corporations, and interest groups--groups are not citizens. But individuals who ARE citizens have inalienable rights. A hearty "Fuck Off!" to those who seek to "regulate" individual rights.
More music, fewer hits
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You do realize that many blogs have some kind of advertising to help pay for the costs of running the website, right?
Screw Democrats
I, for one, welcome our new Patriot overlords.
Arsenal Gear? It has the proper weapon now, we just need to write GW.
This is just temporary.
How does an online diary or web log qualify anyone as a lobbyist?
So if I don't register my blog who will come and arrest me?
can you spell go fuck yourself?
So after this bill passes, in order to freely exercise one's constitutional freedom of speech, an American must either register with the government or move abroad?
Sometimes you people make no sense.
TFA points out that Senator David Vitter (R-LA) proposed Amendment 7, which criminalized blogosphere non-filing, which could be seen as a ploy to kill Section 220 altogether by making it more 'newsworthy'.
Vitter simultaneously supports Amendment 20 which would k-line Section 220 entirely, thus supporting above theory...
So WHO (or whom) originally wrote the offensive Section 220??? The donkeys or the elephants?
Talk about shoddy/biased reporting by Richard Viguerie of Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed for being too popular, had its name changed, or the author is temporarily unavailable (being flogged).Please try the following:
- Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
- If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact
the FEC to alert them that the link is not working.
- Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 499 - File or directory not found.Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
How do they differentiate between Lobbyists and Journalists? I mean a blogger is much closer to a journalist, and I assume they would not make journalists register. Sure they are biased journalists and their rants are closer to editorials, but this is not lobbying even in the loosest sense of the word. Under one definition: "A person who communicates with the Legislature and to support or oppose legislation" If the blogger does not communicate directly with the legislature than there should be no problem. If your audience is primarily the public then you are not a lobbyist. If you are communicating primarily with members of the legislature then you are likely a lobbyist. I assume common sense would prevail.
In Capitalist USA you must register online political activity.
In Soviet Union all political activity registered for you!
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
They are taking away our rights bit by bit, the US and UK are becoming fascist states, oh how I wish I was exaggerating. Please we cannot let this happen. collect your star of david arm band on the way out.
So, my grassroots lobbying is ok as long as nobody is paying attention? And if I do post something which gathers a political following, suddenly I've got papers to fill out?
Why would anyone bother in the first place? The point of grassroots lobbying is to influence a large number of people. Paid lobbyists, OTOH, are paid instead to influence only a handful of very important people. IOW, this bill would effectively stifle citizens groups fighting for their rights in favor of corporate lobbyists.
So, by all means pass this bill! Then act surprised when DRM becomes a mandatory component of computers. Act outraged when Corporate America(TM) patents everything short of tying your own shoes. Protest the tax breaks given to Big Oil. But don't dare blog about it unless you can be certain that nobody cares about your stupid opinion (they probably don't anyway, but one can hope).
Nothing like stifling democracy by restricting fourth amendment freedoms.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
But not worth it. This must fail.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Did anyone else notice that TFA is not a 'news' article, but rather a "statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com" ?
In other words, no meat or substance to this at all. Let's get the text of the bill itself, or have some attempt at fair journalism. Ah, I forgot, this is Slashdot. No such thing here.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
You bet. I also realize that many of them like doughnuts, have siblings, and read books. Further, I concede that they often have heartfelt opinions about matters of punctuation and some (but not all) of them did well in algebra.
But most importantly, I can recognize a straw man from a kilometer away. Bloggers taking advertising doesn't mean that their advertisers are paying them to influence public opinion, anymore than the lawyer whose face is plastered all over the city buses around here is paying people to use public transportation.
Nice try though.
--MarkusQ
This guy seems to have about as much credibility as Newsmax.
This sig no verb.
What a joke. Anyone who doesn't see the imminent return of fascism in the US is clearly blind. Is there anyone alive who thinks that this will not be used to persecute critics of government policy. And Christ knows there is enough to criticize these days. The most cynical aspect, though, is that the US claims to be the champion of democracy! I sure don't want that kind of democracy here, and I'm damned sure the Iraqis / Afghanis / [ insert current axis-of-evil member here ] don't want this kind of democracy either.
Someone, for the love of God, impeach the bastard!
You Americans are so funny!
re-read that subsection means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials google ads aren't (usually) payments by Google to influence the public to contact legislators. Those payments are only payments to host the ad and get clicks, not for political action. The legislation is specifically targeting those bloggers who are being paid by special interests to push an agenda on their readership.
Clones are people two.
who thought that many of the political comments/opinions here were just outright simplistic. I thought we were enlighten here. Naah, just following the thought crowd like everywhere else.
Not only do you have to be paid by a "Grassroots Lobbying Firm" but also that firm`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
which I would hope is a small subset of firms since that is a substantial amount.
Do spiders, bots and email address harvesters count as 'readers?'
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
1. No one will register
2. Government will come after blogger who is embarassing politician for scandal
3. Bloggers post about government attempt at censorship and create huge grassroots backlash
4. Scandal becomes even more popular
5. Law is struck down and politicians back off another attempt for a very long time
I also imagine any challenge in court would have it immediately struck down anyway.
Honestly, do politicians think this works anymore? When in the history of the internet have scandals been successfully suppressed by theatening jail time?
Pffft, what if they are from outside the US?
most canadians care more about US politics than their own.
This bill is in a response to the 2004 presidential election. During the election, there was a suspicion that certain Texas republicans who are not in office had subordinates who paid bloggers to smear the Democratic Runner (John Kerry). Note that the Democrats had thier own smear campaign going on but they apparently did NOT fund the campaigns privately (they were independant of the Democrats control). The democrats want the republicans to denounce the falsehoods on the sites, but the republicans would only do it if the democrates would also denounce the campaigns in support of them. Neither side agreed and since there was no tracking of paid donations, the democrats could not confirm the "donations" to the smear campaign by the republicans.
As an example of what they were trying to avoid, say there was a politician who believed that DRM is a violation of an individual's rights and that copyrights of music/video should be shortened to 50 years from creation date. All of a sudden there is a political site that suggests that this politician is in fact funding an illegal music download site when the truth is, the politician in fact only has shares in an investment company which has shares in youtube. This political site gets major backing and its words spread through the internet despite political firefighting by the politician and they lose. Of course the MPAA and RIAA were the ones funding the site and supporting sites, but <sarcasm> they weren't really lobbying right </sarcasm>?
Personally, the wording is not very good but the heart is in the right place. False allegations should not be supported by either party and funding these is amoral. I think that as long as the funding of these sites (500+ hits per day) and thier creators are tracked and can be reviewed by court order, that would be good enough for me. And keeping track of these two items should not be too difficult for any grassroots group.
Was "vaginal discharge" really important to your point? I just vomurped a little.
the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1pcs.txt.pdf
The solution for this bullshit is simple: Have everyone post on the blog as anonymouscoward.
Readership is not even the right axis of measurement. Controlling lobbying used to be about controlling money spent to make sure people couldn't just buy elections. Now that the Internet allows the dissemination of ideas for next to nothing, they're trying to control speech with "readership of 500". The cat's out of the bag with this bill's text -- "controlling lobbying" is all about those in power wishing to remain in power by controlling ideas, and not about keeping the fat cats at bay.
This law doesn't really pertain to bloggers, but instead to groups like moveon.org which function to stimulate grassroots lobbying of congress by individuals. An example is that some bill comes up which Moveon decides is a bad thing. It then sends an mass email out to its members and provides a way for them to communicate with their representatives, via an automated fax or email campaign for example. Ironically, I think Slashdot, if there was some comment on this post, saying people should oppose the bill and write their representatives, would be covered under the law and be forced to register.
I'd like to point out that it's the republicans who are trying to axe this section 220. Democrat Harry Reid sponsored the original bill.
Actually, I don't see what's wrong with the intent of section 220, though it is badly worded. If someone is being PAID to blog a certain point of view (not their own) we should know about it. However, it bothers me they redefine a lobbyist. I thought lobbyists lobbied congressmen, their aids, or their aids' aids. I didn't know someone politicing the general public was also a lobbyist.
Once they have your guns, the rest of your rights are academic.
Let's see - once you pass 500 readers per blog, you have to get registered? A trivial piece of software that will translate a blog into a different blog everytime it has been read by 499 should fix this problem. It may even become a simple service that is provided by blog hosting companies...
Come on Slashdot, I'm getting sick of the way I'm being lead around by my nose. At the very least this is a knee jerk reactionary piece of drek, at best it's a forebearing to a law that isn't even out yet and has been misproven multiple times in this comment section already (read the law is the simple key).
Next time you want to bitch about a law LINK THE LAW not what some idiots have on a website.
Finally would someone explain why idiots who want to do grassroots style work doesn't want to be labeled as a lobbyst. HINT THEY ARNT JAILING THEM! THEY ARE TELLING THEM TO BE LISTED AS A LOBBYST IF THEY ARE PAID FOR THEIR BLOGGING WORK AND HAVE MORE THEN 500 READERS! IF THEY DONT AND KNOW THEY SHOULD BE LISTED THEN THEY ARE JAILED.
Being a lobbyst doesn't mean you're guilty of a crime, except maybe lying to your public. At least it'll prove who is being paid and who is actually doing the work they actually support, which is perhaps the only reason this is being met by so much resistance because they are afraid they'll be found out to not be so alturistic as they claim to be.
Yes, politicians have decided to redefine lobbying to mean "attempting to persuade the public", so that the public anger which has focussed on actual lobbying activities—the corrupt relation between politicians and the paid political advocates that dole out favors and funnel campaign cash to politicians in exchange for control over policy—can be redirected to further squash advocacy in the public sphere of exactly the kind that brings official corruption to light and brings pressure to correct it, activitiy by groups seeking to inform and mobilize the public, rather than lobbying politicians.
Clever, that.
In the same vein, photocopiers and printing presses had to be registered and licensed
in the eastern bloc.
Tell you what, these people are the scum of the earth.
Blogs have donut and siblings, and read books? I knew bloggers had those, but didn't know that blogs did!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
> Huh. I thought it was only the Republicans who were after our 1st Amendment rights.
/. earlier in the week about Russ Feingold wanting the "Fairness Doctrine", otherwise known as the abolish talk radio law, back on the agenda and it is clear they simply desire to keep power this time by outlawing opposition.
I know you are being sarcastic, but a lot of "Republicans" do want your 1st Amendment Rights. Almost no Conservatives do though. But RINOs like John McCain are happy to join forces with almost every single Democrat to shut down the 1st. Other RINOs like Rudy want to join forces with Democrats to eliminate the 2nd. But make no mistake, while you can almost always find a RINO to agree with any limitation of essential liberties, the bulk of the votes will come from Democrats. Hell, the Civil Rights act was passed over the opposition (including, I do seem to recall, a filibuster assisted in by none other than the current #3 in the chain of succession) of Democrats.
You think I'm being overly partisan, just slagging Democrats? Consider this then: They get back from the wilderness after a twelve year period out of power and look at the first thing out of the chute? This is Senate Bill #1. I.e. the very first thing they proposed after getting control over the agenda. Combine with the story on
Listen up folks, this is the big fight. None of the rest matters if we can't get the 1st Amendment back. McCain/Feingold already damned near voided it, this will finish the job. If we can't peacefully assemble (in places like blogs for example) and petition our government (i.e. lobby) for redress of our legitimate greivences then the only option left will be messy.
Reasonable people can argue whether the 1st Amendment protects some things, but if it doesn't protect political speech during an election season what the hell is it good for anyway? What sort of diseased mind can claim that the 1st protects porn but supports outlawing buying a billboard to support/oppose a candidate for political office?
Democrat delenda est
And the way this could be used is if someone here on slashdot raised the eyebrows of a powerful lobby (err.. politician) and they decided to go after you. They could put you in jail for saying something they don't like, on the grounds that you are lobbying without a permit.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
So what about the editor of your national/local newspaper or magazine?
They all, from time to time, write political articles. Some have a deliberately partisan approach.
They all have a readership of greater than 500 (Hell, even my local church newsletter that comes through my door 3 times a year does).
Therefore they should all register as lobbyists.
What a piece of garbage piece of legislation.
Stephen
Lobbying is NOT restricted to paid attempts to influence legislators.
As it currently stands, there is no oversight in place to address persons paid to repeatedly, often annonymously post, write, or speak in support of a specific, always unacknowledged agenda.
Remember "Jeff Ganon"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
By virtue of not being required to register his professional backing, he was able to use public resources to manipulate public opinion in the benefit of interests of a small group of interests.
The cost is inconsequential to hire small armies to create the illusion of widespread public support when there is none. Such manipulation of public opinion is obviously possible and widespread (for example viral marketing... or any other marketing that utilizes advertising, for that matter).
It's one thing when it's done to sell products or services. But it is quite another thing altogether when this is done to determine the members of our government.
Quote from the parent post: "But here are the Democrats assaulting our freedoms again..."
Quote from the article: "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA)." The person who introduced the bill is a Republican.
I notice that those who call themselves Republican are often dishonest and more interested in expressing their own anger than in managing government. See my summary of Republican corruption. I encourage you to write your own summary and send it to members of Congress.
First political bloggers with a readership over 500, then 250 then 100, then all political bloggers... ...and then all bloggers.
Slowly, bit-by-bit your privacy is taken away...
host your blogs on the servers outside U.S.
what about political threads on non-political messageboards?
would these be subject to the law as well?
Members are defined as:
So that excludes all you subscribers out there from the 500.
That probably excludes anyone who's posted on a blog. It might exclude all registrants, too. It's hard to say what's "nominal". IANAL.
Daggummit, I think that completely excludes Digg! (Since anyone is eligible to register and down-digg any paid posts.)
P.S. When posting the cut-and-pasted section of the bill as it originally was, I got the following:
I guess even bots don't like legalese!
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Yes, but thats not ok. If you take donations (moveon.org) you apply.
We need not try to find little loop holes in their law that make what we do ok and look at the larger picture of "limiting speech". As you may know a "limited" right is no right at all. We all hate the idea of fat cat lobbyist writing laws for their own intrests, but this is limiting a way the people can do there own type of "so called lobbing" to compete.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
'nuff said.
The whole bill and everything is available on Thomas.
0 01:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00
Do we have a paid grassroots operation here intended to send more people to the cbn.com website.
It's worth reading the changes that S.1 Section 220 proposes quite carefully, because I think some of the criticisms here are off-base. Consider:
This isn't about going after bloggers. Rather, S.1 appears to be attempt to register astroturfers as lobbyists.
If you're a blogger, and some organization writes you a big fat check to post in your blog about how bad some particular Senate or House bill is and gosh we should all contact Congress and object to it, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can claim that you're not a lobbyist.
And although I'm still oscillating somewhat, I tentatively think that your being required to register your activities as lobbying is a Good Thing, because those who read your blog (or email, or whatever) might wish to know that you were paid specifically to influence people to take action.
I'm not saying you have to be an astroturfer to object to this bill. But based on the virtually-hysterical frothing I've seen from certain organizations, I think it helps.
If you do nothing else, read the changes that S.1 proposes, and decide for yourself: is S.1 an attempt to silence criticism of the government, or an attempt to drag astroturfers into the sunlight? Whose interests do those who are ranting about S.1 Section 220 have at heart—free speech, or their pocketbooks?
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
I feel it is very important to stop this law, (if that were possible even as our leaders for the most part do whatever they want..)
.. they can find better ways to stop fat cat lobbying I'm sure.
It doesn't matter if we bloggers can find a small loophole in the law (that is we are not usually paid to write we are paid to advertise.) The issue at has is this appears to be an attempt to stop political criticism like the swift boaters or moveon.org.. If there is ever a case like like the swift boat members again I would like both parties to be able to speak about it as freedom of speech, -especially- freedom of political speech is so very vital to a free nation.
It takes money to inform the majority of the people of political issues of concern and if we can't inform all of America about a problem what will be do?
This law is -no good-
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
By saying:
-----
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-----
Where in this statement does it say that political or corporate statements should be regulated by any law? Speech is done by people, even if paid by someone else. Why is there a standard of "who can say what" when it concerns corporate speech and political speech?
Now, repercussions can result from said speech, and that is a separate issue (libel, slander, threatening...).
To our new masters, same as the old masters
That's all.
Pi Ran Out
Will we, as a populace let it get to phase 3 before we stop this madness?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok, let's grant that the original article may be fighting the bill because it goes against the authors' interests. Still I think it is a dangerous precedent to redefine lobbying, which involves directly influencing government officials, to include attempts to indirectly influence officials. The difference is extremely important. Traditional lobbying conjures images of back-room dealing, bribery, and so forth, and there have been enough problems with these activities in the past to make restricting them at least worth considering.
These activities of concern don't exist when you have to go through members of the public at large to get to the officials. If there are other regulations involving political activities that apply, then to be fair they should apply to online activities as well, but we aren't talking about lobbying, so lobbying rules shouldn't apply.
Besides, the rules as stated could apply just as easily to the webmaster for any sort of organization with political interests, and so should also be shot down as overbroad.
At least have the courtesy to thank George W. Bush for doing his bit to improve Iceland's climate!
Seriously, the parent's point about offshore blogs is an excellent one. What are they going to do next, install a Great Firewall, just like China?
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
So corporations, unions, and special interests (AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc) are exempt? Sounds like this is more of an attempt for the old school power interests to keep their power and limit bloggers.
Kelo vs. City of New London...
Who thought that would stand up in courts?
need I say more.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
After reading the entire legislation, including section 220, several things become apparent to me:
It seems to me that in the spirit of lobbying transparency, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, due to the vagueness of Section 220, with respect to several terms, and the fact that there does not appear to be an explicit exclusion for paid bloggers who maintain "official" blogs that are open to public viewing for organizations, I would recommend that anyone who is concerned about the freedom to engage in grassroots lobbying, to oppose section 220 until it addresses these concerns.
You can do this by contacting your senators and telling them to support the Bennett amendment to remove section 220 from S. 1..
If I have misread anything, please correct me.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
If the measure in question proposed murder of all infants under 5 months old in the states, then yes. I EXPECT them to. Such is their right to free speech.
Speaking with a voice of practicality (as apposed to legality), it is not at all inappropriate under many circumstances. There are legitimate problems with mixing church in politics, or politics in church. Please try to solve these problems without taking away my constitutional rights.
Thanks.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The best way to ensure our rights will not get stripped is to contact your Senators.
Support Senator Bennett's Amendment 20, which would remove the regulations of Section 220, which deal specifically with grassroots groups.
Its as easy as going to http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=61
Hey, where is a country that is actually free these days without censorship?
It is getting scary no matter what party is in power they are going to abuse their power. America is going the way of the Iraq (or any dictatorship) in which Saddam was bad before but now it is worst with all of the insurgent attacks.
We are giving our rights left and right in the name "safety and security" but this a ploy by the people in power to control us.
> Kelo vs. City of New London...
I think Kelo was one of the best rulings the Supremes have written in a decade. They said exactly the truth, that the State laws in effect at the time permitted the taking. Then they went on to mention, almost in passing, that the situation could be quickly fixed by correcting the laws. People did exactly that across the country, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Courts aren't supposed to act as super legislatures, they are only supposed to work with the laws as written. If bad (but constituitional) laws are written Judges are supposed to obey them just like the rest of us.
Had certain other controversial cases been handled the same way there would be a lot less political strife in the land today. Letting judges make laws causes no end of problems. It would be great if legislatures and executive branches would grow a pair and start removing judges who overstep their powers.
Democrat delenda est
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
See the actual section of that section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110QVTqNO:e38473:
It says when an organization or individual is "...paid by a client..." to create a "grassroots" movement (called "astroturfing").
I don't read it to mean it would affect bloggers at all...UNLESS they're paid to write about something and induce others to take political action.
The language could be clearer, however.
Democracy 21 has the correct facts. Bloggers are fine, unless they are paid astroturf shills:
I have a blog.
Actually, it appears to be conservatives who are most upset about this. http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/journal/160016, posted more than two hours prior to the parent, links to a National Review article on the subject. I'll relink here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDUxMzM5NmNiM jFkMThhMjgzZjhmMDkyZGVmYzBhZjk
But I would bring up at least two fixes to this law:
A) The 500 readers -- Just HOW do we know how many readers there really are? Sure, in plenty of cases it might be clearly yes or no, but... Instead, they should measure hits (yes, that doesn't accurately measure readership, but it IS something we can measure) and set the limit at 2000 hits/day or something.
B) Register? No way. There's no reason to force registration with the government. Instead, they should make them disclose the sponsorship, e.g. "Disclaimer: I was paid $x by FooCorp for this post." or "Discliamer: I work for FooCorp." On the other hand, I have no problem with forcing the sponsors to disclose to the government how much they paid which people for "grassroots" (e.g. astroturf) activities. Bonus points if those filings are publicly available.
Politics for all Feudal Nations ... as in aristocratic or plutocratic remains the same, nothing changes much in a thousand years more or less.
Let them eat cake and fake their faith with patriotic fervor as they always Fuck US, Fuck EU, and Fuck UN them too.
It is satisfying when you are a big ugly fat fucker on top, but the rape victims on the bottom are just horribly, painfully, and totally screwed.
NOTE: victims=public
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
God bless the Democrats, protectors of our freedoms!
I wasn't going to start a political blog, but now I'm going to. Just to rub their noses in it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The cops have no reservation about turning their guns on their own citizens, what makes you think soldiers would? Ever hear of military police, who turn on their own all the time?
I had a friend who recently quit the military. He applied at Stables, and told me he applied to be a Cop, which shocked me. I was like, what in the world for... but as he described it, working in the navy he had already gone through just about all the same basic training that a cop would.. on a 9mm, etc... and there was no difference between one and another.
Indeed, in Iraq, that's what the military is doing right now. Being police men. So yes, American soldiers would in a heart beat turn their guns on American Citizens. They've done it before in the past, on American soil... during the 60's demonstatrations and riots.
http://anarchy-tv.com/
The key here is "Paid attempts." Bloggers who don't receive an income in exchange for their work aren't affected.
The kay isn't "Paid attempts" as the article says "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists." The key is 500. A blogger with 500 or more members would have to register.
The only people who will be affected by this legislation are BS-peddlers like him and all the fake think tanks and policy-pushing "advocacy groups" he raises money for.
BS, true grassroots organizations would be affected. All that is required for registration to be required, as stated above, is that there be 500 or more members.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I guess I'm just not seeing what you are seeing here. Most of your comments seem to be aimed at something unrelated to the bill in question.
For instance, where do you see anything about anybody's free speech being restricted? And where do you see anything about people like Al Gore being included?
The section 220 that the article's author objects to only applies to people who are going into a specific business, to wit, acting as a hired agent to create the appearance of a "grass roots" movement for one or more clients. It doesn't say they can't do it, only that they have to be honest about it (for a rather loose definition of "honest"). The barrier is much, much lower than for most other professions (you can't just decide you want to be a dentist by filling out some forms within 45 days after you start pulling people's teeth), and the only people I see objecting to it seem to be (like the author of the article) astroturfers.
And they seem to be objecting to it by spreading FUD, rather than arguing the case on it's merits.
If I'm missing something, please point it out--but try to be specific, and base it on the law as written, not on some astroturf scare campaign's interpretation of the law.
--MarkusQ
I mostly agree with you, but somewhere in the back of my head I'm hearing a Government Prosecutor making the argument that the advertising is being done on that specific site to reach those specific readers. With targeted online advertising this isn't so far fetched either.
Now you and I may agree that this argument is tenuous at best, but tell me...can you honestly believe that it WON'T be tried?
I thought so.
well it *is* nazi Germany.... Oh, America you say?
God Be Gone
stance
And what if it is your natural stance? For instance what if you have a blog you don't get any pay for, say I start a blog tomorrow, and what you post is your stance or I post is my strance. Then someone likes what my writing so they start paying me? If I keep doing the same thing is it because I'm getting paid or because it's what I really think?
FalconShould there be a Law?
WRONG. Read the posts above -- you'd only be in trouble if someone's paying you to get on Slashdot and advocate. Astroturfing, in other words.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
For example, if ExxonMobil pays me $1000 to write a blog post that urges my (over 500) readers to write their Congressional delegation to vote in favor of a bill that opens up ANWR, I would have to register as a lobbyist.
And what am I if I onn my own blog and without getting any pay or other enumeration write my congressional reps saying I support a ban on drilling in ANWR? Which btw I do support. Does that make me a lobbyist? How about if I start a blog opposing said drilling and others sign up, am I still an individual or a lobby? Then what if I can no longer afford my blogging and I accept ads, which are clearly visible on my blog, do I suddenly become a lobbyist even though I write from the same position?
FalconShould there be a Law?
So that means I'm exempt. My blog urges all the people who read it *not* to contact Representative Bugfungles, because he is an ignorant corrupt blowhard who is on the wrong side of all the issues etc etc etc oh yeah Repugs Demofascists Neocrooks etc etc etc...
In Communist America, the senate blogs you.
1) Politician angry about speech on slashdot
2) Politician calls aid, aid calls fbi, fbi gets information from slashdot
3) fbi checks to see if you have registered
4) if you have not registered, fbi pays you a visit, possibly arresting you - to find out if you are being paid!
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Just like a blogger that takes money from tobacco concerns, oil concerns, PETA, the cattle industry, a software company, or whoever else under the sun, should have to say, "Look, they paid me more than $25,000 to say this, so I said it." That doesn't mean what they said isn't true, but it shouldn't appear that the person said it out of the kindness of their heart or that they suddenly were inspired to write about it.
But what if that's exactly how it starts? Say on my own I start blogging about product X, about how it terrific and that it does what I want it to. Then Company Y which produces product X starts paying me? Do I suddenly become a lobbyist just because I get paid for saying what I was saying before? Or was I a lobbyist the whole tyme? Or instead of this, suppose I start a blog that's supports a ban on drilling in ANWR. An environmental groups comes across my blog then starts paying me, should I suddenly have to register as a lobbyist? BS!
his is maybe one of the most ethical Ethics Bills I've seen in a long time.
BS! I don't want or think I should have to register as a lobbyist just because someone or thing supports my blog. Unlike in Utopia, in the real world people have to make a living, and if perchance they get paid for doing what they want to do they shouldn't be required to register. I don't kow if you are but say you were a programmer, what would you think of all programmers being required to register? Afterall crackers, script kiddies, or Blackhat hackers are all bad and since they are programmers to make sure the world is safe from bad all programmers should be made to register?
FalconShould there be a Law?
If the government can regulate it, or if we need a license to do it, then it isn't a right. Rights cannot be abridged without due process (a trial etc).
It seems to me that if this law passes, any court that sees or hears a case based on this law, would have to deem it unconstitutional by default if that court has any integrity at all.
Libertas in infinitum
I tried reading it, but doubt I picked up most of the actual legal meaning behind it, so I have a question:
Assuming this had been in place during the Katrina disaster, would these actions have been prosecutable?
1. I am hired by a charitable organization or some philanthropist (some Church group, Bill Gates, or whatever) to put up a site where people can make donations for relief.
2. A link is included on the page to "write your congressman demanding more governmental aid".
3. I make over $25,000.00 for my efforts.
4. More than 500 people visit the site.
5. I haven't registered for a lobbying number.
It seems doubtful that anyone WOULD prosecute that, but is it possible that it COULD be prosecuted successfully?
Looks like it's about time for the Second American Revolution. They seem to forget the American populace is more numerously armed than the military. I mean it. Arguments over. There's no reasoning with these antediluvian swine. They must be overthrown, and their corporate masters with them. Drive them into the sea. Nothing less will work.
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. Now I can fully appreciete my Constitutional right to protect myself from the Government when they try to arrest me and my fellow citizens for voicing our opinions.
Say what you want about guns, but who is going to keep Big Brother away from you when politicians and the Government run amok?
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants. Thankfully, I'm neither.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
...how is it that you count readers?
My website keeps no logs at all, except for the PHP error log.
And what about sites that are outside the country?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
so you're saying that you'd let a child play with a gun,
I wouldn't let a child play with a gun or anyother firearm but I would let them hold and fire one. I grew up learning to respect firearms and how to fire them yet I've ever shot someone with one. And I was even in the army with an mos, Military Occupational Specialty, of 11B or infantry, you know the guys that are on the first line?
i think you know you're logic is flawed. any fool can see that a gun is a device whose purpose is to kill.
Your logic is flawed. Many people have defended themself by having a firearm, of course hardly anyone ever hears about that because it doesn't fit in wih people's idea that firearms are only bad, yet they neglect to mention many people are killed by knives, vehicles, and other things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Although this seems to only apply to only those who have a "following" of 500 or more, it potentially affects all of us. The way I see it it can do any or all of the following:
1. Open the door to even more losses in the freedom arena. One has to ask, what's next?
2. There doesn't seem to be a finite line for judgment in the proposed bill. The leaves a lot of room for mis-use in my opinion. Too many ways for the proposed bill to be worked in a way beneficial to other parties once it becomes law.
This bill reeks of freedom grabbing. It goes against one of the fundamental aspects our country was founded on. It also has undertones of the thin skinned person who is commonly very good at shoveling out criticism, but can't take it, and to that all I can say is "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".
The bill is targeting Lobbyists. You can read it online at the Library of Congress. I don't like the government controlling freedom of speech however I am not a fan of the power that lobbyists have over policy. The intent is to limit the ability of lobbyists to use the internet and manipulate people to their own ends without notifying the government. Here is an excerpt to tantalize you into reading the rest of the bill - notice the word paid which is defined in the body of the bill. `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And the stupid "AK-47" or [Insert favorite automatic sounding name here] argument is BS because Any kind of Automatic firearm has been COMPLETELY ILLEGAL for a very long time!
Wrong, automatic weapons are not illegal. A person can legally buy and own one. To buy one though you have to pay a $200 transfer tax.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Your idea that enough people think like you that it would make a difference is utter bullshit.
Tell that to the soldiers, my nephew is a Marine stationed there, in Iraq. Or say the same about the Taliban in Afghanistan.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You think owning a firearm of any kind will do you any good if the government decided to get rid of you?
It seemd to be doing quite well for those in Iraq.
Whether you agree with the pro-gun lobby or not the fact remains that if you were a threat to the government and they found out, the special forces they sent in could brush you aside without the slightest amount of trouble. They are better trained than you could hope to be (while trying to hold down a full time job anyway) and better equiped. They also have infintely more experience at killing people.
If they are so effective then why not send them to Iraq? Afterall the military can't seem to control the insurgents.
Now I am sure a great many soldiers would never dream of harming their own citizens. However I bet there are some that would follow any order they were given. The germans circa 1940 were not some alternate race of people bred for evil, they were just human beings like you and me, yet some of them ended up gaurding concentration camps that most of the population never knew existed.
I served in the US Army and I can't name one person who would of fired on a US citizen unprovoked and or unarmed. Sure there are some but many of those who serve, would shoot their own commander if the commander ordered them to fire on US civilians. I very well may of done so, would of done so if I thought it was an unconstitutional order, myself.
The first thing you do when seizing control of a country is quietly sieze control of the media without the populace knowing. But if the media are the people the people that becomes alot more difficult, especially if they can blog with relative anonmity using a few tools. I would hope that a great many readers of slashdot could do a pretty good job of posting to the net while hiding their identity, and not just by posting as AC. But if you can make anonymously blogging about the government a crime in itself then you make things a little easier.
Ooh, I agree, control the press and it'll be easier to control the populace. Disarming the populace has the same effects.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is bullshit. The press release is by Richard Viguerie, who is the head of American Target Advertising. This basically affects his business because his business is astroturfing. So he seems to have started his own little astroturfing campaign to stop this bill from being passed:
a n_Target_Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americ
Read the bill. Pretty much everything in the press release is a lie. Shame on you, Slashdot.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Let's say a group of 10 people want to buy and develop a plot of land. Without a unified legal entity to own the property and execute contracts they would *all* have to be party to *every* transaction. Therefore a single member could refuse to execute a contract and prevent the other 9 from executing that contract, even if the other 9 are in absolute agreement. Without a legal structure to grant the 9 power to out-vote the one holdout a single member could effectively ruin the entire "company". There are many other similar situations one could imagine; as I noted, organizing any signficant number of people or amount of captial would be very difficult without a formal legal structure.
Wrong, there the legal entity called a limited partnership. A limited partner may not have any control of the business, including veto power. All they contribute is capital, expertise, or labor.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If we are to remain free, we should be able to criticize the government WITHOUT revealing our identity.
The USSC, US Supreme Court has ruled that free anonymous speech is essential for democracy and is protected byt the First Admendment's Free Speech clause. Here's a PDF that names some of the cases ruled on.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hell, it even says specifically in one section that registration is only concerned with "paid grassroots lobbying" and explicitly says that other "grassroots lobbying" is not involved.
Maybe you missed the part right after "paid grassroots lobbying" where it said blogs with under 500 members didn't have to register. However it doesn't say those with 500 or more members need to register, and an amendment has been added to strike that part of the bill. I'd link to the actual bill however the addie keeps on changing, so the link provided gets a "page not found" message.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Guess it's time to change "land of the brave, home of the free" to something like "land of the brave, home of teh suckahs"
"Bloggers taking advertising doesn't mean that their advertisers are paying them to influence public opinion" ... public opinion about their products. And don't forget that it's not difficult to make insinuations about public policy through product advertisement. The bill is a horseshit diversion to try and prevent enactment of true accountability of the paid-for political system: public ONLY financed campaigns.
Of course they are
That doesn't mean this proposed bill doesn't have merits and dangers of it's own, but, please, un-strawman-ify yourself before you attempt to comment.
Day starting. Gotta run.
-FL
Amerikkka looks more like China every passing day.And i'm sickened by people here.
Who think registering bloggers is normal and acceptable for some reason.AND they bring arguments for the benefits of registration.
I have a serious problem with this Senate bill because I have spent over 30 years working as Nobody's Campaign Manager:
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
I do this because out of all the choices for president, Nobody is perfect.
I also believe Nobody has brought peace to our times, Nobody knows the turth about 9/11, and Nobody was here before Slashdot.
I can not imagine getting any special interest funds from Nobody's supporters, so would I need to register, just because Nobody bakes apple pie better than Mom?
Nobody is another way of saying, "None of the Above" and should be included of voter ballots.
Will the government require lobbyist registration for a candidate who keeps all political promises?
Nobody for President
The United States you believe you live in, died in 1865.
Here is what the BBC had to say about similar measures in Iran http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/syndication/6252737.stm
It's still a possible conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed in any professional relationship, and you become a professional when you take that money, IMHO.
If consumer reports says something nice about Toyota, and Toyota starts paying them... wouldn't that change how you view the information Consumer reports generates about Toyota after that? But they do not take the money, to prevent the conflict of interest.
I acknowledge this is highly debatable, but that's where I stand; you take the money, you take responsibility for it, which is disclosure.
Uh-oh, you're going to have to register with the gov't as a lobbyist now. Get your papers in order.
According to your logic, the entire Bush administration and every congressperson and senator who supported them are RINOs. That would be roughly the entire Republican party. Don't even try to use the "Democrats made me do it" argument either. Republicans had control for a solid four years, and those were the worst four years the first and fourth amendments have ever seen. Yeah, the state of free speech is pretty grim in this country right now, but your "conservatives" are way too preoccupied with attacking abortion and homosexuality to care about free speech. That's just liberal intellectual elite stuff, remember? True patriots are supposed to go along with whatever the President says, remember? If you question the government the terrorists win, remember? We need to use government resources to spy on anti-war groups, remember? If all of that is okay then why is the sky falling as soon as some questionable language gets into a bipartisan bill?
What's really weird is that the very same Republican is now trying to eliminate that section of the bill. It makes you wonder what games the Republicans are playing these days. Could this be an attempt to sabotage a bill that would harm their precious lobbyists?
From TFA:
In other words we're screwed.Was Sophie Scholl unpatriotic?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... and a dictatorship.
During Saddam Hussein's rule everybody was in agreement with every single decision he made. He won elections for President with the 99% of the votes casted on his favour, in spite that everybody had a family member dying in a war of agression against Iran.
Sociophats like you would like to see our democracies working in a similar fashion. But then, they would not be democracies, but I am sure you will fail miserably to understand all this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He's sort of a lobbyist/blogger.
You can find the actual text here.
Interestingly enough, the AFA is telling its sheep that this will cause them to have less information about a bill. That just isn't the case. It's the exact opposite. The purpose of the legislation is to make the legislative process more transparent. For example, if a particular group is trying to influence legislation, you will know. That being said...
The second sentence down states the following: "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It follows with a definition of "paid efforts" and "grassroots lobbying". In other words, if your blog isn't the direct result of a group that raises money to influence political decisions (like the AFA), you don't qualify as a group that has to register. Further, the blog itself isn't necessarily what falls under this legislation, but rather the paid efforts behind it. Fearmongers who belong to those groups (and don't like the legislation) are spreading rumors that Joe Blogger is going to have to register his blog with the government, and that just isn't the case.
Unless you're being paid by an organization to run your blog, you don't qualify.
Bet you guys can't wait feel the loving pressure of the boot on your throat from your Democrat overlords.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
This link http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/15/155547/607 has even more information on it.
From the complaint of those against the bill
The bill defines "grassroots lobbying firms" as any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact Congress.So even they admit it's not at all about political commentary, but about inciting people to action! From the bill
SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.`Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'
IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
In other words, if you get paid by a tobacco company and you post a blog asking your readers to call thier congressman and get him to vote to reduce cigarrette tax and your site is usually viewed by more than 500 people, you need to register.
However, if you are an avid smoker and you ask your readers to do exactly the same as above, you don't have to register.
By the bills definition
(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.So what they are saying is if you get paid to artificially create or enhance (yes, I know you are not forcing anyone so they still have free will) a grassroots lobby. They want to know about it.
This sounds fair to me, afterall a million people who start complaining about a government policy of thier own accord are very different from a million people who do the same becuase a website told them to.
(In case you are wondering what the difference is, a much larger ratio of those who read the website will make the call giving a skewed view of public opinion)
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
See AWESOME, INC. v. THE GOVERNMENT, 123 U.S. 1337 (1492). What, I don't get +5 Informative?
No it does not!
How about if I start a blog opposing said drilling and others sign up, am I still an individual or a lobby?Neither, you are a grassroots campaign, which is still okay and doesn't require registration
Then what if I can no longer afford my blogging and I accept ads, which are clearly visible on my blog, do I suddenly become a lobbyist even though I write from the same position?Only if all (or perhaps a significant portion) of your ads (or website income) come from an organisation which is trying to get the government to ban drilling in ANWR. Becuase at that point you are no longer a free agent expressing your opinion, but a tool for another agent trying to push an agenda.
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
The Federal government has already grown too large for our own good. Giving it even more power is a Bad Idea in my opinion.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between bloggers and pamphleteers. Pamphlets are mailed to or handed out to people who for the most part receive them involuntarily. People seek out blogs, people exposed to blogs are being exposed as a result of voluntary and purposeful behavior. This is an immense difference.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
i think you know you're logic is flawed. any fool can see that a gun is a device whose purpose is to kill.
Your logic is flawed. Many people have defended themself by having a firearm, of course hardly anyone ever hears about that because it doesn't fit in wih people's idea that firearms are only bad, yet they neglect to mention many people are killed by knives, vehicles, and other things.
I think the confusion arises out of the following two facts that are non-contradictory:
1. the gun was invented to make holes in living beings
2. guns are tools that can be used for self-defense
Just like martial arts are referred to as "war arts," and consist of learning how to punch, kick, grapple, break, etc., and yet they are most commonly applied by your average Tom, Dick, or Harriet as a means of self-empowerment so that the practitioner feels safe enough to NOT commit violence. Before I started Hapkido, if I was in a situation where I thought someone might try and kill me, I was aware that to feel safe after the initial attack, I would have to kill the person. Now I feel much safer, which will allow me to control myself more.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
It's the utmost of patriotism to protest the policies of the government. Spoken like a whining complainer who wants credit for whining and complaining. As if your rights came to you just because you cried loud enough. You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them. No other reason. Not nature, not God, not journalists or bloggers or protesters. Only people with guns willing to put themselves between you and harm.
Perhaps, if you (like me) are too selfish to be like these true patriots - soldiers, cops, firemen, etc.. - and put our lives on the line for the sake of others, perhaps our patriot duty, when we have nothing helpful to say, is not to continually carp and complain, but rather to STFU.
I'm rather amazed anyone is surprised about this.
Look, the US Constitution is an apocryphal document. It's meaningless, just a piece of paper to be referenced in political speeches when you want to stimulate a patriotic feeling in your audience. It's not something anyone has to pay attention to any more. Certainly your elected representatives don't pay attention to it, or they wouldn't be spending 99.99999999999999% of their time actively violating it.
The US was founded on the notion that you have intrinsic rights and that the only reason for government to exist was to protect them. This idea (predictably) failed as early as the Jefferson Administration but was certainly dead and buried under Lincoln.
Today, you have whatever rights your masters in Washington wish to allow you to have. That's the plain, hard truth of the matter. You may not like it (I certainly don't), but short of governmental collapse, it's not going to change. The US Federal Government is now no different from any other government on Earth. It has and will continue to legislate away your free speech, and nothing you can do will stop them.
I mean, why should they be afraid of you? You're not human beings, you're assets to be managed. It's not like you could revolt against your masters, that ability was taken from you with the very first Federal victim disarmament legislation almost a century ago.
You're a modern-day version of a serf, subject to the whim of your betters. Live with it.
Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
Corporations don't have rights "just as if they were real people." For example, they don't have the same free speech rights as people - it's well established that commercial speech isn't protected in the same manner as a person's right to free speech, which is why the Do Not Call List is constitutional. That's just one example; there are plenty of other ways in which corporations don't have the same rights as people.
It makes sense for corporations to be considered people for certain purposes; it's what allows the corporation to hold a bank account in its name, or to file a lawsuit on its behalf.
...is that it negates the right to anonymous political speech.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/
You *cannot* know where the money is coming from for every bit of political activism you come across. Elected officials' campaign funding sources, maybe. Gifts made to those officials? Maybe that too. Beyond that, you have no right to know that supersedes my right to political speech with no requirement that I reveal my identity or disclose anything else about myself. In order for the government to facilitate that ability for you, it would need to do such severe damage to the first amendment that we might as well not even concern ourselves with government reform any longer.
Do not put weapons into the hands of your friends that you would not want wielded by your enemies.
Pi Ran Out
What about protesting those protesting the policies of the government? They seem to be rather political these days...
Yes, that too is patriotic but I wouldn't say name calling is.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As if your rights came to you just because you cried loud enough. You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them. No other reason. Not nature, not God, not journalists or bloggers or protesters. Only people with guns willing to put themselves between you and harm.
Since you're so gungho to protect the country you served in the military. I know I did, my mos or military occupations speciality was 11B, small arms specialist or infantry. Those with my mos are some of the ones on the frontline being shot at.
Perhaps, if you (like me) are too selfish to be like these true patriots - soldiers, cops, firemen, etc.. - and put our lives on the line for the sake of others, perhaps our patriot duty, when we have nothing helpful to say, is not to continually carp and complain, but rather to STFU.
I was a soldier but I guess you weren't, so who's more patriotic?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I acknowledge this is highly debatable, but that's where I stand; you take the money, you take responsibility for it, which is disclosure.
I am all for disclosure, but I am against requiring registration. And if you place ads your paid for that indirectly is disclosure, I'd dare to say most of those bloggers who are paid, other than those who blog for thier employers, are paid by accepting ads.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I didn't say I commanded a unit, not did I. I was enlisted not an officer.
I perhaps should have made clear in my post that I was only referring to that actual type of soldiers who would be used. In this instance they would most likely be some such special forces detatchmment who actually do a lot of killing anyway and have grown more accustomed to being asked to kill people.
And what special forces detachment would that be? It's certainly not the Army's Special Forces, Green Berets. Or Army Rangers, Black Berets. Stationed at Fort Benning, GA my unit trained the Rangers and the OCS, Officer Cadet School, and we trained with the Special Forces.
I know that in Britain the SAS were instructed to kill all the terrorists who stormed the Iranian embassy some years ago. They let one live, but did kill most of them in cold blood just in case any had hidden grenades.
Maybe the SAS didn't have classes in the treatment of civilians and on war crimes but we did when I was in the US Army.
We also had our police force execute somebody on the tube recently as they were informed he was a suicide bomber by their commanding officer. They later discovered he was an unarmed electrician from Brasil.
These people do exist within all armies of the world. The US is not the only armed force who would never dream of hurting innocent people if they were set up to do so.
I addressed this when I said though some would shoot unprovoking and unarmed civilians, most in my unit would shoot the commander if ordered to shot them. Even China now knows not to use just anyone to fire on civilians. During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the Red Army had to bring in military units from different regions of China as the local units refused to fire on local civilians.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Just like martial arts are referred to as "war arts," and consist of learning how to punch, kick, grapple, break, etc., and yet they are most commonly applied by your average Tom, Dick, or Harriet as a means of self-empowerment so that the practitioner feels safe enough to NOT commit violence. Before I started Hapkido, if I was in a situation where I thought someone might try and kill me, I was aware that to feel safe after the initial attack, I would have to kill the person. Now I feel much safer, which will allow me to control myself more.
I wish I could of articulated my position as well as you did. Unfortunately I'm not as good as you are here with your works.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Your WWI history is suspicious. Care to elaborate?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
If I look, throughout the entire conservative blogosphere, I will not find a single conservative who will exhibit this behaviour?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I disagree. A patriot is someone who acts with the best interest of their nation and fellow countrymen at heart. Notice that I said "best interest", not "agrees with the actions of". If one's nation is doing something reprehensible, which history will recognize (or should) as terrible, isn't it our duty to speak in protest of (or act to prevent) such actions? If so, then doing that is certainly patriotic. (Even if unpopular.)
This will step dangerously close to Godwin's Law, but -- as an example (because I'm too lazy to think of a better one
Those that we recognize as "patriots" take risks. Often it's risking of life, but so is being the guy that prints leaflets, or hosts town meetings, etc. I don't feel I am in a position to judge who is and isn't a Patriot, but I certainly feel it is more inclusive than the subset you indicated. Remember that many of the patiors we revere were doing things that were considered subversive:
- objecting, publically, to the policies of the Crown (e.g., boarding of soldiers in peoples' homes, or taxation)
- planning and implementing a revolution.
From England's perspectives, these were NOT patriots, but rather were subversive revolutionaries. What's really interesting from this is that it seems like the property of whether someone is a patriot or not depends entirely on the perspective of who is judging. Are they working to protect what you perceive as your nation, as your way of life? Yes? Then they're a patriot. The opposite side of the fence will see them as detrimental to progress, as criminals, as enemies of the state, as terrorists, depending on how they act.
How does this tie back to political bloggers? Many of us feel that the actions of our nation's government (in general -- not to single out any particular branch) are going in a direction which we feel will harm us as a society. Some of us object to conflict in the middle east, some of us object to the seeming implicit embrace of DRM and the apparent kow-towing to Big Media in the creation of laws related to copyright, intellectual property, etc. I feel that someone working for change in these areas can justifiably be considered (from the perspective of those who share their goals) a patriot to some degree.
Many conservatives feel that conservative bloggers, lobbyists, and lawmakers are working for a Better Way of American Life, or to strengthen our position in the international community. They would undoubtedly consider these people to be patriotic.
Many liberals (which, yes, Slashdot seems to have many of) feel the opposite; the liberal bloggers, lobbyists, and politicians (are there any?) who are working towards copyright and IP law reform are working with the best interests of american society, and that those that are opposing the conflict in the middle east are working to improve our standing in the international community, and thus will consider them patriotic.
Wiktionary says a patriot is someone who "A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country." Remember that country does not equal the actions of one's current government. Also remember that history seems to be written by the winners (or survivors), and that the difference between being lauded as a patriot and being tried for war crimes can hinge on who is conducting the proceedings. (e.g.: Kissinger is never going to leave the US.)
Exactly! So far as I call tell, the whole "regulating speech" thing is a non-issue introduced (disingenuously, I suspect) by the astroturfers in order to stir up opposition to the bill. I'm willing to listen to anyone who can point to evidence to the contrary, but the only substantiation I've seen so far is links to material written by obviously biased individuals that are playing fast and loose with the facts.
One point on which we differ:
No, I claim (backed by the text of the bill in question) that this is about people who take money to do something, and not about free speech at all. Specifically to applies to people who are:
Which has nothing to do with any first amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:
This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.
--MarkusQ
Comment removed based on user account deletion
False. The text of the law makes it quite clear that donations, membership fees members of an organization to support the activity of the organization are not counted.
--MarkusQ
Shame on those that want to strip bloggers of their constitutional rights through the use of "lobbyist" laws. I guess the DEMS figure that if the bloggers are required to register then the lobbyist list will be so long that no one will bother going through it and seeing all the interests that pour millions into their campaign accounts.
Look out China, we're hot on your heels in the race to totalitarianism.
This is a heavily slanted article. It failed to mention that the mentioned blog has to be maintained with an annual investment of 25000$ or more. This law is more aimed at keeping lobbyists from looking like grassroots bloggers. Shame on you for posting this without actually looking up information on the act