Slashdot Mirror
Bill to Treat Bloggers as Lobbyists Defeated
Lawrence Person writes "The attempt to require political bloggers to register as lobbyists previously reported by Slashdot has been stripped out of the lobbying reform bill. The vote was 55 to 43 to defeat the provision. All 48 Republicans, as well as 7 Democrats, voted against requiring bloggers to register; all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats."
Why? Why do you want our side to look even more technology stupid than the Republicans?
In before series of tubes jokes.
YouStockIt - Education through Unorthodox Methods
It's as if a 100 million free-speech loving liberals cried out and were suddenly silenced.
(Actually, they were silenced when their heads exploded like Dantooine when they found out that it was Republicans who blocked the bill.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I freaked when I heard about the bill. Then I learned it was more about the astroturfing.
I hate fake campaigns. I think we are smart enough to learn and I LOVE the freedom to be told (about such things including hotchickonyoutube).
Now, can we get back some of our other freedoms, even if the government (or people) don't like them.
I promise I'll shutup about abortion if I can carry a gun and smoke in a bar.
This really surprises me, I'd have expected the republicans to have been more interested in the panoptic registering of bloggers. Can someone explain why this bill was pushed by the democrats?
Though it would have been nice to see more of this sort of thing over the past few years.
Dantooine, the planet Leia named to Grand Moff Tarkin as the location of the hidden rebel base, was home only to an abandoned complex. Tarkin asserted that Dantooine was too remote to make an "effective demonstration" and instead destroyed Leia's (adopted) homeworld of Alderaan.
If anyone had bothered to read the text instead of buying the PR piece by a professional lobbyiest that went up yesterday as news, they would have seen that the provision in question only applied to blogging for pay by a client. Not getting money for your ads or anything else. This was aimed at astroturfing, not bloggers. And paid political speach, which is what we are talking about here, IS regulated already. This wasn't the evil to end all evils and an attack on blogs, it was an attack on lobbyists and it would have likely as not been a good thing if it had gone through.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
That it was such a close vote... and even more that most Democrats voted for it.
Eeek! This is the first time since I can remember that I have agreed with republicans! I don't think bloggers should have to register as lobbyists. Why do Democrats? WTF!? There must be something that I am missing...
Who wants to jail abortion protestors?
Who wants to stop churches from speaking out against lifestyles they find destructive?
Who wants to limit the freedom of pastors? Of street preachers ?
It's the "liberals". Now, granted these are a bit extreme and you may NOT agree with everything but dammit, they have a right (provided they don't blow up anything).
The Second Amendment guarantees the First.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
This is not a freedom of the press issue. This would have required bloggers who receive money from causes to file as lobbyists. As CNet puts it:
certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists.
A blogger who gets money from coroporations, parties, or organizations to blog for them is a lobbyist and an astroturfer. This doesn't cover Billy Blogger who talks about the local sports team, or even unsponsored political blogs. It isn't a way to surpress dissent, any more than requiring the same of lobbyists is. "But it's on the Internet" does not change the fact that politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists and should be treated like the normal K Street type.
Now that the Democrats have a majority in the legislative branch, they're starting to completely twist all their campaign promises. Remember the Democrats who were complaining about the price of oil? Well, they just approved about $15 billion in Big Oil taxes. And now they're trying to effectively restrict or silence the mainly-Conservative grassroots/astroturf efforts just in time for 2008. (I don't believe it's a coincidence that MoveOn.org doesn't fall under their definition of astroturfing.) Politicians (all politicians, mind you) will say and do anything to get re-elected.
This post is not a troll- just b/c you disagree with the parent doesn't mean it's not accurate.
A quick note: This was not a "All bloggers need to be registered as lobbists" like the FUD headline states.
This was a "Paid fake bloggers need to register as corporate shills" bill.
This was a GOOD bill, guys. You can tell because the Republicans voted AGAINST it.
So, you bring up the Republicans' slang terms for the Democratic party, and yet you throw around "neo-GOP" like we're a bunch of Neo-Nazis. Smart, prove to the world that Democrats are truly hypocritical, in more ways than one. ("Oh, we can have numerous campaign sites and astroturfing sites, but you can't run Littlegreenfootballs.com because you disagree with us!" Smart, Dems.)
I'm out of mod points. Somebody wanna rate the parent post as a flamebait?
Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech? Isn't that the most important kind of speech to protect? Why do you need to "register" as a PAC?
Isn't there already a law that limits how much political speech can happen leading up to an election and who can say it?
We can all find the bad in pretty much every law on the books. What i can't find is the "good" about any political-speech-restriction laws.
There are lots of voices out there that i'd just as soon not have to hear, but silencing them via government intervention seems pretty unAmerican (for historical values of "American").
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This is pretty much proof that it's business as usual with the new Congress, and that Democrats are going to be even more idiotic than the last guys. And no, before you read my sig and think I'm a Republican, I'm a libertarian who just dislikes the left more than the right.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well perhaps I don't want to make a comment. Didja think of that, Slashdot? Didja think of that?
The part you conveniently leave out is that payment wasn't defined as receipt of cash. It was defined as communicating to 500 or more readers. Dems didn't want any criticism.
Perhaps you should actually read the bill*. Note that the part labelled "definitions", a "grassroots lobbying firm" is defined as someone who "is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period."
The "500 person" rule you're concerned about describes the action of influencing, not the influencer. Specifically: "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."
To be affected, you must be all three of these:
So if you're a regular blogger, you likely are safe.
*=if that doesn't work, search for S.1 on thomas.loc.gov
Hell, how many of you know about the marching orders to deflect any mention of Barak Obama's heavy smoking by referencing Mark Foley? We could go all day with this.
Haha, after all, Dems never hire anyone or have millions to spend (hello, liberal Hollywood)...anyway, this bill was an attempt by Democrats to stifle criticism of incumbents going into 2008. They know they're already on shaky ground--all the new Democrats are conservative anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrats--and they wanted to require bloggers with 500 or more readers to register. It's a restriction of free speech.
Since you probably haven't even read it, here's section 220. The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is conveniently not defined in the bill.
"Sufferin' succotash."
A slightly misleading headline, I would expect better. The bill entailed that all persons or organizations being paid by a separate organization and who spent at least $25,000 on their activities would have to register. While I still didn't support the bill personally its nice to see partisanship and deliberate misleading of people is still alive and well.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
You also conveniently left out that large lobby groups who don't rely on public communication are exempted! This means large corporations who spend millions on lobbying aren't even covered by the bill.
To quote the American Family Association's statement:
It's an attempt to silence political bloggers.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Dude, you're completely making up numbers. $25,000 or $100,000 salaries are not mentioned in the bill; there is actually no minimum specified, and "payment" itself is not even defined. Read it for yourself.
This bill would have stifled blogs from encouraging people to contact representatives. Good riddance to section 220.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
No. It's defined in Section 220 as "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.". It's in Definitions 18-A, which is right at the top of Section 220.
The payment part is in the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, which is also in the Definitions section (right below the previous definition).
The LOC links, by the way, only seem to work for 5 minutes.
I did read it. Here's what it says:
(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
$100,000 is an extrapolation of $25,000 over a whole year. The bill said simply that a person who makes $25,000 a quarter for political astroturfing ($100,000 a year salary) or is given the same amount to spend on astroturfing is a lobbyist. It's straightforward, true, and doesn't affect bloggers at all.
The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?
"Sufferin' succotash."
If you guys need proof of how crazy this was, even the ACLU sided with the Republicans on this one. Ouch!
"Sufferin' succotash."
Actually, it's business as usual for Republican, hiding the facts: the bill applied only to astroturfers being paid over 100K. This wasn't a left-right issue, this was an attempt to control the power of money in campaigns. But if buying elections is part of the "free market," gosh, I guess some Libertarians don't have a problem with it.
All you Slashdot Socialists are amazing. You're the first to complain about digital freedom being impinged by DRM, and yet you don't think it's wrong to send Billy Blogger to jail for raising money to exercise political freedom; e.g., placing media ads. Billy can do the fundraising for free, no income whatsoever, and still go to jail.
Here's a permanent link to the bill in question.
What does the ACLU or its political affiliation have to do with the facts of this issue?
... and then they built the supercollider.
That's funny, I thought it was a reference to neoliberals. Why is it that you only associate the "neo" prefix with Nazis, when it is used in many other contexts, and has its own meaning? I think it probably says more about you than the post you are responding to.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I knew I should've said *something* when I heard about this on the Focus on the Family broadcast a week or so ago.
Sigh.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
As another poster pointed out, I had forgotten that MoveOn is already a PAC. Bad me.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Where the submission writeup says "previously reported by Slashdot," it should say "previously misreported by Slashdot." And presupposing that the way Slashdot "reported" it is right, as it happens, is a major piece of spin in this context. Because it's used to set up the rest of the blurb as an insinuation that Democrats were endorsing a bill that restricts freedom of political speech for bloggers (when in fact it's a bill that restricts commercial speech by people paid specifically to pretend they are unpaid advocates.)
Are you adequate?
That's ridiculous. A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now. I always thought a lobbyist was someone who was talking to CONGRESS about issues -- that's what "lobby" means to me, although wikipedia disagrees with me and agrees with you. All these efforts to control lobbying and speech are doomed to backfire, squelching true speech and exempting the big money interests. The real problem is corruption in Congress and the solution is for us to pay attention and vote people out when we smell corruption. Unrealistic? Then we get what we deserve.
Currently hooked on AMP
You're asking the wrong question. Why? Because here we're talking about laws that put restrictions on speech that is both political and commercial. Commercial speech, as I sure hope you already know, is not protected by the First Amendment in the USA. So the real question is whether we should restrict commercially produced political speech.
In both the case of PACs and the case of this proposed law, the idea is that such speech is restricted in a particular way: such speech is allowed, but it must disclose its commercial nature, i.e., the fact that somebody is paying to produce it. Why? In order to hold actors in the political field honest, and to enable the public to better judge political information that it receives.
Are you adequate?
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians - names, personalities and goals are not important. At the end of the day, there's only one thing that matters: the spice must flow.
In other news, CowboyNeal has stopped beating his wife.
Are you adequate?
Have you been living in a cave for the last six years? Liberals have been explaining why they think a plentiful number of major issues are wrong, while conservatives have been spitting and calling them unpatriotic.
I'm not saying there aren't idiots on all sides of the fence, because certainly the world has no shortage of idiots. But your signature is naively lopsided.
We now have both major political parties in power and both of them are trying, or succeeding, in screwing our rights.
Personal liberty is good, so both major parties are bad, and so people should vote for other parties. Q.E.D.
The above poster is referring to that awful Fairness Doctrine that Democrats are trying to bring back, as well as this onerous new blogger law-that-almost-was. I have a long liberal posting history and I agree, the Republicans did good today. The Democrats really, really screwed up.
I've been saying this for quite a while... America does best with the Democrats steering America and a strong Republican minority slamming on the political antilock brakes when the Democrats start driving recklessly. Today is a good example of that.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Voltaire never said the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire, a book written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and was subsequently misattributed to him. Unfortunately, the phrase itself never appears in any of Voltaire's writings.
</smartass>
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
On the contrary. It's to avoid insulting the party of Goldwater by associating it with the neocons.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The ACLU is for civil liberties, not for any particular political party. Dumbass.
Huh? Why don't you look it up, if you don't understand the term? It's a generic adjective that means new and different.
All kinds of people use it, not just liberals. In fact, some of the biggest supporters of the Republicans and Bush government call themselves neoconservatives. I'm not sure why you consider it an insult - why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?
... and then they built the supercollider.
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?
It would certainly be easy for the government to silence the press if they just defined any part of the press they didn't agree with as not being in the press (as you assert). Why can't both MoveOn and littlegreenfootballs both be part of the press? Because they are political? That sounds like the worst reason to silence them. Do you think Alexander Hamilton and James Madison also should have been required to register when they wrote their very political Federalist Papers?
Oh blast it, stupid LOC... *sigh* Go here, hit the "introduction of S.1" link, click "text of legislation" and scroll down to section 220. >_ Sorry, should've noticed the "temp" in the address.
DUH telling me to "contact my senator or representative" should be illegal ? . encouraging more people to get involved in the political process should be illegal ? yeah that sounds real DEMOCRATIC.
Extreme liberals call for no deaths for anyone at all under any circumstances no matter what the cost.
(Costs like mandating seat belts and strictly enforcing the food pyramid)
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
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.
What's so frickin' hard about this? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No law means no law.
No offense, but instead of reading "about the bill" at "PR News Wire", which is an organ of the Public Relations business (which includes lobbyists), why don't you actually READ THE BILL?
It's about fundraising bloggers and the astroturf types that have automatic email widgets on their blogs that generate automatic emails to legislators, even offering "sample wording".
Those are lobbyists, pure and simple.
You are welcome on my lawn.
here is a random example
Perhaps you should actually read the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.0The "500 person" rule you're concerned about describes the action of influencing, not the influencer. Specifically: "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."
To be affected, you must be all three of these:
An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients
Reaching 500 people
Being paid $100,000 a year
If you follow the link click on the "Text of Legislation", section 220 is the part that was under question. The original TFA itself which yesterdays slashdot article linked to was written by a blogger who gets paid by republicans to support thier views.
If this bill had passed HE would have had to register! I've already gone posted a long explanation of this yesterday as have many others. Please do just a bit of research if you are not clear on any part of this.
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now.
Trying to influence the public's opinion is now a huge part of lobbying. Because there have been finance reforms (not nearly enough but certainly better than before), you can pretty easily track who is contributing what to each politicion (there are ways to try to obfuscate this but its now getting pretty hard if you REALLY want to find out). So lets consider this example:
Congress is considering an outright ban on all smoking. All the tobaco companies will certainly give out a ton of money to politicans they think they can buy, however because this can be tracked fairly well now the politicans also need some cover or pretense to take thier side besides just all the money. So besides just lobbying (paying off) congress, they also need to try to raise a controversy over this and try to gain some popular support for thier position to give thier politicans an excuse for thier votes.
So the tobaco companies pool together to create the "Think of the Children, Freedom Liberty for America, Stop the Terrorists Institute". This "indepandent" organization will then fund a bunch of garbage studies to support thier position, produce and air a bunch of commercials, and pay a bunch of bloggers to take up thier side in an attempt to make enough noise to make is sound like thier is a popular upraising against this idea so thier politicans can vote for them and say its because they listened to the people.
The blogging part of this is a little new (but is certainly now well known), but the rest has been going on as part of "standard procedure" for decades. As far as your worry that "in which case I'm lobbying right now", the big question is someone paying you to say these things? Lobbying is more about being paid for trying to influence people then who you are trying to influence. If you think lobbying is simply about trying to convience congress, then everyone who has ever written to or called thier congressmen would be a lobbiest and would need to register as such. We can argue over strict definitions, but in reality lobbying today is about being paid to represent someone elses views or just being paid to try to influence people.
Now you need to be very careful in this as does having a blog and using Google advertising to make a bit of revenue make you a lobbiest? Thats where the fine line must be drawn and needs to be very carefully considered not to include TRUE grass-roots efforts and blogging. However, from what I've seen of this bill it seems like thier did a pretty good job.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
As it stands now doesnt it still target talk radio?
Whether or not you agree with the Rush and Hannitty's of the world, considering them under this bill is still a first amendment violation.
There is no spoon
Should have added that overall, I do agree with your post. Just because this bill seemed pretty good at trying the line between lobbiest and true bloggers and therefore I think a pretty good bill, it certainly wouldn't be a shock to see some quitely inserted langauge on a future bill (military appropraitions now seems the most popular spot) to completely twist this into a horrible bill. So the question is do you not pass a good law for fear in the future it will be twisted into a bad law? This is a very hard question indeed. Instinctively, my (and probably most) reactions is no, you cannot ignore good laws out of fear for what they may become or you could never pass any law. However, given history you certainly have to think twice and be a bit skeptical. So I don't know if there really is a correct answer to that.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
While I don't know if they should register as lobbyists, I definitely agree that some sort of proper disclosure should be required. Otherwise, this is a way for corporations to sell their lies to the public without them knowing it. Just as political ads must tell you who funded it (even if it's a corporate front group, you can still look them up), so should paid bloggers.
My new blog
Please stop saying $100,000 a year. That is not accurate and paints a different picture of "the rich" or, at least, the well paid.
For example, someone could dump a contract on a blogger to get paid $28,091 in a single quarter for some political blogging. They are now classified as a lobbyist and never made $100,000.
I think you're absolutely right to help educate Slashdotters on the realities of the bill. I applaud your effort to do so, by countering the FUD with facts. But, you'll need to get this one straight, too.
Free speech ought to remain free and absolute in the political arena.
These restrictions were simply a way to silence critics by taking away their freedom of speech. There are plenty of justifications, but they all basically amount to "it only restricts people we don't like and it will give us an advantage".
Would they be covered, too?
The way I read the bill, it's "paid" or "income". Ads are income.
Ever heard of the fairness doctrine? It's coming back soon.
Actually you can't simplify it like that. A blogger that is paid $1 by a client, and then spends $25,000 of his own money running his website also qualifies under the definition given in (19). In other words, if you happen to run a wildly successful political site, accepting donations could possibly turn you into a lobbying firm. Wonderful.
And don't say "But that's not the intent!", as that has nothing to do with it. It says what it says, just like the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, which wasn't intended to be abused. We all know how that turned out.
Why is so hard to accept that bloggers could have hidden motives? Money is only one of many reasons a blogger might not tell the truth. This isn't really news at all, unless you really do believe everything you read. OMG SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET LIED!
It's completely legal for a blogger to tell you to contact your representative. It's only illegal if he's paid money to influence you, and doesn't tell the FEC.
Leftist and liberal mean very different things today. IMO, the Republicans seem to be much more about government control than the Democrats do after this current administration. The Republicans aren't what they used to be, something I doubt many really realize.
Legalize it.
That provision would not have made it illegal. It would have required astroturfers to register as lobbyists.
And that was exactly his point, dumbass.
So the question is do you not pass a good law for fear in the future it will be twisted into a bad law? This is a very hard question indeed.
Not really, it isn't.
Any "good" law can potentially be twisted into a "bad" law.
Therefore should we only pass bad laws to prevent the twisting?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Indeed, this bill's defeat brought to you by Swift Boat Veterans for Free Speech.
Doesn't that about sum it all up?
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Funny I thought that the ACLU was associated with the Klan, wait, most of those guys are just Republicans, so yes they are.
All kidding aside, I don't always agree with their positions, but I am alway glad that they take an interest. "Conservative" talking heads like to complain about the "liberal" ACLU (as if there is something wrong with having a liberal viewpoint), but really they are libertarian in nature.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
No?
Then SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU GODDAMNED MORON. Section 220 was pretty specific in what it covered.
Link to the UCLA document on the bill http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/01/19/53-css- techniques-you-couldnt-live-without/
Those who doubt that the Democrats are just a very slightly more socialist twist on the same shitty formulae as the Republicans need look no further than this kind of stunt.
I realize it. I hope the spanking they got makes them think a little different. I do find it "funny" that a lot of the stuff the Dems are proposing are bad and they have already flunked out on their promises.
The bill specifically used the word "client". This implies a specific relationship. Additionally, it says something to the effect of being given $25000 to spend, not spending $25000. I could spend a million dollars of my own money, but as long as I don't take $25000 or more from one or a group of companies or organizations whose causes I promote, I'm clear.
Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.
Last I checked, conservatives used to be about small government, low taxes, minimal intrusion, fiscal responsibility, and state powers.
Now we have the federal government deciding that pot grown in the consumer's own backyard is interstate trade in order to override a state's decision to allow medical marijuana. The government's gone even further in wiretapping and invasiveness than Clinton did. Bush is inventing new powers for himself, such as the ability to override the laws he signs, in direct opposition to his oath to execute them faithfully. The only thing the Republicans can still lay claim to is low taxes, at a terrible cost to our nation's fiscal responsibility by cutting them at wartime.
So now that the Republican Party has little to do with conservatives yet still claim they are, there had to be a new label for them to separate this stuff from wholesome conservative ideals.
Since you probably haven't even read it
(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- 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.
then
(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM.--The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.
then
(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
It clearly defines exactly who is doing grassroots lobbying, exempts those who were targeting less than 500 people, then requires the remainder to register within 45 days of payment. Or it used to, anyway.
No one would accuse slashdot of having pretensions of journalistic integrity much less journalistic ability. I think I would follow misreported with the word ineptly as in "previously misreported ineptly on slashdot."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
You appear to not be aware of this, but Conservative sites are largely funded by Mellon-Scaife, Koch and other sugar daddies working through "grassroots organizations". Not advertising. PajamasMedia was an attempt to follow the model created by the BlogAds used on the liberal sites, and while it has had some limited success it doesn't generate near the revenue for the sites.
Anyway, that's what this bill was about. Trying to force conservative blogs out of the closet and admit who they were getting paid by. It's too bad it failed, as that sunshine would have been quite enlightenining to people who have been hiding in the closet for so long.
Anyway, I just always thought it funny that conservative blogs rely on a communist economic model, and liberal blogs are largely funded through free market operations.
...And I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo...
You can't mod and post in the same thread, all your mods just got nullified.
And that's why them sons of beeches keep marijuana illegal: cuts down on people they can't control from going up their ladder. And they will most certainly lie to keep it that way! Bastards.
My Electric Coop keeps me informed through new letters included with my bill about legislative developments that affect rates and such. I'm a member of the coop so I guess that would be excluded.
m way-way.html. I'm not
an employee, I'm an associate. I might however initiate a company-wide announcement
that makes it to most of the customers that supports the agenda to increase access to
net metering. Am I retained? Maybe. Am I communicating with more that 500 people? Yes, sales
are growing incredibly. Am I a lobbyist in the way the bill intended? Very hard to say but I'd guess yes.
My cable company tries to get me to write congress so they can take over the land line market. This might be included because I am a customer not a memeber.
My cell phone company has had some gripes too and again I'm a customer not a member.
Now, the solar power company I sell for has a definite agenda when it comes to net metering laws: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-a
I feel pretty good that this was removed from the bill just because it was so vauge that many many activities might come under its scope.
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
None of this is, in any way shape or form restricting anyone's right to free speech. Nor are they aimed at silencing critics. The entire thrust is against fraudulent activities in which a small group of people attempt to exert undue influence over our government by throwing money around to create the impression that they represent more people than they actual do. No one is saying that they can't say whatever they want, just that they can't lie about who paid them to say it if there are, in fact, acting as paid shills for some other entity.
Note that there is informed support for this requirement from all sides of the political spectrum (even libertarians will, if pressed, admit that fraud is one of the legitimate functions of government, since fraud is by its very nature coercive). The objections seems to come entirely from known astroturfers, their clients, and people who are blindly repeating their talking points without reading the actual bill in question.
--MarkusQ
I think you are being blinded by intent; It's not an issue of what it is supposed to mean, but rather one of everything it could be interpreted to mean.
Let's say I run a popular website to stimulate a grass-roots election effort (thus 19 applies). The site gets millions of hits before an election, and my hosting is expensive (I never expected that kind of bandwidth usage!), so I have to pay $25k (this meets part B). I'm running out of money, and politician Bill McGreedy pays me $1 to "keep up the good work" (this meets part A). Oops. Now, this might get shot down at trial if the judge is a nice guy, since the case doesn't match the true intent of the law. However, you can bet your ass I'll need a good lawyer, and will have to go through a trial. Given the speed of the legal system, it won't be resolved until after the election, either. I think another poster had a more likely form of misuse however, which is that the bill can be used to assert hidden payment of bloggers and thus launch an investigation of them. That will either shut the blogger up or slow them down.
We don't need this law to "protect" us; We only need to tell people that random bloggers, just like people you meet on the street, might be lying. Don't trust random people you don't know -- It's that simple. A lying blog can always be countered with another blog which digs up the truth, and that is the appropriate way to respond.
Finally, I don't see the difference between one blogger paid 50k per quarter and 10 bloggers paid $5k per quarter. The latter is a yet more sinister approximation of a "grass-roots" effort, and would be completely legal under this (now defunct) part of the law.
So to recap, this law can be used for nuisance attacks, is based on the fundamentally bad assumption that you should be able to trust random people on the internet, and has a large loophole for exactly the type of shillery it is supposed to stop. Well intentioned as it may have been, I say good riddance.
Because it was an anagram of "One"?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Actually, there was a third issue that didn't get talked about very much this week, and was being pushed by the Democrats. I think it might have gotten passed, too. (No surprise there; it's not like the Republicans really have any backbone, or scruples, either.)
The issue is about the definition of a "lobbyist." The Democrats started off from a good premise -- something needs to be done about lobbying and the corporate/big-money influence on politics. Fair enough. However, where you should probably start getting skeptical is when you hear a bunch of people who were just elected due to the help of said corporate cash seemingly railing against it. Something just ain't kosher there.
Below the surface of the "lobbying reform" was a pretty obvious goal: it was all about chiseling away at the Republican power base -- big, ideologically driven social organizations, churches in particular -- while leaving Democratic ones (smaller PACs, unions) intact. The new law puts the same limits on a volunteer- and donation-driven organizations, which represent people with a certain set of beliefs, as K Street lobbying firms for corporations.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with their agenda, but there is a vast difference between a Tobacco-Industry lobbyist, and the Southern Baptist Convention. The former doesn't represent the views of any actual people, only a corporation -- an entity which, for good reason, doesn't vote and shouldn't have any direct involvement in the political process -- while the latter is simply a group of interested persons attempting to influence policy in the manner they see fit.
By painting both groups with the same brush, the Democrats completely missed the boat, and have probably created more harm than good. They had an opportunity to push corporations out of politics, while allowing regular people to stay in, but they ignored it. Rather than calling both groups "lobbyists," it would have been just as easy to create a distinction between a "lobbyist" who works for hire and can take funding from anywhere, and a "Political Action Committee," who is funded by donations from private individuals and exists for the sole purpose of furthering their views. This would have the effect of regulating corporate cash and campaign contributions, but also not impinging on people's rights to pool their resources in order to have a say in government.
Instead, the Democrats used their new-found power as an opportunity to gerrymander on a grand scale, and proved that they are no better than the Republicans; the only reason they seemed like it over the past few years, is because they weren't in position to do as much damage.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps you should read the actual bill. The bill clearly defines the monetary aspect of the whole thing starting in section 211. Stop reading about legislation and just read it...
The 500 person provision is stated in the negative. So paid attempts to reach less than 500 people are exempt. "paid attempt" isn't redefined, it assumes its natural meaning. This legislation isn't rocket science and it is getting all kinds of bad press from people who simply don't feel like reading.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Political Speech, paid for or not, is the very kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect.
The recent Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise are wrong will most likely be overturned in the future.
If you want to cleanup political speech, then it would be better to rescind the protections politicians have now against lawsuits.
If candidate A says candidate B is a drunk and candidate B clearly is not, then A should be on the hook for libel and defamation, just like the average Joe would be.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There are really two different Democratic parties in the United States, The Democratic party, the socially liberal group (pro-choice, pro-health care, pro-civil rights), and the socially conservative one, or the "Dixiecrats" as most of them are from the South(who are anti-choice, and against any spending on social issues at all).
Similarly, I am aghast by Slashdot's lambasting of the "Fairness Doctrine" an age old standard of the non-corporate controlled press, that helped to maintain the political balance of the United States for most of the 20th century, (with the result being the fostering of FDR's New Deal, and LBJ's civil rights reforms. Note that the Fairness Doctrine was destroyed under Ronald Reagan, and if you think he was any friend of the common man, you're a fool.
The United States (and most of the rest of the world actually) has been sliding to right quite steadily since the mid-1970's. The exact causes of this are multitudinous, but many of the spring from the death of FDR in 1944 and the subsequent failure of Harry Truman to force the old European powers to dismantle their empires. The result was the incredibly numerous revolutionary conflicts throughout the third world in the second half of the 20th century, and the placement of incredible strain on the military-industrial bases of both the United States and the Soviet Union.
i find it hilarious watching people defend this steaming-pile-of-crap bill just because they can't bear to admit that maybe the democrats can be the bad guys sometimes too. the redefinition of "paid" necessitated the death of this stupid bill, and I am personally damn glad it's gone. the resurgence of the democratic party is in large part DUE to grassroots and blogging efforts, but now that they have control back they stab those communities in the back?? yeh, uhm, NO.
now if they want to send it back up, sans "paid" redefinition, to try and reign in the REAL astroturfing, then maybe it deserves a second look. till then, good riddance.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I'm getting a real kick out of the new fealing of brotherly love and respect here on slashdot.
Dumbasses.
The problem is that the slashdot articel is missleading. It wasn't the general blogger who was to be branded as a lobbyist, nor was it political bloggers per see. My source tells me it was bloggers who are paid by non-profit(religious or similare) orginisations to spread a political message(in other words, doing lobbyist works).
So, if you didn't resive any money and blogged about political stuff, this law didn't apply to you. If you where paid to spread a political view by non-profit organisations, then this law applied to you.
"But it's on the Internet" does not change the fact that politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists and should be treated like the normal K Street type.
Here is a question. What if I setup an internet lobbying/blogging company in Russia, Japan, Britian, or Canada, but mainly aimmed my blogging/lobbying efforts to the US public. I have no idea what kinda of lobbying laws exist in the countries mentioned, but say that I follow local laws where my site is hosted and my company is based. Is there anything that US anti-paid lobbying laws could prevent my company from doing business? Oh, a guess they could jail me or share holders in the country when we visit the US. Has anyone thought of that concept to make a global lobbying blog aimmed not just at the US government, but at all various governments? It's an interesting concept.
Excellent points all, perhaps with better wording this bill could have been useful but in its current form can be abused or easily overstepped. Also I note your listed url is cs.cmu.edu, I myself am a graduate of CIT, and your /. ID is quite respectible, are you faculty?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I personally would like to see how many bloggers and right wing media nuts were paid by lobbying firms to cast this provision in such a light that it causes this much rancor. Unfortunately, since this provision failed, I doubt I will ever know. This provision was not an attempt to keep people from speaking their minds on blogs, etc. This was an attempt to make bloggers, etc. who are paid to speak other people's minds say who is paying them. It expanded payola laws to include other forms of media, which I personally view as a good thing.
Clones are people two.
Actually, it was only defined that way by a blogger who in turn got his/her definition from this alarmist writing: http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-home /articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=398&CMSCate goryID=24
If you read the actual bill, and not a lobbying organization's kneejerk reaction to it, you'd know that this applied to people PAID to blog, who also have a readership of 500+. In that light, it's a shame this bill was defeated. thomas.loc.gov: search s.1, then go to 220. Specifically:
`(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.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- 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.
Again -- the only time '500' comes into play is to exclude PAID bloggers with audiences of less than 500 from this legislation.The bill targets "bloggers" that are "retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients" and that take in at least $25,000 per quarter
In other words, it doesn't cover bloggers in any true sense of that word as most of us understand it - it covers people masquerading as "grass-roots" bloggers, but who are actually bought and paid for shills making at least $100,000 a year for online "lobbying" efforts.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
First, I defy anyone to nail down a definition of "astroturfing" in a neutral non-political way. One man's astroturfing (probably the politician's) is another man's grassroots. When you are on the receiving end of it (as the politicians are) you don't like it. But when you are one of the outraged citizens who were alerted to something the politicians are about to do, and you take matters up with them, it is a genuine expression of concern.
People are too busy to read every bill that comes up-- come on, get real. So they subscribe to interest groups or go to blogs that share their interests and views, and have the time to analyze the things that go on in Washington. And the only way that these groups and blogs can devote that much time to this is by receiving funding in one form or another. It's not just corporations that provide funding: many groups are funded by the citizenry directly by subscription fees, membership dues, donations and the like. And it's not just conservative groups, but also liberal groups, that would be affected.
It should not surprise anyone that the politicians want to shut this down. But it's shameful that the vote was so split by party lines.
Here are some interesting paragraphs from the CNet article on the topic:
at least they got this one right
what scares me is how many dipshit democrats votes yes to it! wtf lets just do away with the whole media right?
c'mon, you should be old enough to know who supported 'explicit lyrics' dems have been censoring for years. on the u.s. left proper speech has to agree with the party line, or else it is hate or influence peddling or taking our kids to hell.
i was listening to 'free speech radio news' and they had a woman from the latino caucus and a guy from a citizens border patrol group. he opened with: 'everyone has a right to live in the united states, so long as they do it legally.' she opened with: 'you are a bigot, racist, xenophobe and a murderer. how many poor immigrant latinos have you murdered?' somehow what she said was respected speech by the host.
the whole reason the two were on the radio? her group got on stage where he was invited to talk and shouted about him being the aforementioned. talk about free speech.
> this is a way for corporations to sell their lies to the public without them knowing it
Usually, the public is smarter than that. But not necessarily when it comes to politics.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Sorry, how were the actual grass-roots bloggers not going to be affected by this?
And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.
Furthermore, what is ethical about placing bureaucratic red tape around free speech? The only purpose of this section of the bill was to get people off the politicians' backs. They don't like it when we express our opinions, and they don't like it when someone alerts us to problems we should know about.
That's a very good question. However, I think there are US laws regulating the campaigns insofar as foreign donations and stuff like that. I guess no one has tried doing it independently of the campaigns. Prior to the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was rare to have all these 527s doing stuff completely independently. I imagine that something like what you describe will pop up in the next few years.
Remember this the next time you step into the voting booth!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That's okay. You lost that mod the moment you posted to this topic anyway.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Registration is one step from Regulation. And both Registration requirements, and penalties for not Registering properly, stifle free speech.
In addition, AND HERE'S THE BIG ONE, Registration prevents anonymous speech since the speaker has to prove he/she's registered, which proves their identity and makes them available for SLAAP lawsuits that a well-funded adversary can use even when they know they'll lose in the end.
Are we on the same page now?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
fishbowl writes:
and also:
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.
--MarkusQ
"Is anyone on /. rich enough to be Republican?"
Maybe not today... but for a brief shining period around 1999, there were lots of republicans in these circles!
With all the whining we hear from liberals about how Republicans are a bunch of fascists, the Patriot Act, yadda yadda yadda, it's nice to finally see liberal Democrats reveal themselves as the real fascists. Democrats, now that they are incontrol of Congress need Big Government measures to keep tabs on the political opposition, just like any good fascist political party would.
I know. That why I posted.... it wasn't funny anymore.
You mad
This is all propaganda and bullshit.
I was a good little Limbaugh invisible-hander until I got a real job and left my parents' house...
In some respects it *is* a zero-sum game, and the fact that you don't get that it the problem. Yes, some wealth can be "created". Most transactions, however, do not create wealth; they just move it. When a transaction does create wealth, it is nearly always for the party that already has wealth, IE, has capital to "add value" or to force other people to strip mine someone else's land.
Clueless. Try economics 201, at least. 101 is to set the stage, and just like Newtonian physics, it doesn't work in the real world for anything more interesting than a marble sliding down a ramp. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.
The wording of the bill is solid. A donation is not a client relationship as your parent post said already.
You can't just criticize a bill saying that a misinterpretation of the explicit language would require a lawyer. For anything and everything can be criticized that way.
No, Bill McGreedy can't just pay you $1. They have to hire you. Making a donation and retaining your services are two different things, and the language is making a distinction about that.
Oh yeah, I understand now, you just have to apply liberal moonbat logic to undertand how something like this happens.
The Democrats voted for a bill that would have restricted free speech, therefore it must be Republican conspiracy masterminded by Karl Rove in which Halliburton makes billions of dollars.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I get it now.
I don't know why everyone is giving this guys such a hard time about the tubes analogy. While it was clearly harder to understand than he and his speech writer intended, it was not inaccurate. There is a common misconception among the non-tech savvy that the internet is this ocean of data where information goes in and magically comes out the other end. The Senator was using an analogy to illustrate that the internet was like tubes or pipes that big ISP's could restrict to serve their own political agenda. If a young Senator had used the same analogy, it would have never made the news. Because Ted Stevens is an old guy, it is more fun to mock him than it is to understand and acknowledge his analogy. I think that it is tragic that we let the opponents to Net Neutrality use this mockery of an ally to divert attention from the issue just so that we can have a good laugh. Way to go guys.
No, it says you must attempt to influence 500 or more people.
How many people you actually reach is not the standard that was in the bill.
$25,000 in any quarter; given that demand for paid political advocacy is rather seasonal, that is not the same as $100,000, even in a given year.
I don't know what part of Congress shall make no law can't be understood by the U.S. Supreme Court, but I think the wording here is very clear. And for political speech, I would have to agree even more with your sentiment, there can't be any regulation of any kind in any way, even if it is for more noble aims. This is not yelling "fire" in a theater, to give a classic excuse to regulate speech in some situations.
If they want to regulate speech, these election campaign reformers need to first ammend the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, how often does the current U.S. Government (any one of the three branches) really care about what is written in this governing document? That the Constitution isn't being followed should hardly be surprising any more.
sorry, dude(?) but corporations have been afforded personhood due to rulings on the 14th ammendment
Er, no. Corporations have some of the same rights as natural persons, but they're not legally the same thing. They're entities insofar as the ownership of property and taxes are concerned, but they can't vote.
Neither Sam Palmisano nor Bill Gates can walk down to the polls on November 2nd and vote twice, once for themselves and once as a proxy for the corporations they run; it just doesn't work that way. (And for obvious good reason.)
That's not to say that corporations cannot benefit from government; if a corporation has a positive impact on a great number of people, it makes sense that those people might vote in a way that's helpful to a corporation. This is totally fair, and there's nothing undemocratic about it. But when you let corporations begin to influence the political process directly, you start going down a dangerous path: it gives some people what amounts to a double vote -- once as individual citizens (natural persons) and again via the corporation they control. It would be trivial, if we allowed corporations to vote, to set up hundreds of shell corporations and multiply your power, at the cost of $500 a pop (or whatever the registration fee is in states like Nevada that have lax regulations for incorporation).
So there are good and obvious reasons why we create a distinction between natural persons and the legal entities of corporations; allowing them to play politics is anathema to the very concept of one-person-one-vote democracy.
Political action committees, which are strictly not-for-profit and take donations from individuals, pool them, and use them to influence public policy, are another thing entirely. They are the essence of democracy, and really should be thought of as miniature, single-issue political parties. Anything that individual, natural persons are allowed to do, they should be allowed to do.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Wow, two of the three are factually wrong, and the third is spin.
I've always seen "astroturfing" used to refer to fake grassroots activity like LTTE's by shills pretending to be "concerned citizens"; while that may be a technique of advocacy used by those seeking to generate grassroots action, it is not coextensive with being a paid advocate of grassroots actions.
No, you don't have to reach anyone, you have to direct your attempt to influence the public at more than 500 people. Whether you succeed in reaching that many people is irrelevant.
No, you don't have to be paid $100,000 in a year. You have to paid $25,000 in any quarter. You might notice that demand for public political advocacy is somewhat sporadic and seasonal, so the two are not equivalent.
You're joking, right? As a Republican linux user, I haven't heard too many alternative definitions. Seems pretty clear to me...
Astroturfing: fake grass-roots activity. If you're trying to look like you're just a part of the "noisy populace" but you're being paid to maintain your position by the side you apparently agree with, then you're astroturfing.
That definition holds for Microsoft astroturfing, Republican, Democrat, whatever. This bill sets the bar pretty high. $25k/quarter from one client (not from ads) or better than $100k/year from one source, and it calls you a paid political hack. I guess I can see where they're going, since that makes the law more enforceable, but still seems like there will be a lot of two client blogs the next year.
Political speech, like all freedoms, brings with it additional responsibilities. One of the most important responsibilities of political speech (compared to your average public griping) is that it's critical that people know exactly who is saying what. If you're just spouting off your opinion, great! Someone being paid > $100k to put up a political blog probably has the time to submit a form explaining who is paying them for "their opinion". And that seems like an excellent balance of responsibility with freedom to me.
Regards,
Ross
Actually, republicans have been spitting on them and telling them to come up with a better plan. They DON'T have any. On many issues.
Wealth is created by the banking system. You're right, it is usually the wealthy that get the additional wealth. But then they spend it and "move it" in normal transactions and the new wealth improves the entire economy. No-one believes that by buying a Twinkee you are creating new wealth in the economy. But when you deposit your paycheck and the bank turns around and loans a large percentage of that to someone else who in turn spends it and someone else deposits it in their account which is then loaned to someone else... you better believe wealth is created. LOTS of it. And it's not just the rich that benefit from that. In fact, the rich would probably do well regardless--but the vast majority of the population that requires a loan to buy a house would be S.O.L. if it were not for the wealth-creation that the banking system allows.
How odd. I read through the bill the other day and I didn't see anything about this. Could you point me to the specific section you are referring to please?
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue. For instance, using the same logical structure you could claim:
But no one, I trust, would take this as a serious argument that the murder laws were unfairly aimed at skateboarders.
And finally, note that the question to which you were responding was not "how do you interpret the bill?" but rather where have I said anything about my personally wanting to restrict anyones speech?...which you still have not answered.
--MarkusQ
i'd expect better of slashdot, this bill was specifically designed to kill astro turfing, you know, those blogs/websites of dubious repute which shill shit like microsoft/oil industry "studies" / anti global warming "studies" etc.. in exchange for monetary compensation, those sites(which promote massive amounts of mis-information) would have had to register as lobbysits, hardly something i'd cry about since it'd make identifying the bought mouthpieces easier. i'm not suprised that republicans voted against this bill, after all, mis-informing and pushing false information as true is an essential tool in their trade, it's sad to see the sheeple over here braying as if this is something strange when all they have to do is fucking READ.
Blogging is just the newest play thing for the lobbyist. As a lobbying tool, it effectiveness is unproven. As opposed to hookers and booze which has proven to be VERY effective. Next if terms of effectiveness are: free travel, complimentary sports tickets, paid golf club fees, courtesy cars, etc.
Good oul Bill had finally copped on that those Acer Farrari's can't be you love....
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
No they're not. They're supporters of the popular movement of the democratic party party for the moost part(This does not include movements for censorship and the like instigated by the party leadership). They have yet to come out in favor of the 2nd, even though when one considers the matter dispassionately and takes in all of the availible facts, there is no real doubt about it's meaning and which stance they would have to take as supporters of civil rights. End of story. The moment they decided not to do so because they find guns scary is the moment they violated their mission statement whatever their stated excuse. Being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties. No more, no less.
As a citizen, I'd like that astroturfing labeled as such
As a person with a brain, I'm offended by the suggestion that I can't just evaluate speech on the merits. And as a lover of liberty, I'm extremely offended by the suggestion that liberty be infringed in this way.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I was merely responding to the poster's insinuation that it was strictly a Republican issue instead of a free speech issue. But you knew that.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Democrats position? Did you not even read the intro to the article or are you a retard?
It was the Republicans who killed the bill. THE ONLY VOTES FOR THE BILL CAME FROM THE DEMOCRATS!
Maybe you meant to say: "So the Republicans position was to shut down a majority of people that critisize them?" That at least would have ben accurate.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well, if the ACLU was libertarian, it would be pro-gun, but its past behavior does not support that conclusion.
The reason the ACLU is labeled "liberal" is not because it's an insult to be liberal but because the ACLU doesn't advertise that it is liberal despite how obvious it is, so conservatives feel the need to let people know upfront. Penn & Teller did an episode of "Bullshit!" that mentioned this phenomena, where people give their groups innocuous names to hide their political agendas. "American Civil Liberties Union" sounds fantastic by itself--who would be opposed to civil liberties, right?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok... here is my attempt at a serious discussion, especially when we live in a time when politicians from both sides of the aisle like to throw around terms like 'Fascist', 'Dictator', 'Commie', 'Ulta-Conservative', 'Uber-Liberal', and the like. If you want a post that will suit your political leanings by exploiting this as a prime opportunity to Democrat-bash, go read some other post. I am a very strong Republican, but moderate more than conservative, as there is no mutual benefit to either side by being an extremist. Don't agrre with me because you are a Republican, but don't disagree with me because you are a Democrat.
I find it curious to note that there was a considerable share of Democrats that actually voted *yea* on this bill, instead of nay. I am quite suprsed to see that it was a very one-sided vote, as I would expect to see it either pass by a majority (a very unlikely event at all), or be rejected by a vast majority by both sides. However, only 7 Democrats voted with the majority against the bill to defeat it. I was not suprised to see this bill fail, but was still happy nonetheless. I was under the impression that personal freedom from government was the supreme sacred icom of the Democratic Party. The bill, a flagrant disregard for anything, having to do, even remotely, with the Constitution, would have essentially required registration for the excercise of free speech that had a quantified popularity. Basically, if more than a specified number of people liked or read your opinion (blog), then you would be required to register with the Federal Government as a lobbyist.
Yes, lobbyists are a strong influence on The Hill, but there is a distinct difference between how lobbyists and bloggers conduct their political warfare: Ammunition. Lobbyists use money and other monetary particulars (gifts, trips, and other compensations that are not in the form of currency or cash) as a means of excercising political influence. Bloggers use arguments, finger-pointing, jokes, cynical with, and cheap shots as their means of political warfare. Another difference is Strategy. Lobbyists are a behind-the-scenes, shadowy, clandestine type of political soldier. They fight their battles in the dark, sometimes with a pseudo-guerrilla style, and until recently, usually go unnoticed and fade away quickly. Bloggers are the kind who fight in the open, conducting the political equivalent of an open bayonet charge and carpet-bombing. They usually don't care who sees them and sometimes prefer it. No weapon, including the 'Nuclear Option' goes unused. When lobbyists strike, usually all that is heard is a muffled thud or a brief whimper. When bloggers strike, it's usually a nuclear explosion followed by a three-day Blitzkrieg of network television specials narrated by talking heads. Both have different motives: Lobbyists are usually business-oriented. Bloggers are roughly, in my view, a 40/40 mix of armchair political analysts (I don't mean that in a bad way; just most bloggers are not working for 'analysis farms' like Brookings or Pew or other similar institutions) and self-glorifying 'social pyromaniancs' who love to make outrageous claims so people will look at them. The remaining 20% are those who blog with clear political intentions, and can not be swayed by even the most blatantly contradictory facts.
What this bill was intended to do is classify both lobbyists and bloggers as one in the same. It's like a new form of Newspeak: Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. Both are fruits. To make it easier for everyone, we'll just call them both fruits and eliminate the extra step of identifying each one as an apple or an orange. Both are fairly popular, so it is of great importantce that we just call them fruits, since that is all people need to know about them.
In no way did I expect this bill to pass, although I did leave some room open for the possibility, as other similarly-restrictive bills and nonesuch have been passed before. But the shocker for me was that only 7 Democrats voted against it. THAT was a
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The simple fact is that they both parties are doing the same thing; representing big business and lying about it. Republicans say that they want fighting crime, good jobs, low taxes, balanced budgets and to not interfere in other's countries. But they have pushed for allowing the top ppl in the gov to get off scott free (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Delay, Abramhoff, etc) while shutting down honest reps such as Joel Hefley, offshoring of jobs by sending gov. development to Bermuda, Awarding non-competitive bids to Halliburton, lie about why to invade Iraq, and ignore the deficits that they ran up in the 80's and current.
The Dem's speak of freedom for Americans, getting rid of corruption, balancing the budget, increasing stability, etc, while at the same time, they are pushing for loss of fair use, increasing oversight of bloggers, trying to push many into gov who have a less than stellar record (Murtha anybody), and they are waffling about getting us out of Iraq.
I was an in dependant who became a libertarian because it was obvious that the 2 parties are disasters. Yes, IMHO, the Dem's are less so. But that is a lot like comparing Hitler to Mussolini. You do not want either of them. There are good folks in each party, but both of them have many corrupt individuals and most are just so-so. Personally, I am in hopes that Ron Paul gets the republican nomination. Somehow, I doubt it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now that's an entirely different argument, and one that I'm very likely to have some sympathy for. Laws are at best, an approximation of "constraints upon immoral behavior", and the gaps between morality and legality are substantial.
Hm. I'm not familiar with the ACLU's website, but I just spent 15 minutes trying to find an ACLU position on this (search for "blog" or "blogging" or "bloggers" with "Free Speech" selected as a constraint) and I can't locate any mention of the bill or the issue. The "family advocacy groups" are religious right groups (the part of the Republican party that I detest, being non-religious myself) and it's supremely unsuprising that they want to hide who is saying what. Their very name is a deception, so why would their advocacy be any different?
Ross
Why is everybody upset about the fact that the bill wanted bloggers to register as lobbyists? There are bigger problems here.
Why should lobbyists have to register at all? It seems to me like the First Amendment clearly protects the rights of the people to petition the government. That is all lobbying is. People who like to think of themselves as libertarians should be against this sort of legislation. It is an affront to our civil liberty in the guise of protecting the political process.
If they really wanted to protect the process, Congress should agree to do away with earmarks and have more open accounting for where they get their campaign financing. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people to redress grievances, but it doesn't protect Congressmen from revealing their funding sources.
If you're a right leaning libertarian, then you just want to be a right winger who can smoke pot and get away with it. Personally I think it's better if your a lefty who smokes pot and doesn't care what people think. (NOTE: I don't smoke pot or crack, but I have tried pot and I did inhale) Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Republican all that much. It doesn't in my eyes. Also note that I despise Libertarians because they don't grasp reality in any reasonable way. People need to be protected from themselves and each other (hence the need for government and law), and until you realize that, you won't get any slack from people like me.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
...for what they say, think of this. What if, I am a "lobbyist" who is getting paid by some group to espouse certain views? Ok, so I am getting paid $120,000/year to help in this dissimination of information. Well, why should I have to register as a lobbyist if I actually BELIEVE what I am saying?? Just because someone is getting paid by someone to say something it doesn't automatically mean that they don't believe what they are saying. So in that respect why should that person have to register?
Also, think about this in terms of advertising. If I am the owner of a company and my company is very good at what it does, but I am not the best at expressing why this is so, I hire an advertising company to say it for me. Why is blogging for money any different? In an ideal world anyone would research what they are buying before the purchase, the same goes (or even more so) with politicians, it should be researched who you are voting for and why. I dont' beleive that putting rules on this kind of speech just because we are not a perfect society puts us any closer to being a perfect society.
I know I shouldn't but I just have to...
Ok, so, here you have a right granted by the constitution of the United States which was designed to ensure the independence of the states. Sure. A little bit outdated, probably not intended to allow automatic weapons (and you won't see the ACLU being for a total gun ban). We'll also ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and the (now untrue) implication that such a militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. We have something called the army now.
But seriously, ignore my rant. I will just go ahead and accept that the previous paragraph is crap. What is undeniably true, however, is that the right to bear arms is not a civil right. It is a constitutional right in the United States, undeniably. But let's have a look at what civil rights are. Probably a fair, unbiased starting point would be the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Have a bit of a read. It lists freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, the freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination. It even lists a need for guaranteeing due process of law and a fair trial. The one which we'll focus on, however, is the right of self determination (Art 1).
Article 1 is really what the second amendment was about: maintaining the rights of the people and ensuring that the government doesn't raise an army against its own people. This isn't about the right to bear arms generally. This is about the right to bear arms in resistance against a despot. Nobody denies anyone that right. These days it's called the right to self determination and it means that you get to vote and if you don't get to vote then you get to rebel. So quit all the crap about how "being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties." If we're talking about civil liberties (rather than civil rights) then the ULTIMATE in civil liberties is actually being able to do whatever you want - kill, rape, pillage, burn etc. But we don't do that. We restrict the behaviour of individuals for the betterment of society. If these restrictions become too much we have means to reduce them. These means can include, if necessary, bearing arms against an oppressor. Once again, this does not mean you have a right to keep an assault rifle on the back of your pickup for those really aggressive deer.
My apologies for the rant. But the second amendment is a poorly framed outmoded and unnecessary provision. People who claim that it is their right to bear any arms in any situation have no basis for that in the principles that underpin the constitution and the law.
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
Or, as was once the case, most people would own a home and it would cost a lot less, because the system of housing loans and using them as leverage for short-term investment would be not exist to nearly the scale it does now.
Not that it's necessarily better, for many reasons, but it's not necessarily worse, either. Just different. History shows that when normal people can't get home loans for an amount equal to ten years' gross income, they don't all end up in tenements; houses just cost less, and banks make less money. Normal people may end up benefiting in some ways from the availability of money that is consequent in your outline, but all the wealth created pretty much goes to the bank, with interest.
I think you're underestimating the extent to which the trickle-down religionists believe that selling a Twinkie does create wealth. Or at least, want other people to think so.
K Street? The Center for American Progress is on Eye Street (I street, but I is easy to confuse with 1, so it's often spelled Eye, even on buildings) and I know I've seen lobbyists' buildings pointed out elsewhere by a guy I know at CAP.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Highlight
the Democratic candidates who, as of November 14, had won Republican-held seats in the November 7 midterm elections have said they support central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security. Also, these new Democrats largely agree on the most contentious social issues of the day; as Media Matters has noted, all but two of the 28 newly elected Democrats (as of November 14) support embryonic stem cell research and only five describe themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.
I thought lobbyists were people who used cash, influence, post-office employment/chaiman positions, and whatever they can (hookers, drugs, trained monkeys) to cut through the pesky red tape of the popular vote and get what their clients want directly from lawmakers.
/cynicism
Circumventing the voters is a good reason to register in my opinion. Dumping gifts, cash, lunches, travel, etc. on lawmakers requires this supervision.
Now a blogger: what are they doing? They express an opinion to the public. The public can take it or leave it. There is no pressure and certainly no reward to this behavior on the part of the blog reader. The reader doesn't get lunch, the reader doesn't get free travel, the reader doesn't get shit. Well MAYBE food for thought, but even then there is no guarantee they will agree with what is written on the blog. And have you read some of the political blogs lately? Utter crap is the order of the day. Some of them are so incoherent as to be impossible to agree or disagree with.
Big difference in my opinion between the two. One relies on the influence of cash and power directly on an elected official in an environmet that the voters cannot directly observe. The other is a publicly posted piece of information that anyone can read and make their own decision about. Which is more likely to result in massive disenfranchisement and subversion of the political system? Hmmm....tough one.
I can see them being equal if Blogs had the magical ability to make anyone who reads them believe whatever was written on them. However, since they can't I don't see the parity and therefore don't see the need for this regulation.
If the law passes (it will be back in some form I am sure) I can see it as a bludgeon to hurt bloggers that express an opinion that garners endorsements. If that endoresement is over a certain dollar amount they get flagged as a "lobbyist." This could lead to them being discredited and marginalized in media reports, etc. It would not stop the behavior, it would just give the opposition a stick to beat their competetion with. It would also create credibility issues for some people that could potentially undermine their ability to persuade readers with logic and reason.
Maybe the Democrats voted for this after offering to pay all their sympathetic bloggers $99,999.99 per year? I am sure the Republicans voted against it because none of thier top bloggers will work for less than $100k.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Are you contending that you have the time and ability to investigate every single claim that you read on the Internet and determine its veracity and pparticularly context?
No, you can't. Context encompasses most of human knowledge in one way or another. At some point, you're trusting arguments and maxims from sources that you take to be more expert than yourself. And as much as you might like to contest this, all those claims and utterings, every one, do affect your opinions and judgement whether you've thorougly vetted them or not. That's just how the human mind works--once you see, you can't unsee. Thus, an integral part of evaluating speech on the merits is having the tools to know the source of claims, so that you may evaluate conflicts of interest along with the facts themselves (and so that, as appropriate, those who use their wealth to spread lies can be held to account if in no other way than the court of public opinion).
The parent post uses it alongside "GOP" which is a reference to the Republican Party. RTFP.
Republicans are dumb. Democrats are dumb. The Republicans have engaged in far worse stupidity than the Democrats have lately, but this should be a clue that the lawn isn't exactly green on the Democratic side of the fence.
We need something better.
See you at Church on Sunday. I expect you to be there, it is for you own good.
Slashdot needs to change the news posting and make it "paid political bloggers", or else have some warning for the casual reader that the information is false. Not doing this undermines Slashdot's credibility.
I think a lot of Dems have realized that gun control is a losing issue. I don't hear them talking about it much anymore. But that may be a consequence of who I'm paying attention to. (I live in the western US.)
-- $SIGNATURE
The meaning of these terms changes in time. Consider the fact that liberal and conservative, in Canada, used to refer to precisely the opposite of what they do now. Conservativism in Canada was originally, for all intents and purposes, a political ideology of remaining as separate as possible from the USA in every regard. Liberalism embraced most things American. Now it's reversed; conservatives generally adore everything about the USA, while liberals want Canada to forge its own path.
So I'd say that in modern parlance, Communism (centralized management of everything) is the opposite of Libertarianism (no centralized management whatsoever), while Socialism (using the power of the state to support individuals as needed) is the opposite of Neoconservatism (insert your own definition for neocon ideas here ... mine would probably involve profanity). That's not to say that any of thse are good philosophies. Real politics always has and always will function best by blending different ideas and simply doing what works best at the time.
Or do you think that the FCC should prevent that, assigning a unique broadcaster to each frequency in each area? That sounds like government interference (and grant of monopoly) to me.
-- $SIGNATURE
You don't consolidate "a power". You consolidate "power". That is, you demonstrate that you can get things done. And isn't that the point of congress? If the Democrats want to control congress, they have to get things done. If they can't pass a simple bill, then they have no power, and will find themselves standing in the food-stamp line at the grocery store soon enough. And that's why trying to pass a stupid bill that members of your own party don't support is an enormous mistake. I'd say exactly the same thing if the republicans tried to pass a bill and it was voted down by other republicans. That's the kind of thing that causes entire political parties to die in many countries. More's the pity that the Republican and Democratic parties DON'T die...
You know, we talk about conections to the internet and thru the internet as well as intranets as "pipes" sometimes. A quick search for internet and pipes will show this. But isn't a pipe really a tube?
I think your right, if this was anyone younger, it wouldn't have been the same deal. You could probably take the entire speach, replace tube with pipe and not have one complaint. And I would say that a pipe is a tube by definition and design.
Yes, I realized it was referring to the GOP. But I thought the use of the term was a meta-wink to neoliberalism. As in "inspired by," not the direct usage. RBTL.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I'm not sure that you should equate Goldwater with true Republicans and the old GOP. Actually, you should remember that the GOP itself started as a highly *PROGRESSIVE* party, advocating many positions that would make the new fangled neo-GOP wannabe brownshirts spin in their graves. (Whenever.)
The underlying problem is that the main political parties in America have never really had ideological positions. Yes, Goldwater was a true conservative, and yes, he was registered as a Republican, but there were (and are) many registered Democrats who share many of his views and agree with many of his principles. However, the winner-take-all mechanisms of American politics have worked against the success of ideologically based parties. (Which mechanism, by the way, may naturally result in the destruction of the GOP when it becomes trapped in dead ideologies.)
I do think we need a new label to distinguish between the old Republican Party and the neo-GOP opportunists who have effectively taken over the GOP. I also reject their propagandistic approach of destroying the meaning of old words, for example by trying to redefine GOP or by playing word games with upper case, etc. Actually, it is true that there are some old words that are quite applicable to the situation, such as oligarchs or even fascists (for some of the extreme cases).
No, I'm not actually a registered anything. It's not so much that I like the Democratic politicians as that the leading Republicans are really dangerous lunatics. The Dick Cheney. 'Nuff said.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
That doesn't say anything about it being purely a Republican issue. It doesn't matter what position the ACLU takes on it - there are people who will still be against the bill because the Republicans were against it. The ACLU opposing the law does not somehow prevent Republicans from opposing it.
You also seem to be trying to use the ACLU to bolster your argument (see your other ACLU-related post too) that it is a bill treat ordinary bloggers as lobbyists. Just because the ACLU opposes the law, doesn't mean it's for that reason. They have probably looked very closely at it from a legal perspective, and found other good reasons to oppose it - without having to lie about the facts of the case.
I don't like the bill myself - but how can we have a decent discussion if the facts are reported wrong from the outset? The way it has been described on slashdot is dead wrong, and that is causing people to exaggerrate what the bill is actually about. If it were reported accurately and non-sensationally, I guess the stories wouldn't have attracted much interest.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Yet some people, be they trolls, self-interested liars, ignorant, or lacking in critical thinking skills, have presented this as if it were a sufficient condition, i.e. claiming that anyone with 500 or more readers was subject to registration requirements.
There is a difference between the two types of conditions. See wikipedia for more on this.
-- $SIGNATURE
* (Actually, I hate guns. But I don't particularly care if other people want to own a tool that is far more likely to be used on themselves or their family than it is on anyone else. As long as gun-owners are held legally responsible being dumbasses or for allowing their guns to fall into the hands of criminals, there's no problem, eh?)
To be clear, astroturfing is undeniably a heinous activity. Trying to usurp democracy is the kind of thing that should get people lynched. But the answer here is to ELECT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T RETARDS (yes, that would mean occasionally voting for the guy that DOESN'T have the better haircut, but there it is). Anyone that isn't collosally stupid and incompetent can see through astroturf. Trying to micromanage bloggers is pretty much the exact opposite of a good answer in this case. It's not only a violation of free speech, it's a completely intractable problem. It's like trying to herd cats ... hundred of thousands of cats ... with nothing but a taser and the carboard-tube from a roll of wrapping paper.
The democrats had their hearts in the right place ... just not their heads. Their heads were someplace terrible and foul. Possibly up their asses, but then again, even the dumbest of asses has the occasional nugget of sense hidden away in its folds somewhere. I can't even think of where their heads were at while developing such a ridiculously monstrous piece of legislation.
Lobbyists are pretty much the bane of democracy. That alone is reason enough to lock them in the stocks and have them soundly caned.
Frankly, I can't believe that the democrats that loved. I can't believe that there are only 20 or so bloggers that criticise the democrats. I thought they were substantially more contemptible than that.
Or maybe you can READ THE DAMN ARTICLE next time. If you had read it, you would know that the legislation only applies to professional bloggers who are paid more than $25,000 a year to promote a political position. This is VERY different than simply trying to regulate all blogging. Not that it's a good idea, mind you. Voting it down was a very sensible move. Campaign finance reform is important and necessary, but it can't come at the cost of free speech, even when that free speech is for-pay.
This is just one of those pieces of nonsense that idiots blather about. It makes no fucking sense. What does the right to form an armed militia have to do with not dying, not becoming a slave, or not being denied the right to pursue happiness? The police and government control whether or not you can do those things, and if you even SUGGEST that you will use a gun to influence their decisions, you'll lose your liberty, you'll lose any and all opportunities to pursue happiness, and you'll quite likely lose your life.
Don't misunderstand me: I support peoples' right to own guns. The first amendment IMPLIES the second -- owning a gun makes some degenerate psychopaths happy, and banning guns goes against the idea of liberty.
But suggesting that having a gun will protect you when the government bans the things that make you happy? That's just stupid. Being able to marry would make a lot of homosexuals happy, and so the first-amendment suggests that they should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, no amount of guns will make it happen. Japanese-Americans were locked in concentration camps during WW2 -- if they had tried to protect their liberty using guns, they would simply have gotten themselves killed. If you are arrested for a crime that you didn't commit, do you think that having a gun, either in your hands or those of a militia, will make the slightest difference? If you challenge the government's right to use deadly force, you DIE. PERIOD.
The first amendment stands or falls alone. The second is just a relic of revolutionary times. It means absolutely nothing anymore. If guns are to remain legal, it has to be on the basis of freedom, not on some stupid fantasy about being able to protect yourself from the power of state. To wield power against the state, you would need tanks, bombs, rockets, planes, ICBMS, etc. Having guns wont help you anymore than having field rations or combat fatigues will.
The opinions of this go round and round. Whether paid or not,ones opinion in print is still their speech and not to be tampered with,this includes talk show hosts.Whether an audience of one or one million,it only matters to the party who doesn't want their faults exposed.DEMOCRATS.
I don't miss for a second that the vote for this was unanimously Democrat.I certainly won't have it as some glossed over factoid minutia either.The Democrats are here to relieve us of our rights over their desire to bring us to socialism,political correctness and white guilt over the U.S. being generally rich and sucessful.This is just another example of it and I won't buy any apologist bullcrap for Pro-Dem!
I will even reprint in this forum a funny yet ironicaly accurate email that I will share for the sake of those who sympathize and those who it will offend in a politically incorrect manner.
The Democrats new promise "A New Direction For America"
The stock market is at a new all-time high and America 's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means, what?
Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?
Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means, what?
Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?
Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means, what?
The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means. what?
Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means, what?
Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?
Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means, what?
Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced
in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead
or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means, what?
Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel,
including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means, what?
Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the
shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means, what?
Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:
The economy to go South
Illegals to go North
Taxes to go Up
Employment to go Down
Terrorism to come In
Tax breaks to go Out
Social Security to go Away
Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone
But what the heck!
I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan.
I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.
Now I know why I feel good after the elections. I am going to be able to sleep so much better at nights knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of me and my welfare.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Note that the $100,000 per quarter is far above the stipend that some true grassroots bloggers get for their time.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
From Section 220: That enough for you?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
who's side are you on, the greedy corparations along with the few elite, or the people? stinking republicans.. get a damn haircut you hippies!
telling ME to contact my senator or congressman is NOT lobbying, it is political speach , exactly ( along with religious speach) what the first amendment was designed to protect.Lobbying is the paid spokesperson dealing with the senator or congressman DIRECTLY , often dispensing perks ,favors or outright bribes. In the first case I have to agree with the position and then act by contacting my representative and express MY opinion . in the second case I and all other voters are bypassed and OUR opinions are moot. If you cannot see the difference then you don't understand either democracy or a represenative republic.
and I thought /. only had intelligent members. It's clear by the responses that either most of you are too dumb to understand or too lazy to read.
./ers understand.
This was an attempt to get control of additional paid political advertising under the guise of blogging and clearly makes sense. To pay someone to push your positions to the public is advertising, not blogging.
It had ZERO to do with actual blogging and even less about Free Speech. If you do not understand this, please start back at the kindergarten where you may learn something.
It's nice to see at least a few
yes the proposed bill does not make unpaid political speach illegal YET . politicl speach, paid, unpaid or otherwise is not lobbying and is protected by the first amendment. What is lobbying is the spokesperson paid or unpaid dealing with the congressperson ( or his staff) directly , bypassing the voters . Urging ME to contact my representative and express MY opinion is NOT lobbying. This bill is nothing but a blatant attempt to shut down grassroots campaings as are the various attempts around the country to raise the bar on pettions by the voters to get laws on the ballot that the politicians don't want. If you want to make something illegal make Real lobbying illegal ( by unions , companies, pacs of all stripes and orginasations from the sierra club to the NRA). let the people in congress listen to the voters not the K street law firms.
There is no abridgment of freedom of speech or the press here, no matter how many littegreenfootballers have screamed out in unison.
How ironic of a statement given how they hide behind being a private entity to silence people. At least their opposition allows them to present their case, even if it defies the "majority opinion".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If you think McCain-Feingold was a good law, then this won't make sense to you. But money is a form of free speech just as much as burning a flag or sliding down a stripper pole is.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I say THANK GOD some bloggers make money. Seems to me that it will encourage more speech. Otherwise, we'd only have guys on welfare in their PJs.
When did making money become a bad thing? We can't all be on government relief!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The reason why you see no difference is because you are
a.) borderline socialist
b.) ignorant of the positions of Libertarians
c.) troll
You could say the same thing about Democrats and Libertarians. Don't believe me? Watch.
If you are a left leaning libertarian then you want to be a left winger that doesn't pay out the nose in taxes. Personally I think it's better if you are a righty who supports tax reform. Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Democrat all that much. It doesn't in my eyes.
Libertarians support:
1.) Drug legalization
2.) Prostitution legalization
3.) Strict adherence to the Bill of Rights
4.) Gay marriage
5.) Open borders
6.) Abortion
7.) Abolishing the FCC
I wish you were right that the GOP was libertarian, by the way. Republicans are bending over backwards for the social conservative vote. I am a right leaning libertarian because I support all seven, but not in absolutist terms.
1.) Start with POT
2.) Make it a business like everything else
3.) Pretty much absolute (exceptions for national security)
4.) Call it a Civil Union and you got my support
5.) Guestworker program you betcha!
6.) Prolife after neural activity
7.) Let people watch what they want to watch.
--Joey
The GOP (Grand Old Party, a nickname for the Republican Party) is thought of as a "conservative" party. However, the top ranks of the GOP nowadays are full of neoconservatives. So if the party of conservatives is called the GOP, then why can't the party of neoconservatives be called the neo-GOP? At least it's better than calling them neo-con artists.
The Federal Communications Commission grants monopolies on terrestrial and geostationary-satellite radio frequencies in United States airspace. The fees that the monopoly holders charge for access to their broadcast towers, combined with the suggestibility of the median American voter, create a situation of one dollar one vote. I would imagine that regulations to restrict the manner of political speech are intended to buck this tendency.
This one we squeaked by on. What is with the Democrat's? Do they not get freedom or that their power or the government having control is not what is really important? Perhaps the people will learn this time that neither party is their friend or to be trusted. Maybe. If we have the memory of a grasshopper.
If you can't tell that this is an infringement of liberty, it scares the crap out of me that you have the legal right to vote and control the lives of others.
Here's a hint, buddy: if the state is issuing orders, unless those orders are "Do not violate the rights of others," then the state is infringing liberty, and the people receiving the orders are slaves. It's just like a draft, although certainly not as serious. But the difference is in degree, not in kind.
Even proper nouns change in meaning over time. It's an unfortunate reality, and one that makes any examination of history a dicey prospect without a proper grounding in linguistics.
Language changes all the time. Basic underlying concepts change. We use ancient words to describe things that people in the ancient world could never have understood. They used these same words in ways that are long forgotten, and which we would not and possibly could not recognize. So yes, when I say that Communism refers to a totalitarian system of state ownership, I am using the current meaning of that word. The meaning that 99.9% of the world uses. You can go around using the old definition and making no sense to anyone but yourself and a few other pedantic nobodies that refuse to accept change, but who's the real winner? The point of language is to communicate successfully. So you either use the definitions of words that are accepted by the society of which you are a part, or you don't communicate successfully and end up in a lot of arguments with people that you ultimately agree with, just because you were too much of an ass to bother learning how English is used NOW.
You guys crack me up. Our government tortures people to death, holds people for years without charging them, keeps them in secret prisons with no due process or even so much as a visit from the Red Cross, puts Americans under surveillance without a warrant, calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint and outdated," says that no individual American actually has habeus corpus rights, and you say nothing. In fact, you impugn the intelligence and patriotism of anywone who is concerned about these developments. But if person getting paid $100,000 a year to blog is made to admit that he's paid for it, then suddenly you weep for the death of sweet, sweet liberty. Wow. Compelling worldview you have there. You're the one with the brain, all right. Thanks for weighing in on the issue.
You keep misrepresenting the text, despite the fact that it is clear, frequently linked to on this thread, and has been explained multiple times.
Nothing in this bill would have prevented unregistered people from engaging in any sort of speech they liked. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What would have required registration is hanging out your shingle as a service provider who would advocate points of view in exchange for money.
This is directly analogous to the situation w. lawyers. I can represent myself in court any time I choose. So can you. But if we want to go into the business of charging others to represent them in court, there are certain hoops we'll have to go through first. And that fact does not in any way infringe on our right to have a lawyer. Likewise, under the proposed bill, you could say anything you wanted, but if you decided that you'd rather hire someone to speak on your behalf they would (under certain circumstances) have to be registered.
Ignoring this point will not make it go away.
--MarkusQ
The Text of the Amendment in Question:m p/~c110NaSiwe:e38473:/
One click only, for your reading enjoyment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./te
Whoops! Essentially it was a bill to make legitimate grassroots campaigns more effective as opposed to campaigns run by ad companies. And the company who ran the "grass roots" campaign to stop it was one of the biggest ad companies involved in this type of caper. The ironing of this one is so delicious I just can't fit in any dessert. I propose a completely different bill: No one is allowed to have an opinion on anything until they've spent at least one hour researching it.
I don't believe I did. He was implying that the fact the Republicans were opposed to something made it good. I referenced a typically pro-Democrat mainstream group that was also opposed to it to prove that it wasn't some great thing only the evil conservatives were opposed to, and that it wasn't--or shouldn't be, rather--a party issue.
"Sufferin' succotash."
== Final score ==
Team A (Mark, dictionaries, linguistics experts, historians, and 99.9% of all Humans): 1.
Team B (Mr Naz and a handful of other philosophy majors): 0.
Does it hurt to be on the side that has absolutely nothing upon which to base it's argument? I bet you'd make a outstanding religious zealot, or a devoted critic of evolutionary theory.
Can you point me to the text of any such revision of the bill in question?
Nice spin. The analogy was about people who exercise the rights of others, by proxy. As you note, the rights of journalists (and citizens who engage in political speech, peacefully assemble, etc.) are being exercised by the people who have those rights in the first place. I find it difficult to imagine how I could exercise my own rights by proxy, but I suspect it would probably be painful, so I too hope and pray the concept of doing something proxy is never stretched and twisted to the extent you attempted to abuse my analogy.
Agreed. I also hope they never try passing a law mandating nipple piercing for people who make sarcastic remarks. Fortunately, I've yet to see any evidence that either of these was included in any draft of the bill in question.
--MarkusQ
"The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917".
9... 10... ding! The singular definition of the word "communism" is out for the count. "Communism" is as subject to change as any other word in the english language. I like the clarity of this statement, the implication that "communism" is just a noise that comes out of people's mouths and that usage is what ultimately matters.
You ought to read the whole article. It's good. Later on it explicitly discusses the different usages of the word communism, with respect to the group of political theories and the family of political parties and systems of real-world government. The authors seem rather sure that you can talk about Communism and be referring to Stalinist governments, states, and ideologies.
It's interesting that you can't get past "definitions". I'm not sure why you think that common usage is soooo deplorable and monstrous, and can never be considered a reasonable way for anyone to communicate. It makes me wonder how you have conversations with anyone that isn't a political scientist. Do you spend every moment in a state of hopeless confusion, as you try to reconcile your strict classical definitions of words with the ways in which those words are being used by those around you? Do you stop and lecture people when they use the word communism in the common way rather than the traditional way? Or do you, deep down, understand exactly what people mean?
I fully intend to find a political scientist prof at school on Monday and see if he or she agrees that Communism is, in the common usage (ie: the English language as it is actually spoken by 99.5% of English speaking people), generally synonymous with soviet-style governance. I think you know what the prof will say...
Oh, and you're calling people "commoners" now? Are you royalty now? Landed nobility? That is ... wow. And I'm supposedly pretentious for using the word "vernacular".