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."

Comments

Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Stonent1]

Freedom is still freedom. In this case I think freedom of the press applies.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

Payment wasn't defined as getting money; it was defined as communications to 500 or more readers. The bill was essentially an extension of McCain-Feingold to try to distinguish critical dissent against incumbent politicians. I'm shocked that the Democrats were for it, and it's one more disappointment of the "first 100 hours." Perhaps you should actually read about the bill:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the
Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to
500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report
quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220
would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history,
critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
        "The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or
more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

Perhaps you should actually read about the bill:

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:

1. An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients
2. Reaching 500 people
3. Being paid $100,000 a year

So if you're a regular blogger, you likely are safe.

*=if that doesn't work, search for S.1 on thomas.loc.gov

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

Your link didn't work for me, but this one did.

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:

Under Senate Bill 1, AFA would have to report the issues, employees, contractors and dollars spent in what is called "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" (that phrase is not defined). This reporting requirement is triggered by two actions: (1) a lobbying "contact" - a personal or written communication with an individual in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government concerning public policy issues, from legislation to nominations; and (2) communications with grassroots (that's you) that "influence" them to contact the executive or legislative branches ("influence" is not defined, but it apparently doesn't even have to include a specific "call to action.") There is no minimum dollar spending requirement that triggers the reporting requirement by AFA for our efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

It's an attempt to silence political bloggers.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

If you guys need proof of how crazy this was, even the ACLU sided with the Republicans on this one. Ouch!

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[bonch]

A quick note: This was not a "All bloggers need to be registered as lobbists" like the FUD headline states.

Not all bloggers, but bloggers who attempt to encourage grassroots support of something. Why should they have to register with the government? They have a free speech right.

This was a "Paid fake bloggers need to register as corporate shills" bill.

No, because corporate lobbying shills are exempted in the bill since they don't predominately use public communications. Since there is no minimum payment defined, nor is payment itself defined, political bloggers with readers of over 500 would have been affected.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[forkush]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Dachannien]

Here's a permanent link to the bill in question.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[dangitman]

What does the ACLU or its political affiliation have to do with the facts of this issue?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[wealthychef]

politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

before you read my sig and think I'm a Republican, I'm a libertarian who just dislikes the left more than the right.
--
At least conservatives explain why they think you're wrong. Liberals spit and call you a Nazi.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU is for civil liberties, not for any particular political party. Dumbass.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[floydvoid]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ShadowBot]

Did you read the bill? or even any of the other articles on this thread that quote the bill?

here is a random example

Perhaps you should actually read the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00 001:). 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:
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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[noamsml]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Dragonslicer]

in which case I'm lobbying right now.

You get paid over $25k to post on Slashdot for three months? Damn, where can I sign up?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[SnowZero]

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!

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[TheGreek]

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.

Getting paid, by a stakeholder, to tell people to "contact your senator or representative" about a specific issue is lobbying.

That provision would not have made it illegal. It would have required astroturfers to register as lobbyists.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[SnowZero]

And that was exactly his point, dumbass.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Johnny5000]

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?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[rednip]

The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[TheGreek]

Do you think Alexander Hamilton and James Madison also should have been required to register when they wrote their very political Federalist Papers?

Did Scaife or Soros commission Hamilton and Madison to write the Federalist Papers?

No?

Then SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU GODDAMNED MORON. Section 220 was pretty specific in what it covered.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ponchietto]

Link to the UCLA document on the bill http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/01/19/53-css- techniques-you-couldnt-live-without/

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Zonekeeper]

However, if the poster in front of this one thinks for one minute that the ACLU is NOT a hack of the extreme wacko left, well then there's not much that can be said to convince him otherwise, as he's already left reality far behind.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[SnowZero]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[jwthompson2]

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...

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(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.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[buhatkj]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[RevDobbs]

I'm getting a real kick out of the new fealing of brotherly love and respect here on slashdot.

Dumbasses.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[kabocox]

"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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Jtheletter]

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?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Payment wasn't defined as getting money; it was defined as communications to 500 or more readers.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked that the Democrats were for it,

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[PriceIke]

> 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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[zeet]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[DragonWriter]

To be affected, you must be all three of these:

Wow, two of the three are factually wrong, and the third is spin.

An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients

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.

Reaching 500 people

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.

Being paid $100,000 a year

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ravenshrike]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[ravenshrike]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

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?

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[eno2001]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Mjec]

I know I shouldn't but I just have to...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[mackyrae]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Dread_ed]

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.

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. /cynicism

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

"People need to be protected from themselves"

See you at Church on Sunday. I expect you to be there, it is for you own good.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[dangitman]

No, you seemed to miss the point of that post. He said:

This was a GOOD bill, guys. You can tell because the Republicans voted AGAINST it.

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[pingveno]

Note that the $100,000 per quarter is far above the stipend that some true grassroots bloggers get for their time.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[floydvoid]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[floydvoid]

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.

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Joey7F]

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

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[__aawbkb6799]

The Text of the Amendment in Question:
One click only, for your reading enjoyment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110NaSiwe:e38473:/

Re:Conspiracy theorize all you want

[Overly Critical Guy]

No, you seemed to miss the point of that post.

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.

Democrats

[BugDoomBug]

Why? Why do you want our side to look even more technology stupid than the Republicans?

In before series of tubes jokes.

Re:Democrats

[FuturePastNow]

Politicians are almost uniformly "technology stupid." (tube joke redacted) Their opinions of different technologies (and everything else) are based entirely on what lobbyists and the party platform tell them to support. Why would anyone think the two parties differ in this regard?

Re:Democrats

[DAldredge]

I wasn't aware that "our side" was the Democrats. Did I miss the memo?

Re:Democrats

[dangitman]

What does this have to do with technology? It's a social/political/media issue.

Is the reporting and journalistic standards of newspapers a technology issue? After all, your typical newspaper uses more advanced computing technology to publish their stories than the typical slashdot poster's computer. Just because it's on the interwebs doesn't make it a technology issue.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod comment up please! Not everyone here is a sheep er.. I mean Democrat.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone think the two parties differ in this^W any regard?

FIFY.

Re:Democrats

[asuffield]

"Our" side? They are rich American politicians. You are posting on slashdot. They are not on your side.

It is a mistake to think of "us vs them" as "democrats vs republicans", whichever way around you think of it. Everybody in congress is on the same side, and it's not your one.

Re:Democrats

[magicchex]

What's wrong with it being his side? He didn't claim it was your side, just that it was his and his side's side.

Re:Democrats

[leon.gandalf]

Is anyone on /. rich enough to be Republican?

Re:Democrats

[jabberw0k]

You join the Republican party if you think working people should be able to become rich, successful, or find happiness.

You join the Democrat party if you think working people should stay poor wards of the State.

Re:Democrats

[PapaSmurph]

IMHO, it all comes down to one thing. Well, maybe 2. Money and control. But if you have money, you have control, so I guess it's only one thing really. If you can limit who has a voice or who can focus multiple voices toward those who have "control", they have more ultimate control.

Don't forget the US is NOT a democracy. The US is a democratic republic. You don't have a voice unless someone who was elected speaks FOR you. A true democracy would require all citizens to vote on everything. (You think it takes forever to get anything done NOW!)

It has nothing to do with party affiliation. It has everything to do with control.

Re:Democrats

[nberardi]

I must have missed the memo too.

I find it really funny that /. people automatically think everybody agrees with them. You find this in other forums, but it is most prevalent here for some reason. I really equate the /. editors to The View cast. However there is no Elizabeth Haselbeck among them to give a conservative view of the world.

Re:Democrats

[Undertaker43017]

"A true democracy would require all citizens to vote on everything."

Probably wouldn't take as long as you think, less than half the population votes now, do you think requiring them to vote more often, would make MORE vote?

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

How odd, that's exactly the opposite of what I was told:

"If you want your children to live like Republicans, you'd better vote like a Democrat."

Re:Democrats

[Cauchy]

"Our" side. If he meant to exclude "us" he should have said "my" side.

Personally, I'm on nobody is side because nobody is on the trees' side.

Re:Democrats

[HotBBQ]

Haha, that's funny. Automatic consention on /., that's rich. The View? Is this a show about trying to bring other conservative away from "the dark side"?

Re:Democrats

[Daytona955i]

You know, there is more than one political party. (Not that you could tell based on our current system)

I find it funny how few people I talk to are true Republicans or Democrats. Most feel that while they don't agree with everything the one party stands for, they agree with the one more than the other so that's what they are. However sometimes there is a third party that they do fit in well with but there's that old adage that if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away.

Re:Democrats

[Hercules Peanut]

I wasn't aware that "our side" was the Democrats. Did I miss the memo? Obviously you missed the memo, the writing on the wall, the posts, the flamewars and just about everything else seen on slashdot.
Here's a great thought for a slashdot poll. Would you ever vote for a republican? That might be telling about the political environment here.

Re:Democrats

[TobascoKid]

that old adage that if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away.

And who benefits from that line of reasoning? Only the two main parties. When you vote for one of the two main parties, you're vote is effectively "thrown away", as one vote amongst tens of thousands is usually not going to matter all that much, especially in a district where one party has a large margin of support. If anything, you're throwing away your vote by not voting for a third party that more accurately reflects your opinion.

Re:Democrats

[Firethorn]

And you join the libertarian party if you want guns and drugs to be legal*.

Honestly, both parties mean multiple things, not all of them good. As far as I'm concerned both are far too happy to spend money, the republicans are controlled too much by the religious nuts and the democrats too much by the socialist/green fruitcakes. Corruption is rampant among both parties.

*Please don't partake of both at the same time.

Re:Democrats

[hal2814]

"Please don't partake of both at the same time." But if you insist, libertarians are OK with that.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm on nobody is side because nobody is on the trees' side.

You are on the Lorax's side...

Re:Democrats

[danbeck]

"Why? Why do you want our side to look even more technology stupid than the Republicans?"

Look, I don't understand why, but you seem to live in a completely different reality than I do. In my reality, the Democrats often put a lot of effort into silencing people who do not agree with them. Just this week, we've had two separate stories about people trying to squelch dissent. The Democrats are pushing the Fairness Doctrine, a law giving the government arbitrary control over what the media can or can say politically and the weather babe who wants to take away the SOA from weathermen who don't agree with the current global warming consensus. Btw, Michael Criton has written some excellent thoughts about how consensus and science can not legitimately co-exist. Hint: Isn't real science about discovering facts and not aggregating opinions?

And now, we have news that nearly every Democrat in the senate wishes to further restrict the right for the people of this country to speak dissent. It's stalinistic and fascist and it warms my heart to finally see the tables turned on you people who think the Repbulicans are evil goose-stepping fascists themselves.

Yeah, boy, that Patriot act that made it easy for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute terrorists sure is a hell of a lot worse than near continuous efforts by the party in power to take away one of the very most sacred and fundamental rights that make our constitution the greatest document ever written by mankind.

Re:Democrats

[Firethorn]

"Please don't partake of both at the same time." But if you insist, libertarians are OK with that.

Well, as long as you don't do it in a mannor that'll harm somebody else. You get drunk and start shooting at people I'm likely to ventilate you myself.

Re:Democrats

[PapaSmurph]

Good point.

What's the difference between apathy and ignorance?

I don't know, and I don't care!

Re:Democrats

[JoshJ]

I would just like to remind everyone that Democrats are not liberals. Look at this vote for proof.

Re:Democrats

[nberardi]

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/

It's basically a bit*h fest for women.

Re:Democrats

[Cat_Byte]

I represent the newly formed 'ember' party. Our flag is the burning embers of a once-hugged tree. Our motto, 'A beer in every cooler'. Our world political stance, 'If you don't like us, we'll gladly stop sending the tax payer $$ you unappreciative bastards.' Our terrorist statement, 'If you touch us or our short list of loyal friends, all your base are belong to us'.

Re:Democrats

[jimbolauski]

"Is anyone on /. rich enough to be Republican?"

Just the few who moved out of their mothers basement and got a real job. Like the old addage says vote Democrat it's easire than working.

Re:Democrats

[christianT]

Where do I sign up?

Re:Democrats

[christianT]

I'm not rich enough to be a Democrat. They insist that I give them most of my money so that they can waste it as they see fit, rather than allowing me to make my own choices about what the best way to spend my money to help the suffering people of this world

Re:Democrats

[DJCacophony]

the current global warming consensus

There is no "global warming consensus", there are facts and stupid fringe scientists who disagree to make a name for themselves.

Re:Democrats

[PapaSmurph]

Flamebait? I guess I'm dense. Can someone explain how being neutral with respect to governmental operations can be considered flamebait?

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of flamebait crap. If you are poor or middle class, you are not getting help from the Republicans. In fact, you are being asked to pay more taxes since the Republicans have determined the richest 1% of Americans need the biggest tax break while at the same time the Republicans increased government spending to profligate levels, more than ever in the country's history. The money has to come from somewhere. That means the poor and middle class, whom the Republicans are also asking to go overseas and fight in their war of choice. I am not sure the Democrats are right. But I know the Republicans are wrong. Halliburton and the no-bid contracts to Bush's cronies are but one more example.

Re:Democrats

[danbeck]

"There is no "global warming consensus", there are facts and stupid fringe scientists who disagree to make a name for themselves."

Yes, of course. It's always the fools and idiots who challenge the conventions and consensus of the day. How many of our great scientists in human history have been persecuted and ridiculed for going against the group think? Two that even you would recognize, Galileo and Edison are great examples. One was persecuted and the other was ridiculed. Good thing they learned to shut the fuck up, huh?

Look, I don't care if you think these people are crazy, lots of people thought that the round-earthers were fools, but is it necessary for the government to silence them? Let them say what they want, let them deny it. If they are wrong, who should really care?

What if they are right, though. Is the possibility of that truth so damaging to your psyche that can't even stand to hear their rebuttal? Why is it such human nature to wish to crush those who disagree with you instead of honestly debating them and their ideas?

Re:Democrats

[Undertaker43017]

"I find it funny how few people I talk to are true Republicans or Democrats"

I find it sad that so many people are sheep and look for the easy way out and compromise their true believes/feelings to fit one of the two most popular parties. Certainly there isn't a "perfect" party out their for everyone, but most times there is a better "fit".

"old adage that if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away."

It's not clear from your post how you feel, but never fall for that line of thinking. If you show up at the polls and vote, doesn't matter for who or what, you have not thrown away your vote, the people that don't bother to show up are the ones throwing away their vote.

Re:Democrats

[blankFrank]

don't forget the hookers!

Re:Democrats

[Baba Ram Dass]

I always have better aim when I've smoked a couple joints beforehand.

Re:Democrats

[Kohath]

You mean rich enough not to need government freebies? Probably most of the people on Slashdot.

If only the folks on Slashdot were good enough not to want government freebies...

Re:Democrats

[k1e0x]

Liberal is just a dressed up word for socialist. On the surface socialism is an attractive idea, as "everyone will have what they need to succeed." I can understand the lure to such a mindset.. however there is a critical flaw.. the trouble with socialism is that it removes all personal property. Some people might initially say.. "Well, why do we need property? Can't we share?" The problem with no property is your rights come from your property, not from government, not (necessarily) from god.

For example, you can walk across your yard, buy you may not walk across your neighbors yard without his "permission" (IE: a permit.) This is only right as it is his land. The state of the government today is not very good because a permit is required for almost anything. As another example your parents own you till you are 18 and the own the home you live in till you move out. Mom and Dad may be great people (or not) You may live is a huge house where mom makes all your food and you have a big screen tv.. but few kids want to continue to live with their parents.. They would rather move into a tiny studio apartment.. why? The reason for this is simple, its Liberty. They want to make their own choices and have their own property. Liberty is a necessity for a happy life.

As long as people continue to want to move away from home the only way socialism will work is through force, it is at that point when the government uses force on its people where oppression begins, force by its nature is evil and that state will become "forced socialism" or in other words communism where the only freedom you have at all is "permitted freedom" .. another way to look at it is "rented freedom".

I wish more "Liberal" people (with the root word meaning "to liberate") would understand they are moving in a direction that is opposite to their Liberty ideas as a government can not provide you Liberty.. they can only offer permits.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Every politician has but one constituant: himself. Oh sure, he might head for Washington with the stars in his eyes and his heart on his sleeve, full of hopeful idealism. By the time he gets into office though he's been corrupted, and the longer he STAYS in office, the more corrupted he becomes.

Politicians lie continuously. It's how they get into office, and it's how they stay in office. Lies are the medium in which they live their lives. If one ever keeps his word, it was an accident. If one ever does something beneficial for the people, it's not because he cares; it's because it was in his best political interests.

Somewhat appropriately, my captcha word is "bogeymen".

Re:Democrats

[k1e0x]

Slashdot is pretty Democrat. Myself being a Libertarian I attack both parties but when I attack the democrats I'll often find my posts mod'ed down for trivial reasons. If I attack the Republicans sometimes I get mod'ed up more so than expected.

As a note on this.. people please.. don't pick sides.. vote NO on every law unless it is absolutely necessary, fair, and just to all.

Re:Democrats

[craigob]

"Would you ever vote for a republican?"

Depends on the republican. A neocon like Bush, McCain, etc? Hell no.

However, there are still some republicans that actually respect the constitution, liberty, and dedicate themselves to fighting government expansion such as Ron Paul that voted against the patriot act, spoke out and voted against authorizing the president to preemptively invade other countries, and much more. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat.

Re:Democrats

[smellsofbikes]

>Michael Criton

It's "michael crichton", actually, but spelling it so that it sound like "cretin" is probably more appropriate.

Re:Democrats

[Fujisawa Sensei]

You join the Republican party if you think corporations have more rights than people.

You join the Democrat party if you think people have more rights than corporations.

Re:Democrats

[sgholt]

Neither did I...it is interesting that the Demos wanted this to extend towards bloggers. The Demos main complaint(probably not stated as such) is that they don't get equal time. They have also tried to extend this to radio talk shows.
It is obvious to me why they can not put forth a liberal radio show that will work...you can't just get on day after day and spout lie after lie without something to back it up (like facts).
The other reason is that Democratic voters generally don't understand the issues or are too lazy to research it....they would rather just blindly follow the party line (which is what?)
I guess they are so afraid that the consevative bloggers are going to succeed where they can not...

Re:Democrats

[Aqua_boy17]

However there is no Elizabeth Haselbeck among them to give a conservative view of the world.

Maybe, but thankfully there's no Rosie either. As you can see, I'm a 'glass is half-full' kind of guy.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Just try commenting on the latest idiotic conspiracy story that kdawson has approved and watch your post get moderated down. Often without even an explanation.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that certainly explains why the MPAA and RIAA give way more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Oh, wait....

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

They already own the Republicans.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually once you start seeing FICA taken out of your check, you start getting more fiscally conservative. Like the man said "Who's FICA and who said he could take my money?"

Re:Democrats

[jvonk]

When censoring, it's traditional to remove a vowel instead of a consonant. To hypothesize, it seems likely that removing a vowel would generally inject more ambiguity to the resultant censored word than removing a consonant. Empirically, try to vocalize "b*tch" vs. "bit*h"... the former seems to have many more possible values.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm depressed you know the name of even one of the hosts to that show.

I feel a great distubance

[ArcherB]

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.)

Re:I feel a great distubance

[starwed]

Liberals are perfectly aware that Democrats are merely a lesser evil. ^_^

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Broken scope]

I modded you funny then realized it was Alderan. Dammit. That was my last mod point.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[ArcherB]

I modded you funny then realized it was Alderan. Dammit. That was my last mod point.

Dammit! You're right. "Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough." Damn Tarkin!

Sorry to make you cough up your mod point, but "What's in a name? That which we call a Alderan by another name would explode as sweet"

Re:I feel a great distubance

[dangitman]

That which we call a Alderan by another name would explode as sweet

You misspelled "kerplode."

Re:I feel a great distubance

[VGPowerlord]

I hate to nitpick, but actually, it's Alderaan.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[scott_karana]

Pff, you don't even need to be a Liberal to like freedom of speech.
(Though too America-centric a remark for my general tastes, this was conventiently demonstrated by the Republicans voting against this bill rather than the Democrats)

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the problem is many people seem to like their own freedom of speach while making damn sure anyone that want's to disagree can't.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[What'sInAName]

What's in a name? I am!

Re:I feel a great distubance

[indifferent children]

There was supposed to be an Alderan-shattering kaboom. Where's my Alderan-shattering kaboom?

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Ostsol]

In today's politics, it's impossible to know whether something is blocked simply out of spite for the other party, or out of genuine aversion for the bill.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[hamelis]

heads exploded like Dantooine

Dantooine didn't explode.. Alderaan was the only time the Death star was ever used to destroy a planet.

/nitpick

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

He also misspelled "Alderaan"

Re:I feel a great distubance

[danbeck]

It truly amazes me that you people are surprised at this. Really, come on... you all voted for these people, yet you don't know who they really are? The Fairness Doctrine was tried back in the late 80's when the Democrats held both congresses and here it is again, just weeks into them gaining power. A mainstream Democrat's entire political existence is built around silencing people who disagree with them. Since when have you ever really heard a Democrat ask for honest debate? What you do hear are people like Barbara Boxer telling Condoleeza Rice in senate hearings this week that she has no right to speak about the Iraq war because she has no children that could be sent there and killed.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Bardez]

Not to mention the misspelling of "Alderaan"

God I'm a loser.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

What you do hear are people like Barbara Boxer telling Condoleeza Rice in senate hearings this week that she has no right to speak about the Iraq war because she has no children that could be sent there and killed.

Thats not what Barbara Boxer said and you either know this and are lying or you are an idiot.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[misanthrope101]

How exactly did this bill affect free speech? Were the astroturfers prohibited from speaking/writing/blogging? Whether you or I agree that astroturfers should be treated like lobbyists, it bears mentioning that lobbyists do indeed have free speech rights. Saying "you have to be forthright and say that you're being paid to extoll these particular views, rather than acting as if you're a regular guy with a keyboard" isn't saying you have to stop saying what you're saying, only that you can't do so under false pretenses.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[danbeck]

Yes I paraphrased, but used it in context. The exact quote is:

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

The context here is of Rice not being able make appropriate decisions about Iraq or the war on terror for reasons ranging from her loyalty to Bush, as she was also accused of in the hearing, to the fact that she has no immediate family that would "pay the price." I'll give it to you that I should not have used the phrase "has no right", but should have said, "isn't qualified."

So, Boxer feels rice isn't qualified because she has no children. Given this oh, so erudite logic coming from that twit, Boxer, I have no right to talk about social security since I'm not old enough to draw yet. And, as an example, you have to no right to say that Iraq was a mistake since you aren't in the military. (I assume, obviously.) I also have no right to say that pedophilia is right or wrong since I've never participated in it.

Do you see the absurdity here?

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess it was lying.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[danbeck]

I'm not sure how to take your comment. You called me on my, admittedly incorrect, comments and I agreed and then supplied the real quote and clarified the point I was trying to make.

My point still stands. Boxer and, by extension, Democrats like her aren't interested in honest debate, they prefer to use Stalinistic and Mcarthy style tactics to squelch opposing viewpoints.

Why don't you stop posting as an asshole AC and we can maybe discuss this?

Re:I feel a great distubance

[coleridge78]

You are utterly ignorant. The Fairness Doctrine had existed, in one form or another, since before most Americans had television in their homes (pre-1050). See: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairness doct/fairnessdoct.htm

It is a great idea, for many reasons. One of the best is that the airwaves are a limited public resource that are the most effective means in history of reaching people and molding their attitudes and opinions. Remember that crucial fact: it's a limited resource that is vital to our continued existence as free human beings in the United States. There is no reason that anyone should be allowed to "own" it with impunity, any more than someone should be allowed to "own" the airspace over Illinois or the Mississippi River.

There are exactly two choices:

1. A small oligopoly of for-profit companies decides what is acceptable, with day-to-day choices made by "journalists" who only care about propaganda and shouting matches.
2. The people decide what is acceptable.

In case 1, this oligopoly controls the airwaves and does everything to advance the corporate agenda (which is not always, but often, harmful to individuals, and is always harmful to a free government by consent of the people);

In case 2, the people, through their elected representatives, can say "everything is acceptable except propaganda with no counter-argument". That is the Fairness Doctrine.

It should be a no-brainer. The only people that can honestly consider the subject and still be against it, are the delusionists who think "the market" will fix everything.

Also, if you are going to extrapolate from Barbara Boxer to all Democrats, I'm going to extrapolate from David Duke to all Republicans.

Grow up and read a book.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[coleridge78]

Here's a hint: You didn't quote a damn thing that said or implied that only people who are paying a personal price are exclusively "qualified" or have "a right" to anything.

Can you show how you got from A (the quote) to B (your conclusion), because one is not prima facie evidence for the other.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[danbeck]

"You are utterly ignorant. The Fairness Doctrine had existed, in one form or another, since before most Americans had television in their homes (pre-1050). See: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairness doct/fairnessdoct.htm"

Fine, in the early 1940's there was something called the Fairness Doctrine, but it was and is not the same as the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed by the FCC in 1987 and is not the same fairness doctrine being pushed today. Congratulations on calling names, but a Google search result doesn't not make you an expert.

"It is a great idea, for many reasons. One of the best is that the airwaves are a limited public resource that are the most effective means in history of reaching people and molding their attitudes and opinions. Remember that crucial fact: it's a limited resource that is vital to our continued existence as free human beings in the United States. There is no reason that anyone should be allowed to "own" it with impunity, any more than someone should be allowed to "own" the airspace over Illinois or the Mississippi River."

This already exists and the FCC maintains control via this standard. The Fairness Doctrine today does not affect who gets licenses as much as it requires that those who already have licenses must give equal time between two opposing viewpoints. On the face of this, this sounds fair, reasonable and mature, but when it comes down to it, you are telling a commercial entity that for every piece of content they air, there must be an equal piece to oppose it of the same length of time. So, for every Air America, a conservative show must air on the same station and for every Rush Limbaugh a liberal show must air on the same station. They can't just exist, they must both get EQUAL air time. What effect do you think that would have on a stations' profitability? Or, do you even understand the concept of FREE and commercial enterprise? (Your comments tell me you do not.)

"There are exactly two choices:

1. A small oligopoly of for-profit companies decides what is acceptable, with day-to-day choices made by "journalists" who only care about propaganda and shouting matches.
2. The people decide what is acceptable."

1) You act as if the radio or TV dial is full and there are no more stations available for use. Don't like the content you see? Start your own. No law says you can't. There are radio stations available and anyone can start a cable network. Local TV broadcasts could be different, I'm not sure about them.

2) The people do decide. How do you think commercial media enterprises stay in business? Customers... people who are customers. If people didn't listen, there would be no advertisers willing to pay for advertising. Unless of course, you are NPR and are propped up by the government.

"It should be a no-brainer. The only people that can honestly consider the subject and still be against it, are the delusionists who think "the market" will fix everything."

I'm sorry, I have 200+ years of free market to fall back on for proof as to how "the market" corrects things. You have about 30 years of liberal *theory*. Our government has only ever truly been needed to steer the market in the correct path, not squelch dissent by forcing the media to produce content approved by government bodies.

"Also, if you are going to extrapolate from Barbara Boxer to all Democrats, I'm going to extrapolate from David Duke to all Republicans."

My statement was, "My point still stands. Boxer and, by extension, Democrats like her aren't interested in honest debate, ...".

I never said all Democrats. You must have misread, possibly from also not practicing enough? Touché.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[danbeck]

No, I will not quote the entire fucking Senate hearing. Why don't you read a bit and learn yourself before discussing something you know little to nothing about?

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Fairness Doctrine had existed, in one form or another, since before most Americans had television in their homes (pre-1050)."

Wow, I guess tv has been around longer than I thought!

Re:I feel a great distubance

[scot4875]

Ok, I'm just curious:

Whoever modded this informative, was the correct spelling of "Alderaan" the informative part? Or was it the "God I'm a loser" part that you found informative?

--Jeremy

Re:I feel a great distubance

[coleridge78]

Fine, in the early 1940's there was something called the Fairness Doctrine, but it was and is not the same as the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed by the FCC in 1987 and is not the same fairness doctrine being pushed today. Congratulations on calling names, but a Google search result doesn't not make you an expert.

Right off the bat we have serious problems. I would like you to justify your statement that it wasn't the "same" Fairness Doctrine. It was clarified by the FCC over time, obviously, but the policy started there with its basics (equal airtime for opposing views) remaining at the heart of the regulations, uninterrupted, until 1987. And stating a quality of a person (ignorance) is not the same as calling a name. Hopefully this will become apparent upon reflection.

This already exists and the FCC maintains control via this standard. The Fairness Doctrine today does not affect who gets licenses as much as it requires that those who already have licenses must give equal time between two opposing viewpoints.

Would you agree, upon reflection, that you make an absurd proposition by claiming that the Doctrine affects who may keep a license, but not who gets one? It is both logically incongruous, and a non-sequiter. Incongruous because in order to keep a license, one must also be able to get one; a non-sequiter because your programming can obviously not be evaluated until it exists--which means that talking about not affecting who can "get" a license initially is rather.... moot.

They can't just exist, they must both get EQUAL air time. What effect do you think that would have on a stations' profitability? Or, do you even understand the concept of FREE and commercial enterprise? (Your comments tell me you do not.)

It might increase their profitability, as they end up reaching a wider margin of target audiences. This used to be the norm and it worked. Without the Doctrine it *doesn't* work, because stations are segmented--liberal vs conservative--and so people have the luxury of saying, "hah! I'm not going to listen to Mr Conservative on AM1000, because the rest of their shows are liberal and I don't want to support them! I'm only going to listen to Mrs Conservative, Mr Paleocon, and Mr Neocon on AM840 so I'm only supporting conservatives!" And, vice versa.

I'm honestly not trying to be offensive, but your simplistic characterization of free markets makes me think that you're probably fairly young, and hence may not remember that when there was a Fairness Doctrine talk radio was probably even more popular and profitable than it is today (although there are a lot of variables--I'm not attempting to say that business got worse because of the repeal of the FD, just that it certainly did not get any better). As a share of radio listeners, news/talk has declined in the past ten years. Its audience, like that of allegedly liberal network news broadcasts, is increasingly old, and dying off. Any peak that talk radio may have hit in the mid 90s was due mostly to Rush Limbaugh, who would have existed with or without the Fairness Doctrine--people were doing the same schtick since the 60s, he just had the perfect storm of personality and catching the Baby Boomers when they were getting old and grouchy and sick of listening to the same five Zeppelin songs on classic rock radio all the time. Arbitron, as well as other researchers, has a lot of interesting data on this.

More broadly and importantly: "free" enterprise ends where other concerns are greater. You don't have an exclusive right to profit from a citizen in a physical sense (ie, slavery), and there's no reason you should have an exclusive right to profit from a citizen in the non-physical either. Equal protection under the law and government by consent of the governed is incompatible with non-competitive bully-pulpit propaganda. Guess what? With the Fairness Doctrine in effect, you can still watch only your side if you want to. You can change the channel when the other side comes on. All it do

Re:I feel a great distubance

[coleridge78]

I did read it. And heard it.

The obvious point is that someone who is going to support a decision to send more troops in to an area when there's very little reason to believe it will accomplish anything other than getting them killed, would do well to think about the human impact. This is to draw a line between the times when personal sacrifice is overshadowed by the greater good, and the times when there is no greater good.

Boxer never said Rice wasn't qualified to make decisions on Iraq because she didn't have children. I defy you to point to where she said or implied it. I dare you. You can't.

It's utterly illogical, given that in the same breath Boxer also pointed out the she herself wasn't going to pay a personal price for Iraq, having no family of the right age to serve there. She certainly wasn't saying that she isn't qualified to make any decisions about Iraq; she obviously thinks she is, or she wouldn't be involved in this at all.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[pubwvj]

The loss of freedoms is being brought to you by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. We need a regime change in a most desperate sort of way. Both parties are in the pockets of big business who wants to capture all of your dollars. REAL ID and NAIS are too other examples. If you don't know about them, learn about them and stop them. http://nonais.org/ http://www.realnightmare.org/

Re:I feel a great distubance

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a sock-puppet. Here's a nice post of yours from October 2006.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=202852&cid=165 99552

Boy, you were really in-touch with the American voters.

I find it funny that you used the words "honest debate" in this thread. Your conclusions about what NP meant in that speech are really quite unsupportable. Really, just try to support it. Like the other poster said, how do you get from the quote you posted to your conclusion? There is a simple question at the core of the Iraq conflict (the conflict occuring in America) - does our involvement there serve some purpose that is worth the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families? Worth the fiscal cost? Worth all the other risks begin taken? Is that purpose likely to be achieved? NP is right on the money to bring that question up when the Executive, in the face of no-progress in 3 years, offers a solution of "more of the same".

There is nothing more "McCarty style" than the current administrations continual efforts to squelch opposition by playing the "if you're not for us, you're against us" card, the "patriotism" card, etc. Really, how can you be such a fan-boi of the Neo-cons? The Democrats and the classic Republicans are merely despicable. The Neo-cons by comparison are loathsome. Did you see Tony Snow's comments about how the Senate's attempt to exercise their constitutional rights to pass legislation and attempt some check-and balance on the out of control executive war machine would be sending the wrong message to Al Quaida? Lol. Did he really say that? What the fuck is wrong with this government? What that fuck is wrong with you, Mr. Danbeck?

Keep up the good work,.

Re:I feel a great distubance

[bareshiyth]

Well, one man's (or woman's) free speech is another man's (or woman's) campaigning or lobbying speech, and do you think that once a register of bloggers is in place, restrictions as to when (i.e. pre-campaign cut-offs) or how (i.e. is it under the guidance of, or by solicitation on a candidate or advocate of the subject) or by whom/affiliation the blogging is made (i.e. as churches, union committees, PACs..) won't soon become subjects of regulation, or lawsuit, or campaigning regs?
Come on, some of you who want to disregard or make little of this would hardly be speaking like this if the Republicans or Bush admin were the PROPONENTS of it!

Astroturfing.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Astroturfing.

[Overly Critical Guy]

It wasn't about astroturfing. If you communicated to 500 or more members of the public, you had to register or face jail time. It was an attempt to minimize incumbent criticism and bolster a shaky Democratic party going into 2008.

Re:Astroturfing.

[ZachPruckowski]

WRONG! Here is the conditional for this law to affect you: (astroturfer == true)&&(reach >= 500)&&(salary >= 100000)

Note the &&s (ANDs) there. They're not ||s (ORs) All three must be true, not just any one of them.

Re:Astroturfing.

[amRadioHed]

Could you please provide the reference for your claim? I looked at the bill and couldn't find anything that said that communicating to 500 people was sufficient to require registration.

Re:Astroturfing.

[Impotent_Emperor]

I thought astroturfing was fake grassroots efforts. Meaning that something like an organization (say Microsoft, PETA, or IBM) pose as a large number of people to influence legislatures. However, making people aware of issues is part of grassroots, so... uh...

Wouldn't it just make it easier to outlaw lying about who you are?

Re:Astroturfing.

[k1e0x]

Amen, every victory for freedom is one to be cheered!

One new stupid law down, millions more to go.

Re:Astroturfing.

[Overly Critical Guy]

The bill mentions absolutely nothing about "astroturfing" nor does it mention a "$100,000" salary. The minimum salary isn't even defined, nor is payment itself. If someone sent a box of political bumper stickers, that might be considered "payment." Because payment is not defined, the only specific requirement is the 500 or more readership, and everything else could be quibbled over by opponents who want to harass a blog or other grassroots organization they don't like. Please, read the bill.

Re:Astroturfing.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Huh? The bill explicitly states that it applies to those who reach 500 or more members by describing that anyone with fewer than that number of readers are not affected by the bill.

In fact, if you read further, you find out that the big corporate lobbyists are exempted from the bill.

Re:Astroturfing.

[ZachPruckowski]

The bill (and I've read the relevant section and quoted it to you several times) says that payment consists of getting $25,000 in a quarter from a client who retains the lobbyist for online activities. The covers whether that $25,000 a quarter is salary or just financing to do the work - either would fall under the law. That makes an average yearly salary of $100,000. Others have said that blog-lobbyists are likely seasonal, and they may be right, but money is well covered in the bill. I've quoted that section here on Slashdot. As to "astroturfing", it is a Net-speak term (that many slashdotters are familiar with) that refers to "fake grassroots", in particular someone paid by a company to simulate an actual grassroots movement or to simulate fan unconnected to the company. That's a fair description of the people the bill is designed to cover.

Re:Astroturfing.

[amRadioHed]

Like I said, where's your source for that? From the bill in question:

`(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. That is the only reference to 500 in the amendment and it is clearly talking about people who are paid to influence the public. So as I said, reaching 500 people is not sufficient to require registration, you need to be on someones payroll for that to apply. Independent bloggers voicing their opinions wouldn't be affected by this bill.

Not typical democrat behavior?

[ChyGrrl]

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?

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[ArcherB]

I could be wrong, but I think the target was talk radio and/or conservative sites that are advertiser funded like LittleGreenFootballs, but not MoveOn.org, which is funded by contributors (George Soros)

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[nuzak]

MoveOn.org is a PAC -- they're already very much "registered".

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Overly Critical Guy]

It boils down to them not wanting unrestricted Internet criticism of incumbents. Essentially, Democrats are worried about 2008. The election of so many conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dog" caucus, has split the party, and the more liberal leadership is worried about alienating their base.

Consider it a little education. Your assumption that Republicans are somehow more idiotic and stifling than Democrats was wrong in the first place. If anything, Democrats are the folks who want the government to regulate everything--there is actually a draft bill in California make spanking your child a misdemeanor. You can't even smoke cigarettes in your own home anymore (better tell Barak Obama, a heavy smoker!).

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Brett Buck]

>I could be wrong, but I think the target was talk radio
>and/or conservative sites that are advertiser funded like
>LittleGreenFootballs, but not MoveOn.org, which is funded
>by contributors (George Soros)

      Exactly. Liberal blogs and liberal talk radio (such as it is) have been, with a few exception, unsuccessful while Conservative blogs and radio have done spectacularly well. Another move along these lines is to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" requiring broadcasters to present "all sides" of any political opinion, which is aimed directly at muzzling Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. "Fair" as typified by borderline "Workers Daily" propaganda and socialist claptrap like the NBC Nightly News and NPR.

          Business as usual for liberals, who welcome and respect all opinions, as long as they agree with the weeks' talking points. Otherwise it's 'hate speech', the babblings of ignorant rednecks, or "fundamentalist dogma" and must be supressed.

        Brett

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Piss off.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[rossifer]

It boils down to them not wanting unrestricted Internet criticism of incumbents. Essentially, Democrats are worried about 2008. The election of so many conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dog" caucus, has split the party, and the more liberal leadership is worried about alienating their base.

Your speculation might have some merit if the typical blogger would have had to register under the act. As it turns out, however, the act would have only required bloggers who make and/or spend more than $25,000/year on a politics position blog to register. This article should be titled "Bill to Treat Astroturfing Bloggers as Lobbyists Defeated".

The actual grass-roots bloggers (and whatever their criticism of whoever they wanted to criticize) were never in jeopardy. But the Republicans and some Democrats made sure that astroturfers aren't in jeopardy either. Most of the Democrats were on the ethical side on this one. Sadly, they couldn't get a majority today.

Ross (registered Republican, but not very proud of that association right now)

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Com2Kid]

Exactly. Liberal blogs and liberal talk radio (such as it is) have been, with a few exception, unsuccessful while Conservative blogs and radio have done spectacularly well. Another move along these lines is to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" requiring broadcasters to present "all sides" of any political opinion, which is aimed directly at muzzling Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. "Fair" as typified by borderline "Workers Daily" propaganda and socialist claptrap like the NBC Nightly News and NPR.

I'm sorry, you think NBC and NPR are examples of extreme liberalism?

Your extreme conservatives call for the DEATH of gays, judges, and whoever else they do not like.

I haven't heard NPR call for the death of any leading republican figures.

Too bad, the world would be a better place without so many neo-con arse holes around.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[The Master Control P]

For once, the provision in question was where it belonged: In the middle of a bill that helps expose lobbyists as lobbyists. See section 220-a-2, and the requirements before one must register: All of (Readership > 500, astroturfing for lobbying firm, paid at least $100,000 per year for it). The odds of a genuine blogger being impacted by this are between epsilon and zero.

So to answer your question, this was supposed to bring blogger-shills under the same requirements as other lobbying groups. Personally, I wish there had been a "Paid shills in question must prominently disclose that they are paid shills on the front page of their blog" clause.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[pallmall1]

Your extreme conservatives call for the DEATH of gays, judges, and whoever else they do not like.

While liberals only call for the assassination of elected officials they don't like.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[nberardi]

So the Democrats position was to shut down a majority of people that critisize them? How do you consider this ethical? Whats next out lawing talk radio because their programming flopped in that median too?

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flame: Is it painful being as stupid as your post indicates you are? Perhaps you would be better off seeking help?

For [deity_of_your_choice]'s sake, please reread the parent again, and try to comprehend it this time...

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Mo Bedda]

So the Democrats position was to shut down a majority of people that critisize them?

Yes, because K Street lobbying has certainly been "shut down" by registration. You also think that "a majority" of Democratic critics are getting paid +$25,000/quarter? Where do I sign up?

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[indifferent children]

the act would have only required bloggers who make and/or spend more than $25,000/year on a politics position blog to register.

Close, it's $25,000 per quarter, which comes-out to $100,000 per year. Even cheap astroturfing would be allowed.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

While liberals only call for the assassination of elected officials they don't like.

Yeah, like Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.

Oh wait.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to insinuate that Limbaugh, Hannity, or anyone like them calls for the death of gays or judges? If you believe this, you should try listening to them instead of listening to what Air America told you they say.

I made a rare visit to CBSNews.com recently when following a link about a tornado warning that covered the President's ranch in Texas. The comments at the end of the story were all liberals cursing God that W wasn't killed by a tornado.

You contentions give you away as an utterly ignorant tool of the loony left.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[falcon5768]

No it was to stop those bloggers who where being paid by the Republicans/Democrats to blog as if they where a grass roots organization when the truth was they where strongly linked financially BY the respective parties they where blogging for. If you cant do it on TV or radio, you certainly cant do it on the web. As it stands right now a person running for office could pay someone to post bullshit on the web, and doesnt have to disclose the fact it was paid for by that person.

basically it was the webs version of the little "paid for by the friends" tags. If your that stupid to not understand that, there really is no hope for this country.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[danbeck]

So, in your mind places like littlegreenfootballs.com and drudgereport.com are astroturfing? Come on.. that's bullshit and you know it. This is about making sure those who oppose the Democrats can't when the election cycles come around.

Why would anyone want to say that the little guy who's writing a blog is somehow evil, while multi-million dollar enterprises like CNN, Fox News, et. al. are somehow legitimate and better for our political system? Unless of course, they are politically threatened by those little guys.

Why do you ignore the smell right under your nose? You think the Democrats, POLITICIANS, are somehow pure as the wind driven snow?

Even if you do drink the koolade, this is America. Why not let this great nation handle problems the way we always have? Have we needed laws to run astroturfing blogs out of business? No. How far did the PSP viral blogs get? Nowhere and the goverment never had to be involved.

I know it goes against the tenets of the religion of Liberalism, but the individual is king and individuals banding together on their own accord trump anything government could do for them.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Mr. Slippery]

Why would anyone want to say that the little guy who's writing a blog is somehow evil

Except that's not what this bill was about. It's not about bloggers, not even about big-time bloggers. It was about people getting paid $100k+ a year "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..." being required to register as lobbiyists. Which is what they are.

It appears that both submissions to /. on this have been inaccurate FUD, spin from the pro-lobbyist lobby.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Botia]

Well said. I wish I had some mod points right now.

You've also got the "separation of church and state" which originally meant that the state would not pry into the financials of the church but now means the church is not allowed to speak of the state and that God should be left out of the state.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that you have yet to be modded to -766 dont you?
Remember, liberals never let facts get in the way of their 'views'.

Recall that the wingnuts on Air America(Bankrupt) did a lil 'skit' about assassinating Bush.
Even the FBI investigated it.
Of course the called it a 'joke'. Much like other liberal 'incidents'.
Now these are the libs that claim A.M. is oh so good. But will never fess up to that 'threat'.

Just accept the fact that they dont live in the real world that you and I live in.
(Proof of this is a discussion I had with a lib that REFUSED to believe A.M. was going into bankruptcy and had the gall to claim even the term has never been used. At which point my jaw dropped, I shook my head and just walked away. You can't 'help' these kinds of people)

As with this bill. The /. crowd is 'shocked! shocked I tell you" that the libs would support more strangling of free speech! I guess they 'conveniently' forgot about McCain Feingold. (No..McCain may have an R next to his name, but he's just a RINO).

Well.. This post should be joining yours in the dungeons negative moderation..

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

(registered Republican, but not very proud of that association right now)

go libertarian then

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[trianglman]

This bill did not count funding from generic advertising as being a paid lobbyist. The actual text of the bill made it very clear that the money paid had to be money paid to encourage others to political action. That means if Ann Coulter or Al Franken paid you for an advertisment spot on your blog, it doesn't mean anything, but if Phillip Morris or Green Peace paid you to write a blog post encouraging their view point you would have to disclose it. Same thing goes for payola laws that main stream media has to follow. (or should follow rather).

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[PHPNerd]

The answer your question, it's very simple really. There are several conservative organizations out there (Focus on the Family is the biggest one that comes to mind) that eyes every piece of legislation that comes through congress. It then sends out an e-mail to it's huge base of subscribers (millions of people) and tells them how it will effect conservatives, and then gives them the numbers to call their senators and representatives about the issue. Democrats (who are usually associated these days with being liberal) are very tired of the flood of calls from the millions of subscribers to these conservative groups telling them to vote contrary to their liberal agenda (just as most Republicans have a conservative agenda, but there are exceptions on both sides).

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[danbeck]

Your link is broken and you are wrong anyway. It's 25K per quarter. Make $25 one calendar quarter and you are suddenly a political lobbyist. Also, the problem with the law is much less about the law existing as much as it is about the broad scope that it can cover and the fact that it allows the government to further specify who and how can make political dissent.

Do you just not give a damn about other's rights as long as they are against the Democrats?

In any case, do you honestly think that it's lobbyists that make politicians bad? That they are just wide-eyed, pure, virginal little congressmen up there trying to make this country a better place and the evil lobbyists force them to take those land deals or trips to Martha's Vineyard? What a rube.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[rossifer]

So, in your mind places like littlegreenfootballs.com and drudgereport.com are astroturfing?

Nope, and thank goodness they wouldn't have been forced to register under the law.

This is about making sure those who oppose the Democrats can't when the election cycles come around.

You need to adjust your tinfoil hat. It's slipping down on one side and some of the rays are getting in.

Why would anyone want to say that the little guy who's writing a blog is somehow evil

Nobody. It's people being paid $100k to pretend they hold a particular political opinion who are paid lobbiests (sp). Evil? Again: tinfoil hat problems.

Why do you ignore the smell right under your nose? You think the Democrats, POLITICIANS, are somehow pure as the wind driven snow?

Did you work hard to get this clueless? I'm a registered Republican. Further, I don't trust 99% of politicians at all. Actions speak, not rhetoric. On this particular issue, most of the Dems were on the ethical side of the issue. That's all.

Even if you do drink the koolade, this is America. Why not let this great nation handle problems the way we always have? Have we needed laws to run astroturfing blogs out of business?

Political speech, like all freedoms, carries responsibilities. One responsibility of someone making political statements is to be honest about the actual source of those statements. If they're your own, great. If you're being paid by someone else to maintain that position, the reading/listening public should know that.

Conflicts of interest are how things go badly wrong. Enron, Worldcom, etc.

I know it goes against the tenets of the religion of Liberalism

Who, exactly, are you preaching to here? The only way I could be said to be liberal is in the same way that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. I suspect you'll have to look it up to understand what I mean. Don't worry, it will do you good to read some history.

Ross

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Koby77]

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?
You have to remember that overall liberals control the "mainstream" media in the United States. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR Radio, USA Today, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, every big newspaper in every major city, ect ect ect. Democrats complain about Fox News, but the everything else is liberally slanted.

What little conservative media comes from the grassroots. Things like blogs, Drudgereport.com, Rush Limbaugh, and conservative talk radio are some of the biggest sources of conservative news. If Republicans and conservatives want to get out their side of the story, this is how they do it.

This is why liberals are assulting talk radio with the "fairness doctrine" legislation (see Dennis Kucinich D-OH if you don't know about this), attacked grassroots political funding (see the McCain-Feingold legislation), and now want to take out bloggers with this anti-blogger legislation. The liberals believe that if they can shut down everything else, then the only thing that remains will be their message via the "mainstream" media.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your impression of Democrats and Republicans is skewed 180 Degrees out. I am sure its not really your fault, its what everyone has been told. If someone would have asked me this is exactly the outcome I would have expected. While there are many political bloggers that do receive funding from somewhere. I am sure that there are many many more on the right (republican side) that do not and just blog to get their voice out.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[txmadman]

Sure: Because mind-control is a standard leftist tactic. Don't believe me? Just try to speak your mind on a college campus in defense of secure borders, the Iraq war, or against gay marriage and see if you aren't branded a racist, assaulted, shouted down, sentenced to a "sensitivity" class, expelled, or all the above. Then speak in favor of gay marriage or of "open borders", or against the Iraq war, and you will be safe and probably applauded. Shouting down the opposition has been a standard leftist tactic for a very long time. This blogger bill was just another facet of that.

To be fair, I know some Republicans want this thing too, but the bottom line is that the Dems are in power and they are just trying to lock in their majority. The GOP did the same thing via McCain/Feingold a couple years ago.

When we, as a citizenry, reward politicians who buy our votes by using public monies (via taxation), we encourage them to grow government more and more. They are just now at the point where they feel they can safely try to shut us up for our own good. When government grows, freedom shrinks.

The only arguments we really get to hear at the federal level are 'why' one party's government power-grab is better for you than the other's (call it the argument btw the "Welfare State" and "Compassionate Conservatism"). In either case, freedom loses.

Neither party will ever again cut the size of government for one simple reason: We do not punish them at the polls. Too many of us are happy to have the government 'give' us something to tell them to stop it and abide by the Constitution (in this case, refer to Amendments 1 and 10).

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Com2Kid]

Now that is a matter of opinion.

I would join a Science Party if one existed.

First order of business would be to get rid of all the people who live in opposition to the basic scientific method.

"Oh, what is that? Earth? 4000 years old? *BAM*"

People who think that dropping out of school and having 14 kids is a good idea....

People who drink alchohal to the point of running other people over in a car...

etcetcetc.

I am not racist. I just hate stupidity!

Oh and I knew one person who was a vegetarian hunter! Didn't eat meat, but killed animals and voted republican.

The sheer lack of logic displayed by members of the republican party is amazing.

The fact that the republicans support militias, violence, and wars, yet you start chiding me when I openly suggest the same methods being used for a liberal agenda instead, shows a fine deal of hypocrisy.

Hey, after all, republicans want to save all the white unborn babies, but have no problems dropping bombs on Iraqi children!

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[martyros]

You seem to be under the mistaken illusion that "Republicans" are a homogenous group of people. In reality, there a thousand political viewpoints in this country, but because of the way the voting system is set up, there can really be at most two parties. That means that any group that is going to have any say in the government has to choose one or the other; which means five hundred in one party and five hundred in the other. There's a lot of variety in there.

Take me. In the 2000 election, there was no way that I could vote both Pro-life and Anti-Microsoft. It really pissed me off that Bush gave MS a slap on the wrist. I'm pretty sure Gore would have been tougher. But ya gotta choose the lesser of two evils.

Or, take the averge Catholic pro-life stance: anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty. Guess what? "Conservatives" are anti-abortion (on average) and "Liberals" are anti-death-penalty (on average). Where do you vote?

Or take the average blue-collar union worker. How many do you think really care about righs for homosexuals, or even pro-women's rights? But what are they supposed to do, vote for "trickle-down economics" and pro-big-business interests?

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Com2Kid]

This is quite correct.

First I'd put the republican politicians up against the wall, shortly followed by the democrat politicians.

We need more parties. I'd end up belonging to a fringe party that never got elected, but at least I'd be voting for politicians that I wholly believed in.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Free speech is free speech is free speech. Requiring those contributing over /x/ to have to register is pure idiocy. "Ethics" my ass.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[leereyno]

I can give you 5 reasons:

1) Bloggers stopped CBS news from passing off a fake memo impugning the president before the 2004 election. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1261 5&only

2) Bloggers revealed the prevalence of faked and photoshopped photos being passed off by the AP as genuine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2239 1_Fauxtography_Updates&only

3) Bloggers like Michelle Malkin regularly make a farce of leftists and underscore their intellectual and moral bankruptcy
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

4) Unlike the Mainstream Media (MSM), bloggers are too numerous and independent for their integrity to be undermined. Unlike the fourth estate, they are not an institution which can be infiltrated and ultimately captured. Gramscian strategy breaks down because it is impossible for the minority who are leftists to control what everyone else is saying and writing.

5) Forcing bloggers to register is only one part of a two pronged assault on open dialogue. The democrats are also attempting to reintroduce the so called "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to undermine conservative talk radio.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/01/18/democ rats-seek-to-resurrect-dead-fairness-doctrine/

In general leftists are all for free speech when you're saying what they want to hear. When you disagree with them they're very quick to try and silence you. This is the purpose behind things like campus speech codes and political correctness itself. They want to silence conservatives and libertarians because they've learned from experience that these philosophies are more pursuasive and compelling than their own, especially the more people learn about them. The reason why you don't see Republicans voting for measures like this one is because they have nothing to fear from freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[rossifer]

An argument without substantiation isn't.

Nobody is saying that you or a company can't put whatever political messages you like on your website/blog. Your ability to say things remains undisputed.

However.

Like most rights, free speech comes with responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of political speech is be very clear about conflicts of interest of the speaker. The most fundamental conflict of interest: are you being paid to publically state an opinion?

This is why newspapers, with full freedom of the press, put editorial content in a specific section, and why any article on MSNBC regarding Microsoft mentions that Microsoft owns part of MSNBC (among many other examples of full disclosure by the professional media).

People who want to hire a staff of people to deceive the public should be revealed for the deceptive people they are. People accepting that money should be revealed for the shills that they are. Transparent access to information is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. The religious right (along with many Republicans, apparently) don't wany any part of that.

Sad, really. I think the non-neo-con, non-religious-right Republican agenda really is best for this country. Smaller government, less police state, fewer market interventions, more privacy. That's the Republican platform that I believe in.

Back to your assertion, that you should be able to say whatever you want under any circumstances you want... You go right on believing that if you like. The fact that you're completely and utterly wrong will probably never matter. Good thing, too.

Ross

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Mr. Slippery]

Your link is broken

Sorry. Blame the Library of Congress for handing out bogus URLs.

and you are wrong anyway. It's 25K per quarter.

Which in the most typical units in which income is expressed is $100k a year. 60 miles an hour is still 60 mph even if you're only driving for 15 minutes.

Also, the problem with the law is much less about the law existing as much as it is about the broad scope that it can cover

The bill covered a very narrow scope of people.

Do you just not give a damn about other's rights as long as they are against the Democrats?

Ars Technica points out that the bill in question was co-sponsored by top Republican Mitch McConnell, and is just an exact re-introduction of a bill put forward last year by Trent Lott - which passed the Republican-controlled Senate. The attempt to paint this as an attempt by those Mean Old Democrats to Silence the Masses may be good truthiness, but it just isn't true.

As for my own opinions, I have been an independent voter since I registered in 1987. In that time I have voted for Greens, Libertarians, Democrats, and yes, even one Republican candidate. I have made more than a few negative comments about Democratic politicians over the years - in fact I have suggested in the past that the party ought to dissolve and make way for real progressives. So, no, I have no desire to silence those who criticize the Democrats.

In any case, do you honestly think that it's lobbyists that make politicians bad?

A fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat. Take away one, no fire.

A crime takes motive, method, and opportunity. Take away one, no crime.

Corruption takes corruptible politicians, money, and people who want favors. The fact that politicians are not angels means we have to be that much more careful about money and lobbyists.

Re:Not typical democrat behavior?

[Brett Buck]

>Too bad, the world would be a better place without so many neo-con arse holes around.

    So your liberal philosophy is "believe what I do or die?" That rumbling sound is FDR and JFK rolling in their respective graves.

        Maybe we should have to wear some sort of identifying insignia on our clothes.

        Brett

Kudos to the party of Lincoln

[rmdir -r *]

Though it would have been nice to see more of this sort of thing over the past few years.

Correction

[TravisW]

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.

It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[JudasBlue]

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.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[ceejayoz]

Yep. From the text:

(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.'.

Doesn't sound like treating bloggers as lobbyists, it sounds like treating lobbyists posing as bloggers as lobbyists.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[MrWGW]

Of course, then you run into a whole can of worms in the process of determining who was paid versus who wasn't. One can conceivably imagine the provision being used as an excuse for law enforcement (or worse) to rifle through bloggers' bank accounts to determine evidence of "illegal payment." This could cause all kinds of hassles, especially for bloggers who use their blog as a source of income and who might (as is often the case with self-employed workers) not follow proper proceedures for recording who paid them for what in terms of legal, legitimate advertising. Thus, it could be alleged that they had illegally accepted money for a political post on their blog without having registered as a lobbyist, and they could face jail time, et cetera. It is of course axiomatic that the ruling party of the moment could use this as a tool with which to quickly silence opposition.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Weird O'Puns]

Exactly, here's an explanation written by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_r egistr.html

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[amRadioHed]

Mod parent up! The fact that this amendment actually targets astroturfers and not your average freedom loving blogger was corrected in the comments of the original post. There's no excuse for the follow up post to make the same omission.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok, but that's a non-unique argument. If government search standards are as low as you describe, there are dozens, if not hundreds of laws or regulations law enforcement could already use as an excuse to harass you. The issue in your scenario is the lax requirements for warrants, not the lobbyist law.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Heir Of The Mess]

Yeah the grassroots protests against this are probably from political lobyists who get paid to write stuff in their blog. Interesting how well it works.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[rtb61]

Actually it sounds more like treating lobbyists as the liars and scoundrels they are. They should not be able to pretend they are normal, well behaved people on the net or in any other public forum. Perhaps tattoos on the forehead and cheeks (both ends) would be appropriate a big L in red to denote a lying lobbyist whose opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

So, like George Soros funded stuff?

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[dangitman]

Perhaps tattoos on the forehead and cheeks (both ends) would be appropriate a big L in red to denote a lying lobbyist whose opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

Nah, use a big green H on the forehead to denote tham as Rimmer.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[fabs64]

Naw, I'd settle for a "This opinion is not my own but was paid for by a corporation whose interests will be benefited by its spread" neon sign

Sorry but I'm a firm believer that bias should be declared or implicit in all political speech.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You're right. As long as it's part of the First Amendment I wasn't using anyway, I don't see what the big deal is.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Sorry but I'm a firm believer that bias should be declared or implicit in all political speech.

Sorry but I'm a firm believer that bias is implicit in all political speech.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[PeeAitchPee]

Perhaps tattoos on the forehead and cheeks (both ends) would be appropriate a big L in red to denote a lying lobbyist whose opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

Damn! I thought that designation was for the liberals.

(hiss of large L-shaped branding iron being quenched)

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why not sew a Star of David on their clothing?

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[SnowZero]

GP is right on the money. It is the extent to which a law can be interpreted and warped which is important, not the intent. If the DMCA taught us anything, it was exactly that.

Ok, but that's a non-unique argument. If government search standards are as low as you describe, there are dozens, if not hundreds of laws or regulations law enforcement could already use as an excuse to harass you.

Adding yet another way will only make that harassment even more convenient. That seems like the wrong direction to go.

The issue in your scenario is the lax requirements for warrants, not the lobbyist law.

Politicians, by and large, are lawyers. Washington DC also has the highest density of lawyers in the world. It doesn't matter how strict you make warrant requirements, really good lawyers will always find a way. Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[ZachPruckowski]

Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.

It wouldn't be a step forward if this didn't solve other problems. I concur that the scenario you two describe is somewhat troubling, but we're talking about giving them one more reason to investigate people and simultaneously fighting astroturfing. Something slightly bad is offset (IMHO) by something moderately good.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[rcamans]

Not "an attack on lobbyists", an attack on bloggyists
heh heh
I made a funny

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[drinkypoo]

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.

So, how much did you get paid to post this?

The following is a comment I posted yesterday explaining why someone else was potentially wrong when they made the same assertion. As no one disputed the points I raised yesterday (in a comment rated +5, thus it was quite visible) I will consider them to be just as valid today.

This bill is about paid lobbyists. The only bloggers that will need to register are those that are being paid for their posts and have a readership of 500+. The article author didn't read the bill itself or at the very least misread it.

Oh yeah? FTFA:

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers."

Here is Section 220 of 2007 S.1. It says it modifies 2 USC 1602. Section 220 appends certain clauses to 2 USC 1602. You are somewhat correct in that appended to item 7 of that code is the line "Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying." It also adds the following item: "GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This would SEEM to indicate that if you're not getting paid, you're not who they're talking about. But then you have to examine 18 (C) which is also appended to that section of the US Code, because it defines the meaning of registrant. I quote:

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

Thus if you speak on behalf of, say, a political party of which you are a member, you are a member of a registrant as well (because the party would be required to register.) Also if we look at both 2 USC 1602 and 2007 S.1 Section 220, which deal with definitions, neither one defines "paid"! Kind of a serious oversight there given that now we have to ask the supremes (eventually) whether ad revenues count or not. The closest it gets is the following text:

`(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.

This is where the number 500 comes from. Incidentally, this particular item (B) is a particularly bad loophole in this law! It says that as long as you are not trying to influence more than 499 people at once, it's not a paid attempt to influence the general public. This is not good, not good at all.

Jump back to 2 USC 1602 for a moment with me and look at the government's definition of Lobbyist prior to any adoption of this bill.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[kabocox]

Perhaps tattoos on the forehead and cheeks (both ends) would be appropriate a big L in red to denote a lying lobbyist whose opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

But then what would we label the lawyers with?

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[thomn8r]

The Democrats had "pieces of flair," but they made the lobbyists wear them.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[DragonWriter]

Doesn't sound like treating bloggers as lobbyists, it sounds like treating lobbyists posing as bloggers as lobbyists.

Since it invented a whole new thing, "grassroots lobbyist", that has never been considered a "lobbyist" before, and is nothing at all like a lobbyist (i.e., someone who is paid to do direct advocacy of a policy position to a government official or body), it has nothing to do with treating "lobbyists", as that term is understand outside of the bills rewriting of the English language, as anything.

Its about treating paid public advocates of political positions and activity as if they were paid lobbyists.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, here's an explanation written by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA: Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[t0rkm3]

So, you're implying that someone's ability to write politically relevant and motivating articles should be limited?

Interesting? So you're saying that someone that was a loyalist during the American Revolution should not have been able to write in a paper because they stood to gain or had gained monies or property in the past from the Crown?

Odd.

Personally, I think those that fear 'paid-blogging' are not confident in their own ability to discern fact from fiction, or they're a sociopath who thinks that no one else has this peculiar capability.

Re:It was about stopping astroturf not bloggers

[JudasBlue]

I don't know how accurate my analysis is - I am certainly not a lawyer - That's easy, it isn't accurate at all.

This is somewhere else in this discussion, but I will go ahead and repost Stephen Bainbridge's link. He is a law professor at UCLA http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/.

Basically you are jumping through all kinds of hoops but it all comes down to the definition of a grass roots lobbyiest and the language is very clear that you have to be retained by a client. Period. Not make money off of ads, not be a democrat/republican/jedi, not talk to more than 500 people. You have to be retained by a client. And if you are a blogger being retained by a client to push a particular political agenda and making more than 25k a quarter at it, it would probably be a good thing for you to cop to being a lobbyiest.

W007 7p

[Anonymous Coward]

troubles of Walnut long time FreeBSD

Disgraceful

[spiritraveller]

That it was such a close vote... and even more that most Democrats voted for it.

Re:Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Air America went down on flames. Time magazine laid off a couple hundred people. The Today show is in the dumps. Katie Couric is losing ground. Fake Memos cost CBS. The New York Times shareholders know Punch Sulzberger is killing the paper. The liberal media landscape resonates with failure all around - but they won't change. Instead they want to silence people who oppose them - or at least demand they automatically get equal time. These are the same people trying to force homo marriage on us and supporting Al Qeada. Democrat Party is no longer the party of Roosevelt. They are scum who would see your kid get blown up if they can get their agenda.

Re:Disgraceful

[spiritraveller]

They are scum who would see your kid get blown up if they can get their agenda.

Our kids are getting blown up... but that disgrace is the work of the Republicans.

Re:Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I find the Democrats and Republicans to both be disgraceful parties, however, in this case they (the dems) did the right thing. The bill simply requires organizations to register as lobbyists when they use the internet for lobbying. To qualify as a lobbyist you have to receive or spend over $25k in a single quarter. Consequently, any *REAL* grassroots lobbyists or people you would classify as simple activists would not be required to register ever. This is to prevent shit like the fake grassroots sites that the repubs put together for the last election.

READ THE FUCKING BILL before you draw your conclusions. People read the slashdot headline which is woefully inadequate in drawing a conclusion about anything.

Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[rhinokitty]

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...

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

What your missing is that the bill was never about making bloggers register as lobbyists - that was all spin, and slashdot nicely bought it hook, line and sinker.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Tablizer]

Ironic. We need bloggers to explain why the Democrats seemed to almost like that anti-blogger provision.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Overly Critical Guy]

What about that part in the bill requiring people who reached 500 or more members of the public to register, and that was enough to constitute payment?

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[tmalone]

That part of the bill only applies to organizations that must register in the first place. If you qualify (if you are being paid to blog), then, every time you communicate to more than 500 people, you have to report the money that was involved with that communication. Amazing what happens when you read the entire bill.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[ZachPruckowski]

Please, read the actual bill. It says you must reach 500 people AND make $100,000 working as a paid shill. Not OR!!!

Please don't link to a propaganda piece by a professional conservative lobbyist and claim it to be equal evidence to the above cited UCLA law professor and the above cited Orginal Bill. Payment and Reach were considered separately in the bill. Why don't you read the actual bill, and see if that alleviates your concerns.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

Are you referring to me as a blogger? That's pretty ridiculous, as I've never blogged in my life. In fact, I detest blogs.

Of course, in the tradition of Voltaire, I defend the bloggers' right to write their insipid drivel - but it doesn't stop me from being disgusted by them, and the very word "blog."

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

At least conservatives explain why they think you're wrong. Liberals spit and call you a Nazi.

That's head-spinningly ironic, given liberals' tendency to explain their position at length, and conservatives' tendency to use ad hominem in place of debate, and make their srguments up out of thin air. See your post that I am replying to as an example of such non-factual argument.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[MadUndergrad]

Today I'm left feeling dirty and betrayed having been opposed to that worthy bill yesterday... not that I could have made a difference in the vote anyhow. It's refreshing, though, that most of the Democrats supported it.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's head-spinningly ironic, given liberals' tendency to explain their position at length, and conservatives' tendency to use ad hominem in place of debate, and make their srguments up out of thin air.

Oh, are you a conservative then?

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Grant_Watson]

Which is odd since you read Slashdot which, while it predates the word, is pretty much a blog.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[TobascoKid]

In fact, I detest blogs.

So what are you doing here? Slashdot is a blog.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

No, slashdot is a discussion forum, not a blog.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

At the risk of repeating myself, slashdot is noty a blog, it is a discussion forum. A very different beat. Some people certainly seem to have a strange definition of "blog" if they include slashdot under that definition.

In fact, this is becoming a web epidemic. It seems that everything is called a blog these days, and the word has lost all meaning.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[TobascoKid]

No, it's well and truely a shining example of the medium of blogging (this started as CmdrTaco's blog and grew from that).

Notice the front page with posts? Notice the time based nature of those posts, in a rolling format? Notice how the "discussion forum" you mention is is called "comments". These are all part of the core definition of the term blog. If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

Notice the front page with posts? Notice the time based nature of those posts, in a rolling format? Notice how the "discussion forum" you mention is is called "comments".

yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.

These are all part of the core definition of the term blog.

No, the defining characteristic of a blog is that it is personal and that it is a log of the websites you have visited. Neither of those core aspects apply in any meaningful way to slashdot. Notice how there are a bunch of different people submitting stories, it is not just focused around one person? Notice how it is about news and discussion, not a personal take on the world?

If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.

Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? And slashdot is a hybrid. People come here primarily for the discussion forum, but it is also a tech news site. But it definitely does not fit the definition of a blog. It doesn't matter if it started as Taco's blog, because that is not what it is today. That's like saying the USA is a colony of England, because it started as a colony of England.

What it is today is a tech news/discussion forum. Notice how it has used the tag line "News for nerds, stuff that matters" and not "CmdrTaco's personal journal"?

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[TobascoKid]

Since when does a weblog have to be personal? Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog. There are personal blogs, and there impersonal blogs. Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.

Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles?

Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.

Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! You tell that nazi bastard!!

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[genrader]

I hate to say it but only in the non-Democrat arena of "liberals" have I ever run into liberals who care to explain their position. I know many, many conservatives who are kneejerk reactionaries too but the Democrats have no logical arguments in place 95.6% of the time, all they do is call conservatives racist and Nazis.

I, for one, am not a conservative and disagree on many issues, I'm a libertarian full-heartedly, and I get called the same things because I believe in unrestricted capitalism.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[SnowZero]

yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.

While I hate strict definitions, if this were a discussion forum, we'd be able to post our own topics. We can't. We can only reply to the top-level stories. That makes it a lot more like a blog -- with a lot of comments.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

Since when does a weblog have to be personal?

Since that was the original definition of it. Now, there is some leeway, but stretching the definition of "blog" to mean any site where people comment or news is reported, is ridiculous.

Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog.

No, Engadget and Boing Boing aren't blogs. I don't know about TechCrunch, seeing as I have never used the site.

Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.

What makes the wikipedia definition the definitive one? I don't agree with it. It's also an extremely vague definition. Slashdot also fits many other categories. It's a fairly subjective thing, but the distributed, multi-user discussion format of slashdot puts it far away from the typical blog. And miles away from the original definition.

Anyway, my comment was in response to someone calling me a blogger. how does posting a comment to slashdot make me a blogger?

Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.

That's ridiculous. Is a newspaper website a blog because it has time-based articles?

Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.

Yes, slashdot has blog-like features. But the main purpose of slashdot is not the journals, and almost nobody comes to slashdot to read the journals. They come here for news and discussion - primarily discussion.

I think the real intersting question in all of this is why are so many people like yourself so desperate to stretch the definition of "blog" to cover every fucking website under the sun, until the term loses all meaning? Why do you want to do this? Wouldn't it be better to have a more nuanced way of describing websites, so we can communicate the differences, rather than lumping everything with user-generated content under the blog umbrella?

It seems that everybody wants to call their site a blog, just out of trendiness and conformity, and to get on the "blogrolls" or whatever shitty hype they are pushing, even if their site isn't primarily a blog. Hell, even politicians and corporations are doing it, to try and cash in on the trend, relabeling their promotional sites as blogs.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

P.S:

The Wikipedia definition you linked to actually disqualifies slashdot, engadget and Boing Boing:

A blog is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style

Outside of users' personal journals, the main pages of these sites are not written in journal style.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

No, that makes it more like a tech news site that focuses heavily on discussion. If it were your blog, you'd be able to post your own topics. And really, the fact of the massive weighting towards comments compared to the articles puts it outside the blog realm. A blog is really more focused on the articles and the main topic of the blog, on the first-person voice - with maybe some commentary.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

I hate to say it but only in the non-Democrat arena of "liberals" have I ever run into liberals who care to explain their position

And? 99.9% of liberals aren't Democrats. They aren't synonyms, you know. I'm not really sure what the Democratic party has to do with any of this, since nobody mentioned them until now.

I know many, many conservatives who are kneejerk reactionaries too but the Democrats have no logical arguments in place 95.6% of the time, all they do is call conservatives racist and Nazis.

Care to show some evidence for this? In my experience, liberals calling someone Nazis is very rare. That's more of an anarchist thing from what I've seen. Or a troll thing. I've seen arguments about how the Bush government has fascist tendencies, but it's very rare that someone is actually called a Nazi directly, and seriously. That's more of a stereotype used for parody. As for not having arguments, again, I think that's also a fallacy. You don't see many Rush Limbaughs or Bill O'Reillys or Pat Robertsons among liberals - usually you get a much better explanation of why they hold a position, even if it's not well thought through.

But compared to the right-wing, you just don't get this vitriolic, mindless denouncing.

I'm a libertarian full-heartedly, and I get called the same things because I believe in unrestricted capitalism.

Can you link to some examples?

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[SnowZero]

Well, CmdrTaco can post articles, I can't. It's his blog, not mine. You seem to define a discussion site as one where nobody will RTFA. I guess by that definition, slashdot certainly isn't a blog. I usually do read the articles though, so maybe I see it differently. To each their own.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[genrader]

Erm, asking for examples is absolutely retarded. Do you really want me to dig up links on forums and message boards for you?

Few people are ever that rude in real life.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[LukeCage]

Oh, I see, so you are called a nazi on an internet message board, but not in real life, and that is the fault of "liberals". I hope you realize how head-spinningly stupid this is.

BTW, if you believe in full capatalism I have a question: do you also believe in labor unions? If the answer is no, then you do not believe in full capitalism, you are just another free market fundie drone.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Loco Moped]

I hope you realize how head-spinningly stupid this is.

Head-spinningly
That seems to be the new buzz-word for the logically-challenged liberal to use this week. Maybe if you could stop your own heads from spinning for a few minutes, you'd see the world as it really is. And no- I am NOT a Republican nor am I a conservative. But I do respect people who actually utilize their own brain cells, rather than spouting the venom of the weak.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that your whole post was an ad hominem attack against conservatives, right?

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

But it's not CmdrTavo's blog. If it were, CmdrTaco would write all the articles. It's obviousloy a news site combined with a discussion forum. It's so obvious, I really wonder why people are trying to apply the "blog" label to it, when that is completely unnecessary.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

Erm, asking for examples is absolutely retarded.

Why?

Do you really want me to dig up links on forums and message boards for you?

Yes please. If that's the only argument that liberals have - which was the contention of the original poster - then it should be easy. You shouldn't have to do any digging if it is so common.

Few people are ever that rude in real life.

And it seems that few peolple are ever that rude on the internet, otherwise you'd have given me a couple of hundred links by now.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

But I do respect people who actually utilize their own brain cells, rather than spouting the venom of the weak.

So then, I guess you should be criticizing "Overly Critical Guy" for his uninformed argument and venomous ad hominems, while respecting the others here who have contributed their arguments without any venom (who knows if they are liberal or not).

I don't think it's liberals who have come on to this thread with the venomous attacks and lack of logic - just read the whole discussion thread for example. The only people who really seem to be getting politically divisive and away from factual argument are a few guys like "Overly Critical Guy." Generally, everyone else is pretty polite, down-to-earth, and well-reasoned.

Re:Can't resist... Agreeing with republicans...

[dangitman]

No, because it wasn't. It was an observation about conservatives. I did not call them any names or make up anything. I didn't invoke Nazis or do any other Godwin-bothering acts.

are you that naive?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:are you that naive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to jail abortion protestors?

Who bombs clinics, shoots doctors, and wants to jail anyone involved in abortions?

Who wants to stop churches from speaking out against lifestyles they find destructive?

Who wants to jail people for HAVING lifestyles they find destructive?

Who wants to limit the freedom of pastors? Of street preachers ?

Who wants to limit the freedom of the press? Who keeps insisting that one particular religion is innately tied in with government? Who wants to search every package, luggage, monitor your calls? Who wants to hold US citizens in secret, deny them access to a lawyer, deny them the right to a trial by jury? Deny them access to the evidence against them?

Hmmm......

Re:are you that naive?

[TobascoKid]

Who wants to limit the freedom of the press?

Everyone. There have always been people who have wanted to silence "the other side". Not just politics, but religion and science and pretty much every other field of human endeavour where people disagree.

Re:are you that naive?

[indifferent children]

Who wants to stop churches from speaking out against lifestyles they find destructive? Who wants to limit the freedom of pastors? Of street preachers ?

Liberals don't want to limit the freedom of speech of pastors, nor prevent churches from making political statements. But if they choose to play politics, then they lose their tax-exempt status. Likewise, McDonald's can't wrap their burgers in bible-tracts and exempt themselves from property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. To be tax-exempt the churches must confine themselves to religion, and not tell parishoners how to vote.

Re:are you that naive?

[SnowZero]

Who bombs clinics, shoots doctors, and wants to jail anyone involved in abortions?

So if 1/1000 protesters are violent, we should jail them all? I guess you think we should jail all the Muslims too, since a small minority are terrorists. You must also think that the Japanese interment camps were a good idea in WW2, since some of them probably were spies. I'm glad you are such a critical thinker!

Violent protest is wrong, and should be punished. However that's absolutely no excuse to punish non-violent protesters who only happen to argue the same side of the issue. That's simply madness, and even if one case might be "good", overall that approach would end up being a very, very bad thing. Thanks for reminding me to donate to the ACLU.

Re:are you that naive?

[d3ac0n]

Really? Is that what Liberals want?

Huh.

You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.

Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.

Re:are you that naive?

[indifferent children]

EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE.

I've seen the liberal politicians going to the churches, but I don't recall a single instance of them saying "Vote for me" or "Vote Democrat" while in a church. Their church appearances don't have to have any text at all; they are being seen in the church, and they are pressing the flesh. Those are the core purposes of their visits. The text is usually a few Bible verses about "the least among you", and related ramblings. The purpose of their visit is political (their choice of toilet paper is political), but they tailor their message to keep to the windy side of the law.

I'm sure that there have been slips, but nothing so egregious as the GOP-produced multimedia presentations shown in evangelical mega-churches. And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS.

Re:are you that naive?

[andymadigan]

The protesters have every right to protest to Planned Parenthood. They don't have the right to shout anything at the patients there. And ANYONE who throws something or gets violent at such a protest should be thrown in jail for at least ten years. Those people have it hard enough, they don't need protesters to make their lives worse. If you have a problem with abortion, talk to your congressmen and your state government. If 2/3 of the country agrees with you, you might be able to change things. Until then, people have the right to privacy.

Re:are you that naive?

[d3ac0n]

Sigh...

Once again you prove my point. The very fact that the politicians are going there during an election cycle with the Press in tow to "press the flesh" shows that they are campaigning there. There have been MANY MANY stronger instances of bald faced lobbying. How many times does Jesse Jackson have to get up in front of a church audience and talk about the Eeeevil Republicans for you to comprehend that it is a form of telling people how to vote?

Ultimately, I don't really care if they do this or not. As far as I'm concerned, Political Speech is part of free speech. Just because you are in politics for your profession or in religion for your profession DOES NOT MEAN that you therefore give up your right to free speech. If a political leader OR a religious leader wants to get up in front of a congregation and tell them "vote for so and so" then they have a right to do that as American Citizens. The Government does NOT, however, have a right to take that speech away by threatening the organization that these people happen to be a part of.

That is where the difference between Liberals and Conservatives lies:

Liberals think that religious persons should not have the right to free speech. They seem to think that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" means that church members aren't allowed to have or speak political opinion. (Unless, of course, they are speaking in support of Liberal causes. Then it's OK.) Obviously, this is wrong, and goes against the fundamental concepts of the Bill of Rights. Of course, most Liberals are ok with that, as long as it does not apply to them.

Conservatives think that all people should have a right to free speech, including religious leaders, even if they are speaking in a religious forum. Conservatives feel that if the church members think it is inappropriate, then they can either kick out the leader, or find another church. It's a matter that is internal to the church, not something for the government to be involved in. (You know, that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing.) Conservatives' big problem with Liberal politicians doing this in churches is the Liberals' hypocrisy. Not their speech.

Oh, and that whole "churches are tax-free" thing? That's also a "Separation of Church and State" thing as well. Since the government can influence heavily via taxation, if religious groups are subject to taxation, what's to stop the government from taxing a religious group that speaks out against something that is currently government sanctioned? Say for example, SLAVERY? If you know your history, the Abolitionist movement STARTED in churches, and then spread from there to the rest of society. If churches hadn't been tax-exempt, then the government could have used taxation as a form of speech suppression to silence the early abolitionists, and we might still have slavery today.

Do you understand now? POLITICAL SPEECH IS PART OF FREE SPEECH. All American Citizens have a right to free speech, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

Re:are you that naive?

[SnowZero]

They don't have the right to shout anything at the patients there.

So, would you like that to apply to war protesters as well? In particular, those who blockage recruitment centers and yell all sorts of things to anyone going inside. As soon as you cut freedom of speech into acceptable and unacceptable topics, you open a very large can of worms. It's best not to go there. Speech should be protected, as long as it stays exactly that: speech.

If you have a problem with abortion, talk to your congressmen and your state government. If 2/3 of the country agrees with you, you might be able to change things. Until then, people have the right to privacy.

That's absurd. How about: "If you have a problem with the Iraq war, talk to your government. Maybe they will change. Until then, members of the military have a right to privacy. No protesting." You can't cut free speech with "right" and "wrong" topics. And anyway, I expressed no opinion about abortion. Rather I attempted to express that guilt by association is a very bad idea: "Some protesters are murderers, therefore all protests should be banned and protesters should be arrested." That flawed argument could jail everyone based on some tenuous association with group containing criminals.

Try not to let your opinion on a particular issue modulate your belief in freedom of speech.

Re:are you that naive?

[indifferent children]

Liberals think that religious persons should not have the right to free speech. They seem to think that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" means that church members aren't allowed to have or speak political opinion.

This is blatantly untrue. Most (nearly all) liberals think that religious people have the right to free speech. Every dunderheaded political thing that Pat Robertson has said on television is protected speech. Liberals would oppose the government trying to stop Pat Robertson from saying political things.

However, at the end of the day, a 'church' is only a tax-exempt organization if it constrains itself to conducting religious affairs. If an organization chooses to become either political or commercial, then it risks losing the special tax-exemption that exists for religious organizations.

If liberals weren't interested in fostering religion, they would point out that any attempt by the government to even decide which organizations are churches, is a violation of the separation of church and state. They would get rid of the tax-exempt status altogether, which would remove the government interference that bothers you so.

Re:are you that naive?

[Jtheletter]

Offtopic comment on your sig because I find it humorous. Sometime around 2001 I think it was, the internet was declared as non-Kosher for Orthodox Jews by the Jewish leaders who make these decisions, at least for that specific portion of the faith. So techncially, your sig's prediction has already come true. ;)

Re:are you that naive?

[andymadigan]

My cousin is in the military, so now, I don't think people entering recruitment centers should be yelled at either. Right to privacy, as I said.

Re:are you that naive?

[EQ]

"And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS."

Wrong. If he had said "Do Not Vote For Kerry" then the IRS gets involved. Determination of sin is a religious act, not a political one. Pity that it appears the do not teach religion or morals in the shcools anymore (not "a" religion or specific morals, but religion as a survey of all the major world ones, and morality in general).

From the old-school hard-core Catholic point of view that Bishop has, elective abortion is an absolute and unconditional moral evil and the religious doctrine they have says one cannot aid and abet evil nor can one support/condone those who do. So a vote for Kerry, or Guliani (who are actively pro-choice and pro-abortion) *IS* a sin under that doctrine if there is an alternative candidate who does not stand against the Catholic doctrine of Human Vitae. And there is nothing the IRS can say about that.

Ii guess the Catholics do get bonus points in that they can vote for a pro-choice candidate, then go to confession and be absolved of the sin of doing so (the church giveth, the church taketh away), unlike Southern Baptists, etc, who don't have that confession thing built into their religion.

Re:are you that naive?

[SnowZero]

Well, in that case I'll concede that you are being consistent, even if we don't ultimately agree. Hopefully our exchange will make other people stop and think when they read it, as a lot of people don't apply the same standard across the board.

Re:are you that naive?

[d3ac0n]

If liberals weren't interested in fostering religion, they would point out that any attempt by the government to even decide which organizations are churches, is a violation of the separation of church and state. They would get rid of the tax-exempt status altogether, which would remove the government interference that bothers you so.

Except that the Government doesn't generally decide which organizations are churches. Yes, they have set some VERY basic criterion, but only for the purpose of definition. Just about anyone can form a church and apply for tax-exempt status. The government just checks your church, and as long as you meet the simple criteria, you get the status. NOWHERE in the criteria is the requirement that your church, both it's individuals AND the corporate entity, be divorced from political involvement.

Again, you are incorrect when you say:

a 'church' is only a tax-exempt organization if it constrains itself to conducting religious affairs.

A church is in NO WAY required to constrain itself to religious affairs only. As a corporate entity it may legally and Consitutionally involve itself in political affairs without losing it's tax exempt status. Attempting to stop that is suppressing free speech. Churches are even allowed to enter into commercial enterprises as well. The commercial aspect of the enterprise is legally somewhat different than the church aspect, and so tax law does affect that part of it differently, but it is not legally constrained to not be involved.

You keep making my points for me. You say that Liberals don't want to suppress free speech, and then in the very next breath you try to make the case for the suppression of free speech for certain groups of people. Nice hypocrisy there!

Oh, and your last statement makes no sense at all. How would not having a special protective section of law around churches somehow improve the separation of Church and State? It wouldn't. Please re-read my last paragaph from above for the explanation of why the tax-exempt status is there in the first place.

Re:are you that naive?

[d3ac0n]

Really? Is that what Liberals want?

Huh.

You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.

Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.

Re:are you that naive?

[d3ac0n]

Wrong. If he had said "Do Not Vote For Kerry" then the IRS gets involved.

Actually, even IF he said "Do not vote for Kerry" the IRS wouldn't get involved. That's where the whole "Free Speech" thing we have here in the USA comes in. Bishops are people too, and they have the right to free speech just like everyone else, even if they happen to be standing behind a pulpit when they speak.

This is what I really hate about modern Liberalism. They have so many people all screwed up and backwards on issues like this.

(Note: This next part is not necessarily directed at EQ, I was just using his post as a jumping-off point.)

Let me make this as simple and clear as I can:

1) As American Citizens, we all have the inalienable right to Free Speech. IE: We can speak our minds (particularly regarding politics) and say whatever we want with only a very tiny set of legal caveats such as Slander.

2) As American Citizens, we also have the inalienable right to Freedom OF Religion. IE: We can gather together and worship in any way we see fit, again with only a very tiny set of caveats, such as No Human Sacrifice Allowed.

These two rights are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Just because you chose to exercise your right to Freedom Of Religion, perhaps even so far as to join the clergy, does not therefore mean you give up the right to Free Speech.

In our Country we practice Capitalism. Part of the Capitalistic tradition is that corporate entities are granted most of the same rights as individuals. Mostly because they are made up of individuals. A church is a legally definable corporate entity. Therefore, as a corporate entity, they have all the rights that any other corporate entity has, INCLUDING FREE SPEECH. Which means that it is perfectly legal for a pastor, or a bishop, or even an entire church, to make political statements and support political parties.

The whole tax-exemption thing is not even related to the Speech issue, except in that by creating a legal fence around Churches, our system prevents the GOVERNMENT from interfering with Religion by using it's taxing influence to punish or reward those the State deems good or bad. Do we all get it now? churches are tax-exempt to prevent government meddling.

Saying "Well, if churches want to get involved in politics, then they had better be prepared to start paying taxes." Is nothing more than an attempt to squash the Free Speech of churches by threatening them with State oppression! If you say that then you are proposing we go back to the One-Church-State model that the Pilgrims came here to flee! You would be taking us back in time over 200 years to a less-enlightened more bigoted and oppressive society! Is that really what you Liberals want? MORE oppression? It would certainly seem so based on some of the statements I am seeing here.

Re:are you that naive?

[Grym]

I agree. Churches shouldn't be threated into feeling like they're walking on eggshells to avoid possibly political statements. Furthermore, the line between religious philosophy and politics isn't as clearcut as most people would like to think. Whether you believe it or not, religion (and being religious) is about more than just talking on Sundays about a big invisible man in the sky; it's a way of life (which is inextricable from politics). Provided that a church's rhetoric doesn't directly advocate violence or clearly illegal acts, I see no reason why their doctrine should be scrutinized any further.

That being said, I think you're being unfair when you say that liberals are the ones advocating censorship and conservatives are defenders of free speech. That may be true in the example you bring up, but not for many others. Conservatives are just as bad (if not worse) with regard to censorship when it doesn't suite them. Take, for instance, the issue of nudity in the mass media. Viewing of nudity by itself is not psychologically harmful. It's not. Psychological study after psychological study have shown this. And yet, conservatives fight very hard against keeping movies, images, and art containing nudity from being broadcast all in the name of "protecting the children," which is really just a cover for their real goal: protecting us from our own sinful bodies.

And art isn't the only place where conservatives let free speech die by the wayside of a political agenda. It's conservatives who see nothing wrong with the DMCA and other copyright laws being used to suppress embarrassing internal memos or letters. It's conservatives who want to pass laws making it illegal to "desecrate" an American flag.

The grim reality of American politics is that neither party, despite what they'd like to to believe, is a defender of the people's rights. The saddest thing of all is that because of this, the concept of individual rights has degraded from the philosophical view of human dignity and justice into an argument about what IS or ISN'T written on a piece of paper.

-Grym

Re:are you that naive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would go for a symmetrical standard across the board. Protest should be civil. Free speech is not being impeded if we enforce civil protesting, where certain noise levels are not exceeded, people who are not part of the protests can be insulated from them and aren't assaulted by yelling or shocking images. Protest should be about ideas, not propaganda. Whether it be anti-abortion or anti-war or anything else.

Goes to show...

[haakondahl]

That Republicans and Democrats are both equally serious about both the First and Second Amendments. And that they are on opposite sides on both issues.

The Second Amendment guarantees the First.

Re:Goes to show...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

the second amendment was an afterthought.

Re:Goes to show...

[TobascoKid]

The entire Bill Of Rights was an afterthought

Re:Goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they call it an "amendment".

Re:Goes to show...

[CrimsonAvenger]

The entire Bill Of Rights was an afterthought

No. Read some history. The Bill of Rights was proposed as part of the Constitution, and was rejected on the grounds that specifying Rights would lead some in Government to suppose that the ONLY Rights were those specified (odd, how that seems to have come to pass).

Pretty much the first act of the First Congress was to propose 12 Amendments to the Constitution - 10 were adopted immediately as the Bill of Rights, one was only approved in the last decade or so, and one was rejected by the States.

Re:Goes to show...

[Impotent_Emperor]

As I heard it, they weren't supposed to go into the Constitution in any particular order (1 being most important, 10 being least ?). Apparently Madison, or whoever was in charge of the process, had the idea that the Amendments would be "cut and pasted" into their appropriate sections of the original document.

Re:Goes to show...

[Shadowin]

The Second Amendment guarantees the First.

Right... hunting rifles vs tanks.

Re:Goes to show...

[BigAssRat]

Right... hunting rifles vs tanks.

I would MUCH rather take my chances with a rifle than a rock or a protest banner, if it came to that that is.

Retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh knew how to post on slashdot. Exactly why computers should be more difficult to use: keep the retards off.

I smell a rat

[shanen]

No, not a Democratic rat, but a neo-GOP rat. [How many of you know about the neo-GOP marching orders not to use the proper adjectival form for the Democratic Party?] Of course it's difficult to penetrate the veil of secrecy around the neo-GOP, but all of them going one way on any real issue clearly says that directions came from on high.

Why? Well, first guess time. How many bloggers could you hire for a million bucks? Hey, a million bucks here, a million bucks there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money a la neo-GOP-style campaigning--the only asset the neo-GOP has left now that McCain has joined (and chucked his principles) and Colin Powell has basically defected (apparently wedged by his).

Re:I smell a rat

[DrRevotron]

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?

Re:I smell a rat

[Overly Critical Guy]

Why do liberals use the word "neo?" Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.

[How many of you know about the neo-GOP marching orders not to use the proper adjectival form for the Democratic Party?] Of course it's difficult to penetrate the veil of secrecy around the neo-GOP, but all of them going one way on any real issue clearly says that directions came from on high.

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.

Why? Well, first guess time. How many bloggers could you hire for a million bucks? Hey, a million bucks here, a million bucks there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money a la neo-GOP-style campaigning--the only asset the neo-GOP has left now that McCain has joined (and chucked his principles) and Colin Powell has basically defected (apparently wedged by his).

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[dangitman]

like we're a bunch of Neo-Nazis.

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[hey!]

Why do liberals use the word "neo?" Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.

On the contrary. It's to avoid insulting the party of Goldwater by associating it with the neocons.

Re:I smell a rat

[dangitman]

Why do liberals use the word "neo?" Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.

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?

Re:I smell a rat

[haapi]

Indeed, this bill's defeat brought to you by Swift Boat Veterans for Free Speech.

Doesn't that about sum it all up?

Re:I smell a rat

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[CrimsonAvenger]

why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?

Because it was an anagram of "One"?

Re:I smell a rat

[Retired Replicant]

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[DrRevotron]

The parent post uses it alongside "GOP" which is a reference to the Republican Party. RTFP.

Re:I smell a rat

[dangitman]

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.

Re:I smell a rat

[shanen]

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.

The Dems are making complete 180s

[DrRevotron]

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.

Re:The Dems are making complete 180s

[The Master Control P]

Have you read the part of the bill in question? Rather than make you search it, I'll just copy-pastey the relevant bit:

(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.'.
(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--
(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
`(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.'.

Take special note of the bolded text: To be subject to this bill, the faux-blogger in question has to be retained by clients AND be paid at a rate equal to a hundred thousand dollars per year in exchange for writing biased political articles [which also exhort thier viewers to action]. Which would make the writers in question not bloggers but lobbyist shills masquerading as bloggers, regardless of political views.

The content of a blog is irrelevant: If it's writer, who has enough readers to attract a lobbying firm's attention, is being paid a hundred thousand dollars a year to shill while ostensibly being just another blogger, it's only right that they be brought under the same kind of disclosure laws as any other lobbyist. This is no different from requiring disclosure of sponsors by political commercials, because the material in question is nothing but political commercials.

And you're right about politicans being self-serving douches: They just gave lobbyists have a channel to funnel money through without anyone knowing.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is not a troll- just b/c you disagree with the parent doesn't mean it's not accurate.

Good

[bmajik]

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").

Re:Good

[VGPowerlord]

Perhaps its because political speech is all about lies. If they weren't registered, who's to say that they couldn't actually held liable for the libel and slander they spread?

Re:Good

[slizz]

Well it seems to me that if you are paid to express a certain opinion, that expression isn't comparable to the expression of a personal opinion, i.e. free speech. Putting restrictions on an idea that someone is paid to put out doesn't seem to be a restriction of free speech, because there is no restriction on the idea itself, just the "advertising" of that idea. "Advertising" seems to be a better way of viewing lobbying than "free speech," and there should be restrictions on advertising, I think (although it's definitely a murky issue).

Re:Good

[krotkruton]

Amongst what the other reply to your post said, there are other reasons, whether or not most people think they are good or bad is a different issue.

Let's just consider a simple scenario, a very simple scenario that doesn't deal with many of the issues facing this problem. You are a voter who has decided to vote based on the opinions of 10 random people. You believe that this is a good representation of the public and want to vote the way the public does. If there are no lobbyists, then your vote will be based on the majority oppinion of the 10 people you talk to. If we add lobbyists to the scenario, then you can no longer say that about your vote. If one of your 10 people is a lobbyist, then you have essentially lost an opinion and have handicapped the other candidate. This obviously scales as you get more than one lobbyist. Now consider two cases: you don't know who the lobbyist is or you know who the lobbyist is. If you don't know which person is a lobbyist (or don't even know that you picked a lobbyist), then your vote is skewed in favor of the lobbyist. If you know which person is the lobbyist, then you can take that into consideration when forming your vote by discarding that opinion or getting a new one. If you then knew who paid that lobbyist, you might treat that vote differently by giving it more importance than the other votes if you agree with the organization or by counting against the candidate if you strongly disagree with the organization.

I think that part of what you were talking about is that more political speech means more information, which I agree is a good thing. But to get the most information, you need to know who is talking, along with why they are talking and whether or not they are paid to say the things they say. In another example that isn't completely related, consider being sued for something you do while working at a company. The company provides you with a lawyer. It would be in your best interest to know whether the company hired the lawyer for you or whether they gave you a lawyer that is on their payroll who might be acting in the company's best interest instead of yours (not that this is always the case by any means). Again, knowing who a person works for can give you insight into their motivation. This isn't about silencing voices, its about informing the people who are listening to the voices (not the ones in their heads).

Re:Good

[zCyl]

Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech? Isn't that the most important kind of speech to protect?

1. We have important laws against lying about someone and presenting it as factual information. I cannot start a blog about bmajik or run commercials about you in which I call you a child molester, unless of course this is true. If you are a candidate for office, I still cannot create a blog or run commercials about you in which I call you a child molester, unless it is true. The Supreme Court has ruled that such things do not count as free speech, unless reasonable people believe it to be a parody.

2. We have serious problems with freedom of speech when corporations monopolize the process of distributing information. If enough corporations choose to unfairly favor one candidate or political viewpoint to the exclusion of other political viewpoints, then the freedom of speech of citizens is actually reduced in favor of the bias of the majority corporate viewpoint, which is in the hands of a select few individuals. This problem is present because the average citizen is financially unable to start a television station or cable news network, even if strongly motivated to do so. (There are also a limited number of broadcast slots available, and a limited number of cable lines which can be run in any one area without excessive disruption of life.) Thus, laws which ensure the fairness of the limited number of major gateways for political speech can actually increase freedom of speech. We may hope that the internet may eliminate this problem in the future, but for now it has only reduced it.

Re:Good

[dangitman]

Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech?

This is about money, not speech. You can say anything you want. But you can't get paid for doing anything you want. I think speech should be free - you don't need money to speak. If receiving money changes what you will say - then what's that all about? it's amazing how many people confuse money and speech, although I suspect the confusion is deliberate in many cases.

Re:Good

[TheoMurpse]

I think one of the reasons political speech with regards to campaigns is regulated/restricted is to prevent money from having too much of an effect on election results.

Re:Good

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Because it's not on speech, it's on communications medium.

The bill in question would've put restrictions on anyone who was getting paid $100,000 or more per year to blog for political reasons from another group. Plus McCain/Feingold restricts the medium, not anything content wise. The idea here is to restrict the possibility that one would be able to outspend their opponent.

The fact that people can get paid $100k+ for this activity boggles the goddamn mind.

Re:Good

[fabs64]

Ok, I'm not even a U.S. citizen and I can guess that the limit of political speech only can/does apply to those registered as political lobbyists (as the bill attempts to do for those PAID for their speech)

Re:Good

[hey!]

Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech?

Because there will always be de facto limits on speech whether or not there are de jure limits.

For example, no country at war is going to allow people to publish information about troop deployments. In such a situation it is important to define reasonable de jure limitations on speech, because in the heat of battle government will act to restrict speech, whether it is legally empowered to do so or not. Having reasonable limitations thought out in advance and enacted into law acts constrains those actions.

Another example is obscenity. The regulations on obscenity do not really prevent anybody who wants obscene materials from getting them. What they do is tell people who are up in arms about obscenity to go home: anybody who is receiving obscene materials is an adult or near adult seeking them out. The restriction on obscene material are a burden on producers and consumers, but on balance they ensure that such materials remain available.

These restrictions are like liberatarian antibodies. The immunize the body politic against severe censorship.

Re:Good

[TobascoKid]

You are a voter who has decided to vote based on the opinions of 10 random people. You believe that this is a good representation of the public and want to vote the way the public does.

Surely, as a voter, you should be voting based upon your own opinion and not just voting the way the crowd is voting. I can't see there is even much point in voting if you're just going to follow the crowd - as the crowd will be the majority anyway, why waste time voting?

If you are voting based on your own opinion, but listen to and then evaluate the views of 10 random people, then it won't matter if one of them is a shill or not - if an opinion's arguments don't seem to ring true then they won't affect the direction of your vote.

Re:Good

[TobascoKid]

1. We have important laws against lying about someone and presenting it as factual information.

But that's not political speech. The closest that is to political speech is an ad hominem attack against a political candidate. It's not the same as "bozo law #4365 is running through congress, write your congressman now to stop it".

2. We have serious problems with freedom of speech when corporations monopolize the process of distributing information.

But that would have been the case throughout the last few hundred years of politics, as whoever has the money for the printing press gets to put their views across. If anything, the UK is better for this because non-televised media wear their political biases as badge of honour, not something they try to hide as being "fair and balanced". If I want a right wing view, I read the Telegraph, if I want a left wing view the Guardian, with a whole spectrum of papers to choose from. I find the whole idea of forcing "fairness" absurd.

Re:Good

[Artifakt]

That's an interesting arguement, that all the regulatory complexity just helps diffuse issues and make it harder to see and do what would be done in a private case.
        But, political figures are generally public figures, who enjoy less protection under Libel and Slander statutes for a given act directed against them already. Speech directed at causes or ideas likewise does not fall under libel or slander law even if it is downright false. The only area where Political speech is likely to fall under libel or slander laws is when the speaker is referring to a private individual (i.e. if a non-politician such as Valerie Plame were the subject of a political statement, and the statement were also normally libelous - Revealing Plame as a CIA agent wasn't libelous in itself because it wasn't demeaning or derogatory in itself, but claims that she exploited being revealed for either political or financial gain may well be, as I understand it).
        So, if we cut out the BS about just who counts as a registered lobbyist and what obscure laws anyone falls under based on a particular income level or venue, we (as in the general public) might be able to focus on whether good old fashioned laws such as Libel or Slander apply to what they have done, but it wouldn't matter in the majority of cases, as most lobbying lies are not directed at private citizens.

Re:Good

[Teun]

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?

Let me as a European hazard a response; As far as I know all sides of the American political spectrum subscribe to the principle of Democracy.

And democracy is about 1 man = 1 vote.

That principle is under thread from groups (possibly under the guise of bloggers) that have large sums of corporate/interest groups money to spend. The idea of registering those that get paid to influence political decisions, be it through politicians or voters, might be good for traceability and avoid undemocratic behaviour.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...seems pretty unAmerican (for historical values of "American")...

Laws such as this are NOT a historical anomaly for the US. In fact, there are far worse examples in US history. Read about the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798

The Alien and Sedition Acts were a series of acts of Congress passed by the Federalists in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams. Proponents claimed they were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, later historians, and others have seen them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration.

There are other examples during the Civil War, etc. Historically there has always been a fight between those who censor political speech and those who fight for it.

Re:Good

[grimJester]

Isn't there already a law that limits how much political speech can happen leading up to an election and who can say it?

Yes. This law, if I understand it correctly, would have placed the same limits on bloggers paid directly for what they say, making more than $100k a year, as for meat space lobbyists. Apparently, you can currently spend as much money on astroturfers as you want, without having to tell anyone that these are paid lobbyists.

Btw, the Democrats will doom us all. Ka-ching!

Re:Good

[myth24601]

In the USA, News media can do what they want, no campain finance regulations apply to them. They can slant their coverage how they want and they can push one candidate in editorials all they want. They mostly claim no bias in reporting for credibility reasons. Many genuanly try to be unbiased but we are all human. (well many here might think foxnews is not using humans)

Re:Good

[maxume]

This always strikes me as a strange way to argue; it is apparently very important that people have the right to vote, but since they are spineless sniveling worms who are open to the simplest forms of coercion and influence, we best make sure that they are free to do it in the way that we think is best.

I am more and more of the opinion that the great disaster of the 20th century is that we got all mixed up and made democracy more important than liberty in the public zeitgeist. Perhaps the most important idea of the last 500 years was freedom from the tyranny of the majority, and it seems to have gone out the window.

Re:Good

[maxume]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global- deployments.htm

But you probably mean actual maps.

Re:Good

[Atzanteol]

So only the poor unpaid can have free speech? Everybody else is just a shill and should be regulated? I'm not sure I like that at all... Even *with* the caveat of "if you make X dollars." How is this not regulating free speech? Just because you don't like astroturfing doesn't mean it should be illegal!

And since when did a lobbyist become anybody who voices a political opinion? Lobbyists are the slime that try to sway politicians, not the public...

Christ, the Republicans want to spy on me and issue me a number, the Democrats want to charge me money for doing things "they don't like" and control what I say to whom. Will the friggin' government get off my back already!?!?

Re:Good

[Teun]

Liberty can only be achieved by the masses when there is a system to control the strongest.

And thousands of years ago it was already discovered democracy was a particular liberal way of getting this control in the hands of the masses.
There are other systems that profess to be liberal, but none has such a successful history of giving equal chances to all.

Your idea that freedom from the "tyranny of the majority" has any value for human society as a whole is delicate, it is as history and the present show, all too easily replaced by the tyranny of the strong and powerful.

I vote for outright democracy in a society where liberty for the individual can then prosper without fear for the mighty.

Re:Good

[maxume]

There are places where you can't open a bar that allows smoking. That's insane. If you tell your workers that it is smoking, and tell your customers that it is smoking, there shouldn't be a problem. There are some public health concerns, but if you are going to have cigarettes at all...

I say this btw, having never actually smoked a cigarette. The point isn't so much that democracy is bad,it has, as you say, worked better than pretty much anything else, but that the public thought process that goes into it at the moment is a little off; I simply think we are reaching for the wrong ideals. Obviously, this is something I can choose to deal with, or try to change.

Re:Good

[CrimsonAvenger]

For example, no country at war is going to allow people to publish information about troop deployments.

You may be too young to remember (or not), but during the Liberation of Kuwait, a Saudi tank battalion with an embedded journalist moved forward to the border during the first few hours of the ground war.

The embed went on CNN live to announce that "the battalion I'm embedded with has moved forward to the berm separating Saudi Arabia from Kuwait" and that "the Iraqis don't seem to be aware we've moved, since they're shelling our base camp a few miles behind us".

So, we can fairly accurately say that you are mistaken - ONE (at least) country is stupid enough to allow people to publish such information. And at least one network is dumb enough to not realize that broadcasting that information might be a bad thing.

Note that this worked both ways, of course - CNN also broadcast from Baghdad at that time (illegally and secretly, so the Iraqis wouldn't arrest/shoot them), which provided our guys with some useful intelligence (while showing that intelligence was in short supply at CNN).

Re:Good

[Zordak]

Actually, it's to protect incumbents. Look at McCain-Feingold. It's aimed squarely at those who criticize incumbents in the most critical period---the 30 days leading up to the election. This is no different. Campaign finance reform is not about making sure that money doesn't influence elections. It's about making sure that only the right money (i.e., the incumbents' money) gets to influence elections.

The problem is that incumbents enjoy an enormous advantage over challengers. The only way to reasonably challenge an incumbent is with lots of money. So incumbents want to make sure that those with lots of money who oppose them are unable to do so.

Re:Good

[Americano]

So, let me ask you this... let's say, for sake of argument, I am a brilliant speaker, and I happen to enthusiastically, emphatically, support Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency in 2008 (for the record, I'm not, and I don't. But let's spitball this). I send him a videotape of a few speeches I've given to local civic organizations in his support, showing him how great I am at giving persuasive, eloquent speeches to a campaign audience. He decides he'd like to hire me to give speeches, write speeches, press releases, and post occasionally to the Obama2008.com Campaign blog.

Now, by your reasoning, what I'm doing should be regulated, because I'm being paid to express an opinion about a candidate? Why? If it's something I believe, is that okay? And where do you draw the line? Speaking to the public in support of a candidate deserves no special "regulation", paid or unpaid. If you commit libel or slander, then you should *ABSOLUTELY* be held accountable for that, and there are already laws on the books under which you can be prosecuted. So why is there the need for some special statute that affects "bloggers" / "lobbyists" specifically?

Re:Good

[krotkruton]

Surely, as a voter, you should be voting based upon your own opinion and not just voting the way the crowd is voting.

Yes, you should. However, most people don't. If you really stop to consider the influences on a person's vote, including your own, you'll find that the majority of people cast most of their votes based on the opinions of others. This is less true for the major offices in an election because people think they know more about those. But again, I was trying to give an incredibly simplified system to show an possible example of why paid political speech needs regulation. I can definitely admit that the 10 random people scenario isn't great.

I can't see there is even much point in voting if you're just going to follow the crowd - as the crowd will be the majority anyway, why waste time voting?

Do you really believe that? So if you live in a red state you should only vote if you are voting for a Democrat?

if an opinion's arguments don't seem to ring true then they won't affect the direction of your vote.

The problem here is that these people are payed to convince you of something, so there is a good chance that they will provide a better argument than the average voter.

Re:Good

[hey!]

Well, I'm old enough to remember Vietnam, so I remember Gulf War 1.

The fact that something happens doesn't mean that its allowed, it only means shit happens.

Re:Good

[DragonWriter]

If you are a candidate for office, I still cannot create a blog or run commercials about you in which I call you a child molester, unless it is true.

You seem to confusing American libel law with, maybe, British libel law. But you can say things that are not true about public figures in this country, so long as it is not done with "actual malice"—either actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard to its truth or falsity. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Re:Good

[slizz]

In the example you give, absolutely what you say should not be regulated - however, you must admit campaigns with money to spend no doubt receive far more "I emphatically support you" videos than campaigns with nothing. And yes, I think that if you are being paid to speak for a lobbyist there should be some limitations - a special law for bloggers may be necessary because as a form of speech it is so different from anything else. however, i wish i knew the actual motivations for this debate in congress, which i'm sure has no basis in actual morality.

Re:Good

[CrimsonAvenger]

The fact that something happens doesn't mean that its allowed

No arrests, no charges, no removal of embeds from other places. I'd say it was at least semi-officially approved. I remember screaming at the TV when I saw that - if I'd been in that armour unit at the time, I'd have shot the guy. By accident, of course.

I still don't trust the American media to behave any way other than irresponsibly in warfare....

Re:Good

[Dread_ed]

Summary: Free speech aint so free if someone is paying you over 100,000 USD per year for it, right?

Re:Good

[Dread_ed]

Sufficiently advanced irresponsibility is completely indistinguishable from malice.

Sometimes I get the two confused. Especially when dealing with people who self proclaim that they are above criticism.

By their own estimation, if they are so adept at what they do we have to assume that gaffes of that magnitude are intentional and signify a mindset that creates such things for their own purposes.

The alternative is that they are lying idiots. Either way it paints a dismal picture of those who daily try to feed us their interpretation of the world.

Re:Good

[Intrinsic]

But that would have been the case throughout the last few hundred years of politics, as whoever has the money for the printing press gets to put their views across. If anything, the UK is better for this because non-televised media wear their political biases as badge of honor, not something they try to hide as being "fair and balanced". If I want a right wing view, I read the Telegraph, if I want a left wing view the Guardian, with a whole spectrum of papers to choose from. I find the whole idea of forcing "fairness" absurd.

You just skipped right over the fact that the person or group with the most money is the one that is going to get his view across to the public, and since there is no checks and balances to this system he can pretty much say what he wants. That way of doing things pretty much works as the propaganda machine did that Germany implemented to persuade what the country was doing was right, even though they were killing millions of jews.

I'm sorry to say my friend, when money and power is involved and you have a group mind set that has interests that dont support the common good (Maintaining Truth so people can make informed choices), A group doesn't have the right to say whatever the fuck you want.

Re:Good

[dangitman]

Indeed. Your not getting paid $100,000 does not prevent you from speaking. Your having to register as a lobbyist does not prevent you from speaking. So, it's a law that would be questionable in its enforceability and effects, but there doesn't appear to be any censorship. Still, it seems kind of stupid for Democrats to support this - shouldn't it have been obvious how the lobbyists and fake GOP bloggers would have spun it against them?

The difference btw. liberalism and libertarian n/m

[oSand]

Well perhaps I don't want to make a comment. Didja think of that, Slashdot? Didja think of that?

No, it was about stopping bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No, it was about stopping bloggers

[JudasBlue]

No, actually it was 25,000 a quarter and it required that you be retained by a client. Pretty clear. The 500 thing was totally different than the payment. Read the actual bill and not the crap spin that was spouted by a lobbyist on PR Wire and picked up here yesterday.

And I don't think it was dems not wanting competition. MoveOn.org is equal to anything the right has going in this area, and I can promise you the Dems sure don't want it to have to fall under K street kinda rules.

Ah, but you are a troll posting anonymously...

Re:No, it was about stopping bloggers

[kjart]

Dems didn't want any criticism.

Most of the opposition to this seems to revolve around the above notion. However, since when did registering as a lobbyist force someone to shutup?

Misleading headline

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

ack, moveon is already registered

[JudasBlue]

As another poster pointed out, I had forgotten that MoveOn is already a PAC. Bad me.

Whoah, that's one hella tendentious blurb.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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.)

You're asking the wrong question.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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.

Re:You're asking the wrong question.

[TobascoKid]

and to enable the public to better judge political information that it receives.

But why does the funding, or lack of funding, for political information affect the judgement of the public? Either an argument has merit, or it doesn't. Either way, whether or not the information was paid for should not affect how I evaluate the information.

The real problem is that there isn't any real political argument any more. Campaigns have descended to little more than ad hominem attacks between political candidates who have very little difference between them. It's all a marketing exercice - Republican vs Democrat is that same as Coke vs Pespi (even the Red/Blue colors are the same) - whatever brand you choose, you're still getting pretty much the same thing. Are you young and hip? Well then you just have to be liberal (not being a Democrat is the same as not wearing an iPod - life just won't be worth living). Older? Taxes got you down? Vote Republican. Wait a second on the last one, the marketing department just said we need to retarget in certain key markets to attract a southern, strongly christian demographic.

Re:You're asking the wrong question.

[Dragonslicer]

Either way, whether or not the information was paid for should not affect how I evaluate the information.

True, but if your information comes from a paid source, it is rather likely to be inaccurate or misleading and almost definitely incomplete. As a truly horrible analogy, consider drinking alcohol. If I tell you that drinking alcohol makes you feel happy, you may go out and start loading up on alcohol. While what I said may be factually correct, I failed to mention one very important piece of information, specifically that when the alcohol level in your bloodstream reaches about 0.4%, you'll probably die. Should I have been required to tell you that I wasn't giving you all the information you need? If I was some random guy, maybe you wouldn't take me very seriously. What if I said I was a doctor when I was actually paid by a company that produces beer?

Re:You're asking the wrong question.

[TobascoKid]

But even if information is from an unpaid source, it can't be assumed that it's not just as inaccurate or misleading or incomplete. And you can't just assume that paid information is always less inaccurate. You're getting into the realm of genetic fallacy

Re:You're asking the wrong question.

[cpt kangarooski]

Commercial speech, as I sure hope you already know, is not protected by the First Amendment in the USA.

Actually, it is protected speech, so long as it 1) does not promote unlawful activities or products, and 2) is not deceptive. Otherwise, it's basically protected at the intermediate scrutiny level. And this is part of a trend that's been going on for years, so I don't think it would be terribly surprising to see the degree of protection continue to increase, just as the protection for other forms of speech have increased in the past several decades. The thought behind it is that it's important to ensure that consumers have as much non-deceptive information about products and services as possible, so that they can be better informed. You might want to look at the Central Hudson case, which is one of the leading cases on this subject.

Simply put

[rumith]

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.

Or, to put it differently...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

In other news, CowboyNeal has stopped beating his wife.

Proof

[Myopic]

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 parent is NOT flamebait

[Travoltus]

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.

Re:The parent is NOT flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Democrats "really screw up" by trying to make lobbyists being paid $25k/quarter for writing a blog register like any other lobbyist does? It seems the only ways the Democrats screwed up with regards to this bill is in not getting it passed and not fighting harder against the fraudulent representation of the bill by lobbyists, Republicans and dittoheads.

Just to clarify

[Macthorpe]

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>

Re:Just to clarify

[dangitman]

That's why I said "in the tradition of Voltaire" and not "in the words of Voltaire," nor did I quote the phrase.

Re:Just to clarify

[Macthorpe]

Conceded :)

ATTN: Link destroyed itself

[The Master Control P]

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.

Warning:This post shouldn't be taken too seriously

[tehdaemon]

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

First Amendment

[SQL Error]

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.

Re:First Amendment

[Rob the Bold]

What's so frickin' hard about this?

They're debating who counts as people.

Re:First Amendment

[Dragonslicer]

It wasn't a law to restrict free speech. It was a law to restrict paid speech.

Re:First Amendment

[Megane]

Exactly. It was a law restricting freedom of speech, just as McCF also wrongly does.

I guess the hard part is that liberals don't consider it "press" unless they agree with it.

Re:First Amendment

[Megane]

The word "free" in "free speech" doesn't mean "non-paid". It means free as in, uh, speech. Paid speech is still free speech.

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas wingnuts don't consider it "truth" unless it feels right to them.

Re:First Amendment

[FunkLord84]

Nope. Money is a form of coersion. Paid speech = coerced speech, antithetical to free speech. Of course, does this have any bearing on the artist recipients of Macarthur fellowships I saw on Charlie Rose last night?

Re:First Amendment

[darkwing_bmf]

So, the press is not paid speech? The constitution says press, which protects things like the editorial page of a newspaper, but nothing about "press" limits this protection to strictly news organizations. It also applies to pamphleteers and by extension, bloggers.

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Ramen brother,
Things become so much clearer when you actually read the laws.
In this case I would have to err on the side of caution and say "stop passing laws!"

Re:First Amendment

[pavera]

So by your definition any editorialist, journalist, or news reporter of any type who receives any money falls under this law, and is providing "coerced" speech, and by your definition is now not eligible for protection under the 1st?

What about Authors? They aren't protected either? Obviously the first amendment clearly lays out a provision for the "press" so maybe you're just arguing that a paid blogger isn't press, and its paid, so it doesn't fall under the first amendment...

Well authors (like novelists, or even non-fiction writers) they are not press, they are paid, if I write a book espousing a political opinion and get paid more the 25k should I have to register as a lobbyist? That is essentially what you are saying. Anyone who is paid and espouses an opinion should have to register as a lobbyist. Further you are saying anyone who is paid and espouses an opinion is not protected by the first amendment, unless they are press (presumably since that is spelled out). This is obviously untrue.

Re:First Amendment

[smitth1276]

It also says the government can try and execute you if you engage in speech that provides aid and comfort to enemies. You've gotta use a little bit of common sense.

Re:First Amendment

[Dread_ed]

One party espouses a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The other thinks it is a "living document" that needs to be malleable in the face of the changes in our time.

Both ideas have their drawbacks, but the flexibility of the "living document" approach is such that the Constitution can be bent until it bites its own ass, figuratively speaking. In other words, it is an easy way to idealistically skirt the framer's restrictions and circumvent them without having to go through the cumbersome process of changing the original document. Viva la oppression!

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is off-topic. The proposed law is for registering lobbyists who pose as unpaid bloggers. The proposed law would require someone who is paid an amount in excess of $25,000 per a quarter (or $100,000 a year) for lobbying online on behalf of a client to register and file a report concerning their lobbying activity. There is no abridgment of freedom of speech or the press here, no matter how many littegreenfootballers have screamed out in unison.

Re:First Amendment

[Intrinsic]

This was designed too allow the common man to speak his mind. When you have someone being paid to speak on the behalf of other people, and those people have special interests, that run counter to the good will of the people, Sorry but, I dont think it applies.

Re:First Amendment

[Dragonslicer]

The press is usually paid by the company they work for (or by their audience directly or advertising in many cases online) to report on the activities of other people, organizations, etc. This bill targeted people that were paid by a corporation or lobbying firm to write specifically about the primary interests of that company. Someone paid by Fox News to write about how the government shouldn't have the ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug costs would not be subject to this law. Someone paid by Pfizer to do so would be subject to this law.

Talk Radio

[rdominelli]

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.

Re:Talk Radio

[Enry]

Rather see a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Re:Talk Radio

[jeremycobert]

the Fairness Doctrine, what a joke. life is not fair you screwballs. learn to compete in the open markets like the rest of us and quit relying on the government to silence your competition.

Re:Talk Radio

[Enry]

Yea! Suck it, neocons! The liberal media is spreading and there's nothing you can do about it now! Bwah Bwah Bwah!

Retard.

There isn't any

[Kohath]

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".

What about ad-supported sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would they be covered, too?

The way I read the bill, it's "paid" or "income". Ads are income.

Re:Warning:This post shouldn't be taken too seriou

[koolB]

NAZIs, Stalin, Pol Pot were extreme leftists. Check out their deaths history.

Talk Radio is next

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of the fairness doctrine? It's coming back soon.

Re:Warning:This post shouldn't be taken too seriou

[cuantar]

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.

Stupid

[Mark_MF-WN]

This goes beyond "stupid". This one goes well into the realm of free-speech issues. Campaign finance reform and lobbying are always gray areas as far as free-speech versus functioning-democracy goes, but on this the Democrats are totally in the wrong. The fact that 7 of them broke ranks is a rather clear sign of this, at a time when the Democrats should be consolidating their power and trying to show some unity.

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.

Re:Stupid

[d3ac0n]

Actually,

I'd say that the Dems have been WAY WAY WAY more socialist than the GOP for years now. All this does is prove it. Even the most socialist of the GOP voted against this horror of a provision. I frankly find it surprising that as many as 7 Dems joined them.

No matter how you look at it, this certainly puts the lie to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever"(tm) BS.

Re:Stupid

[Mr. Slippery]

I'd say that the Dems have been WAY WAY WAY more socialist than the GOP for years now. All this does is prove it.

What in the world does this have to do with the question of who controls economic resources? Nothing at all. It has fsck-all to do with the socialist/capitalist axis.

Democrats have been in favor of a slightly more regulated market, but that's not socialism either; market socialism and planned economy capitalism are both possible. (The former existed briefly during the Spanish Civil War, the later in the U.S. during WWII.) Outside their fringes, both the Democratic and Republican parties are firmly capitalist.

So can we stop using "socialist" as a McCarthyist scare word already?

Re:Stupid

[caseydk]

at a time when the Democrats should be consolidating their power and trying to show some unity.

Hmmm... that's what I want my government to do "consolidate their power".

Just remember that for every power a Democrat (or Republican) consolidates now, in a few years, a Republican (or Democrat) is going to use it against you. Whenever you grant new powers to "your side", you must understand that "the other side" will use them in similar or worse ways in no time at all. The only solution is to strip them of power.

Re:Stupid

[Cat_Byte]

The right-wing stations have been ranting about this for over a week now and I'm really glad it was defeated. Even talk radio was being targetted with this. Personally, I'm not going to read over every line of every bill. I depend on things like that to inform me of someone trying to slip something like this in. So for all of the left or right wingers with blinders on:
right wing - wants to listen to what you are saying (privacy)
left wing - wants you to keep quiet or pay $10K (free speech)

Personally, I prefer to keep hearing what's going on without hearing it from a paid/biased lobbyist and just not do anything stupid to end up on a terrorist watch list for the privacy thing. With the latter, you're screwed on both counts since you wouldn't hear about the next privacy bill.

Re:Stupid

[trianglman]

Unfortunately in listening to these right wing stations you didn't hear the truth. The provision was not an attempt to keep people from talking without paying fines. It was an attempt to make bloggers disclose when they are being paid to write posts favoring a political view. This had nothing to do with trying to censor free speach. This had everything to do with letting me know whether what I am reading is an honest perspective or paid invectives. Talk radio should be under this provision as well. News media outlets already are. Making bloggers, etc. report that the DNC or RNC paid $5 million for me to say good things about them helps the populace by adding transparency to government.

Re:Stupid

[Ucklak]

It's on the Goddamn internets for cripes sake.
If you belive that Bill Gates said that 640k ought to be enough for anybody, then you need to turn in your internet usage license.

Enforcing the registration of every little political blogger is impossible and is equivalent to censorship if it came to be enforced - (READ: throw more of our tax money at it).

Talk radio is opinion or entertainment - not factual unless it is a NEWS program where there is no room for opinions (except for PBS and their colorful adjectives).

Most savvy users would be able to smell the stink of paid political ads especially if it's from a consistent site.
Opinions from a site that lean one way will attract the choir and detractors will automatically spew negatives about it.

This isn't your old time newspaper where one size has to fit all.

Re:Stupid

[MrNaz]

Just FYI, capitalism and socialism are not really comparable. Capitalism and communism are. Capitalism's ideological father is liberalism, the idea that the individual is the supreme unit of society and the freedom of the individual is the focus of social order. Socialism is the idea that the good of the society as a whole is the focus of the social order.

Capitalism is liberalism's economic facet, communism is socialism's economic facet. Both liberalism and socialism have political facets as well, and this issue, the issue of the ordering of political activity, are treated very differently under liberal and social models. So this issue is *very* relevant to the socialism/liberalism dichotomy, as long as you use the correct terminology.

Re:Stupid

[trianglman]

There are many things wrong with this

1. This provision would not have, by any stretch of the wording, forced the registration of 'every little politcal blogger'. Drop the straw man routine, its not becomming. This provision would have required bloggers who are paid for their posts (not for advertisements in the sidebars, their actual posts. Newspaper and other media outlets have to say when a news article is paid for, do bloggers really want to be treated like other media or not?
2. Talk radio is opinion or entertainment - not factual... I agree, but tell that to the hundreds of thousands who listen to every word that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth as gospel truth and see how far it gets you; not to mention the "All Spin Zone" and other related bs.
3. Most people aren't savvy information consumers. They get their news from one source and accept it as, if not truth, not a lie.
4. Sites that lean one way more than another will often draw readers who lean that way and don't care about the other side and what they have to say. I don't know that telling those readers that they are reading an ad will do much, but at least the information will be put right in front of them
5. I agree, this isn't your old time newspaper, this is the internet where information is coming at you from all sides. I believe you should be given information on where this stuff is coming from.

I apologize that my examples are mostly of right wing programs, but those are the ones you hear about more and make very clear examples.

Re:Stupid

[sumdumass]

Ironicly, Most conservatives I have spoke with believe the republicans were acting too mch like democrates and thats why they either stayed home last election or only voted for what they really cared for.

The comparison from both sides probably means we have hopes and expectations that will never be lived up to by either side. And It probably also means that we are expecting them to be something they are not (even if they made the claim to get elected).

Look around and I would almost be that there things like this that normal people from both leanings of the political spectrom would suggest expecting it from one side and not the other but reversing the sides as they say it. The good news is that there is some common ground to look for in the expectations of our politicians. The bad news is nobody in power will ever find it.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it bears repeating that the 1st Amendment is not a blank check to perpetrate fraud. Misrepresenting the fact that you are a political gun for hire (even if the views are in line with your own) is fraud. I might agree that it would be difficult to police, but the standards were pretty extreme. I wonder how many bloggers really make $100,000 a year anyways.

Re:Warning:This post shouldn't be taken too seriou

[sigzero]

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.

You made me look 'tendentious' up.

[Ranger]

it should say "previously misreported by Slashdot."

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."

Just some observations on Reality...

[sheldon]

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.

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[DurendalMac]

Really? I know a lot of conservative bloggers who would love to get ahold of this mysterious funding source to pay their server bills. I'm sure a few major blogs get some dough under the table, but I don't doubt the same happens with prominent liberal blogs as well. Your accusations are nothing short of paranoid.

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You declare conservative blogs work on a communisitc economic model but clearly stated "Conservative sites are largely funded by Mellon-Scaife, Koch and other sugar daddies". Whether your uncited allegation is true/false/somewhere-in-between, your logic is faulty to equate non-government people/businesses with communism! [shakes head in confusion]

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[ArcherB]

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.

So I guess George Soros is an advertisor?

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[MadAhab]

Actually you are wrong. Of course there are hundreds of regular conservative bloggers who aren't part of the money train, but the fact is that many prominent conservative blogs are funded from some part of the Republican money machine - not the RNC, of course, but via wealthy donors.

Remember Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert?

I've never heard of a single liberal blog that gets funded this way. Most liberal bloggers are pretty frank about how they pay their bills as well. Very, very few afford their creators enough dough to make a living off their blogs, but many manage to at least pay their server bills and maybe provide pocket change.

I know some people will cite Soros and MoveOn - but MoveOn is not a blog, it's a PAC. There are a lot more super-wealthy conservatives who have funded conservative causes for decades, e.g. the Coors. There are more of them than you can imagine. Wealthy liberals are more likely to fund new hospital wings or cancer research or schools in India or something.

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[sheldon]

So it's ok if Republicans do it... just not Democrats?

Interesting.

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[sheldon]

Have them talk to Michelle Malkin. Or newsmax.com, wingnutdaily, techcentralstation, human events online... there's a whole list of them all funded through this network.

I realize the dirty truth behind the Republican curtain looks grim, but don't take it out on me.

Re:Just some observations on Reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who Fricking cares how its funded? People still watch/listen/read it.

So you are saying they are mind-programming all those dumb plebes who don't have your brains huh?

Maybe its the same reason leftist-socialist talk radio TANKS each time its tried: Anyone with a room temperature IQ can poke holes in the Mother-Hen Federal government ideology.

Obligatory Office Space joke

[Anonymous Coward]

...And I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo...

mod & post at same time

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't mod and post in the same thread, all your mods just got nullified.

Control... marihuana

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Members, employees, etc.

[mdsolar]

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.

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-am 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.

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.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[smellsofbikes]

>My Electric Coop keeps me informed...

MAN did I misread that. First I imagined that you were keeping chickens in an electrified cage, and then I thought maybe you meant that it was a normal chicken house that was wired so that it would email you if the chickens did something and THEN I finally managed to parse it correctly. Isonyms are weird.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[OmnipotentEntity]

I misread that too, I thought he said Coup, and I was getting my guns cleaned and ready for the final struggle against tyranny.

Then I woke up a bit more.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[mdsolar]

Maybe I should write co-op. My folks when to school in Berkeley so I read it without the hyphen. I Cambridge, they say it the way you read it.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[smellsofbikes]

English is growing and changing, and I think Coop is fine, and probably joins the list of words that changes pronunciation when capitalized. (Which would make it the only non-proper-name one I know of.)
'Coax' often gets me, too. Words like minute and console I parse without thinking about it, but lower-case coop and coax take me longer, particularly when it gives rise to such great images as these little neurotic chickens cowering in the center of a shed, with eerily glowing walls (for dramatic effect.)

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[soren100]

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.

The bill is much more specific than that. The reason that you would not come under the scope of this bill is that you are probably not being paid more than $25,000 per quarter to do your "blogging".

This bill only applies to those shills who are paid more than $100,000 per year to influence opinions through their writing, so even if your announcement goes to a million people you wouldn't be affected. You said that you are not an employee, so even if you are earning more than that per year, you still aren't being paid to do your "blogging", but you are earning your own money through your own selling efforts.

There are many others who are very unethical and are being paid huge amounts of money to influence public opinion without disclosing who their backers are -- this is wrong and this is what the bill would have helped bring out into the open.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[mdsolar]

It is true that there is a lot of FUD. I submitted a story on the Union of Concerned Scinetists report on ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign on global warming. You can see it here http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/journal/160250. But, boy, this sure looks like it could be abused. I wonder if this is a catagory problem. Should disclosure be required through lobbying laws or by some other means, say through SEC filings?

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[mdsolar]

Not sure this made it through: I was thinking you might like the movie "Chicken Run." It's a kids film but it does have cowering chickens an neat claymation like "Wallace and Gromit."

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[smellsofbikes]

I *love* the stuff that guy does. "Wrong Trousers" is one of my all-time favorite films, and some of his short stuff, particularly the one with the zoo, also ranks up there.

By the way, I liked your posts over on the solar house discussion.

Re:Members, employees, etc.

[mdsolar]

Thanks, at our house, my son is the big fan. He likes the trip to the moon. Cracker Grommit, we forgot the crackers...

I'm pretty excited about being able to convert to renewables so quickly and easily. It sure beats arguing about global warming. Just do it and save some money too....

Nonesense

[MarkusQ]

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".

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

Re:Nonesense

[fishbowl]

"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. "

Part of free speech means that it's not illegal to lie, and not illegal to keep such agreements and associations private.

Re:Nonesense

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Part of free speech means that it's not illegal to lie, and not illegal to keep such agreements and associations private.

You are free to believe that and, ironically, to say it... but it doesn't comform with either the law or generally accepted definitions. Libel is not protected; nor is slander; nor is fraud.

I understand why this instinctively triggers people's Spider Senses, and I can certainly see why people on the right distrust the people who put this in motion. But the fact of the matter is, I am a pretty die-hard free-speecher but I don't see any intrinsic problem with requiring disclosure. I haven't read this bill in detail so I accept for the sake of argument that it might have issues. But it isn't entirely crazy, the idea that you wouldn't be allowed to call yourself "Small Business Owners for Insurance Reform" when all your money comes from the largest insurer in the country, you work for said insurer, and the blog was written on company time at company direction being hosted on company machines.

Re:Nonesense

[fishbowl]

There are already laws that cover conflicts of interest and fraud. Enforce those.

Re:Nonesense

[Kohath]

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.

That's not "fraud" by definition. You just don't like it.

Also, what is the definition of "undue" in this context? Does it mean "against my personal interests"?

What is an acceptable "impression"? One that benefits you?

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.

What does "paid" mean? If someone is employed by the ACLU and defends free speech on his blog, does he have to register as a lobbyist or face fines and jail time?

Free speech is about not having to satisfy "the enforcers" that your speech meets their approval. So your argument that some speech doesn't meet your approval is either irrelevant or simply anti-free-speech.

It seems pretty clear from your comment that you want to call some free speech "fraud" (even though no victims are actually being defrauded) or "astroturfing" in order to silence it.

Re:Nonesense

[MarkusQ]

Read the bill.

Nothing in this bill says anything about prohibiting anyone from saying or writing anything they want.

It is not, in any way shape or form, a free speech issue

The bill only applies to people taking money for providing a specific service and does not, in any way, prohibit them from doing so; it only requires that they register the fact that they are engaged in that activity.

What does "paid" mean? If someone is employed by the ACLU and defends free speech on his blog, does he have to register as a lobbyist or face fines and jail time?

No. The bill explicitly excludes members and employees of organizations who are writing on behalf of the organization. As you would have seen if you'd bothered to read it.

It seems pretty clear from your comment that you want to call some free speech "fraud" (even though no victims are actually being defrauded) or "astroturfing" in order to silence it.

Where in the heck are you getting this? Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech? And (more to the point) is it safe to assume that you have no rational argument to offer, and thus are just making things up as a last resort?

--MarkusQ

Re:Nonesense

[Kohath]

Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech?

The bill effectively creates "blog cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in speech. If you don't register, and you have been paid, then you're silenced (fined, arrested, intimidated, harrassed, etc.) by the blog cops. Period.

Re:Nonesense

[Teancum]

The legal requirement to register means that you have to have a license to perform that activity. And once you segregate those who have a license from those who don't, it means that you can then add subsequent restrictions just to keep that license, such as an ever increasing licensing fee, or meeting "public good" restrictions to keep that license.

There is a long and sad history that once a license is created for anything (for example, driving automobiles), that it tends to get abused to the point of absurdity after awhile. I mean, what does paying child support have to do with the operation of automobiles? Or voter registration for that matter?

That any restrictions are here at all is clearly a violation of the U.S. Consitution. Of course, who reads that document anymore, especially in the U.S. Senate?

Re:Nonesense

[MarkusQ]

While I would agree that the Senate (and the House, and even more importantly the Executive Branch) would do well to read the Constitution and try to follow it, I fail to see how that connects to the rest of your post, nor how the body of your post relates to the issue at hand.

There is no mention of any sort of licensing in the bill, and thus no requirements at all, no fees, nor any of the other things you seem to be worried about. The only thing the bill requires is public discloser of a certain type of financial arrangement in circumstances where failure to disclose the arrangement would tend to mislead the public. While most people don't find the idea of such disclosure objectionable, it seems to frighten some people a great deal.

--MarkusQ

Re:Nonesense

[Teancum]

Since this portion of the bill has been stripped out of the final "ethics" bill, it is at this point irrelevant. But the provision to even require "registration" is one of the first steps toward any sort of regulation, and the suggestion that at the moment there are no fees or anything else to worry about is unfortunately repeated many times throughout modern American history. Once established, fees and formal licensing requirements often follow, later if not right away.

Once you put somebody on a list, that list can be used, and the point here is that it would be illegal for you to engage in political commentary without getting onto that list in the first place. Particularly if you were advocating a particular poliitcal party, candidate, or political issue.

This is really an attack on the "Swift Boat Vets", and trying to write legislation to keep groups like that from attacking an incumbant congressman. As if logevity in Congress is necessarily a problem at the moment.

The point I was trying to make about having senators actually read the U.S. Constitution is that they need to read the part of the 1st Ammendment that says "Congress shall make no law". I think that applies directly here in this case, nor can I possibly see how it fits the sort of regulated speech that the SCOTUS has laid down in terms of abusive speech that can cause public harm, such as the classic yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room.

Saying that Nancy Polosi needs to be kicked out of office in the '08 elections and advocating that position on a blog, or even paying for a two minute Super Bowl ad advocating that position should not be regulated in any way, shape, or form. There should never be any "registration" for this sort of political speech, and you shouldn't have to fill out a political equivalent of a 1040 form either if you engage in that sort of political activity. Nor should advocacy of the impeachment of George W. Bush for that matter. That is political speech and the whole purpose of the 1st Ammendment provisions of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

That's not all they've done.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:That's not all they've done.

[blankFrank]

sorry, dude(?) but corporations have been afforded personhood due to rulings on the 14th ammendment

Sue Them!

[sycodon]

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.

Because Slashdotters didn't understand what the

[Cadallin]

provision did. It wouldn't have required all bloggers (or even all political bloggers) to register. It would have required Corporate shills to register. It was intended by Democrats to defeat another way the republicans could control the media, by forcing transparency. It was quite a good idea actually. I guarantee you the Democrats who voted against it are the standard Corporate whores who are Democrats in Name Only. People like Hillary Clinton (who is actually very conservative and pro-business, She's a member of the DLC), Joe Leiberman (frequently sides with Republicans, founding DLC member), and many Southern "Democrats."

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.

Re:Because Slashdotters didn't understand what the

[Loco Moped]

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).

The library called - it wants that 1950's political science book you borrowed back.

slashdot red herring.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Follow the money

[trianglman]

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.

Read the bill

[motorsabbath]

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.

Then why is the ACLU against it?

[Zopilote]

This is not about getting rid of "astroturfing," but about letting the politicians do what they like without being held accountable by the citizenry.

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:

"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."

The controversial requirement lies in Section 220 of the massive bill, which supporters of the legislation say is intended to curb the practice of lobbyists setting up "astroturf" groups. But in a conference call on Thursday, a broad range of groups including the ACLU, the Free Speech Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition and National Right To Life said it would hurt their own groups' abilities to influence Congress and place unreasonable restrictions on Internet politicking.

crazy politicians

[Intangion]

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?

Ethical=Making it harder to criticize politicians?

[Zopilote]

The actual grass-roots bloggers (and whatever their criticism of whoever they wanted to criticize) were never in jeopardy. But the Republicans and some Democrats made sure that astroturfers aren't in jeopardy either. Most of the Democrats were on the ethical side on this one. Sadly, they couldn't get a majority today.

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.

Remember This!

[Nom du Keyboard]

all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats.

Remember this the next time you step into the voting booth!

Re:Remember This!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will remember that. I will remember those 43 democrats who voted to keep lobbyists from hiding behind blogs, and voted to make their actions a matter of open public record. I'll also remember the 7 democrats who voted to allow lobbyists to hide and gave them a new venue to do their dirty work unimpeded.

Re:Remember This!

[pingveno]

43 Democrats took the time to actually read the provision and think about the ramifications while ignoring people who had been tricked by lobbyist bloggers. 7 Democrats and all of the Republicans either didn't read the provision or bent to pressure from ignorant fools.

Yes, I'll remember that when marking that in the voting booth.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Lost It

[Nom du Keyboard]

I modded you funny then realized it was Alderan. Dammit. That was my last mod point.

That's okay. You lost that mod the moment you posted to this topic anyway.

spoken by a true lib

[p51d007]

I have two nephews, both in their 20's. For YEARS they would spout the liberal line that Republicans are the source of evil.....that was UNTIL they got out in the REAL WORLD and got a job. Now, both are more conservative than me sometimes! I love how libs think there is a finite amount of money and that if you give money to "one group" then the "other group" has to have money taken away, which is a load a crap! It is NOT a zero sum game! The REASON that the "rich" as you call it, receive a bigger tax break is because, as a percentage of income, THEY PAY THE MOST IN TAXES. But, I don't expect the bulk of kids today to understand economics 101. They quit teaching that years ago and started to teach socialism/communism. Instead of the greatness coming from the people, socialist think that all power comes from the state, which, is false! Get out of your parents basement, get a job, pay taxes and THEN perhaps you will have a clue on how things work.

Re:spoken by a true lib

[coleridge78]

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.

Re:spoken by a true lib

[letxa2000]

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.

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.

Re:spoken by a true lib

[coleridge78]

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.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[Nom du Keyboard]

How exactly did this bill affect free speech?

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?

Make up your mind

[MarkusQ]

fishbowl writes:

Part of free speech means that it's not illegal to lie, and not illegal to keep such agreements and associations private.

and also:

There are already laws that cover conflicts of interest and fraud. Enforce those.

Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

--MarkusQ

Maybe not today...

[Petersko]

"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!

Fascist democrats

[Retired Replicant]

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.

Re:Fascist democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I love seeing the ridiculous vitriol come out, when the article itself was a fraudulent representation of the bill. This had nothing to do with fascism, this was about requiring people who were being paid $25,000 or more per quarter to write political blogs to haeve to register and be regulated. In other words, this lie of a political article was to cover up a bill that would stop paid lobbyists from lying. Apparently all the Republicans prefer lying.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Lost It

[Broken scope]

I know. That why I posted.... it wasn't funny anymore.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[misanthrope101]

a well-funded adversary ...

But from what I read, this bill wouldn't have applied to just anyone, but only people paid $100,000 a year by a politically-oriented organization. This wouldn't be a David-vs-Goliath situation, but the employee of Goliath vs. the lawyer of another Goliath. There is way too much money being thrown around to sway the public on political matters, and much of the propaganda is masquerading as grassroots indignation. As a citizen, I'd like that astroturfing labeled as such, and if this bill is conducive to that, I'm all for it. I don't want the Swiftboaters of the world silenced, but I do want them identified as a politically-motivated organization financially backed by another organization dedicated to the election of a particular candidate. Revealing who pays the bills for the latest manufactured "scandal" may make politics a little less ugly for us.

anything can be misinterpreted; not valid argument

[sethawoolley]

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.

Re: Democrats v Ted Stevens

[freedomseven]

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.

Not "reach 500 people"

[DragonWriter]

It says you must reach 500 people

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.

AND make $100,000

$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.

Re:Not "reach 500 people"

[ZachPruckowski]

You are correct on both counts. I assumed year-round employment (which is probably more reasonable than you think) because I figured that there is a lot of off-year lobbying on Capital Hill, and because I figured blogging is based on reputation, so bloggers won't start a blog for the 3-6 months before an election and go from there, they'll build off a working blog (and get paid to maintain it). Insofar as "reach" versus "attempt to influence", I figure that you're trying to influence most of the people who read your site. If not, well that only strengthens my argument, so I ignored it.

Re:Not "reach 500 people"

[DragonWriter]

assumed year-round employment (which is probably more reasonable than you think) because I figured that there is a lot of off-year lobbying on Capital Hill

What the bill calls "Grassroots lobbying" has only marginal connection to "lobbying on Capitol Hill". It has to do with people putting out messages to "call your Congressman about...", which is sometimes genuine issue advocacy and, when it is, would follow the legislative calendar as it focuses on important decision points, but also very often used as a subtle (or not so subtle) campaign tactic to influence opinion on a particular issue that is related to a current campaign. Neither campaigns nor key points in the legislative calendar are really evenly distributed throughout the year, even though Congress is in session most of the year.

Re:Not "reach 500 people"

[ZachPruckowski]

Neither campaigns nor key points in the legislative calendar are really evenly distributed throughout the year, even though Congress is in session most of the year.

Correct. I never meant to imply it as a real even distribution, just that there's a way to justify drawing money every quarter. And blogs still need to be maintained during quiet-times too. A person could employ themselves year-round doing this if they so desired, and if their group was willing to pay for it. Additionally, they may have multiple clients.

Speech

[Teancum]

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.

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.

Ever "murdered" a corporation?

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Ethical=Making it harder to criticize politicia

[rossifer]

Sorry, how were the actual grass-roots bloggers not going to be affected by this?

Um. Not one grass-roots blogger is paid $100k/year for their blog. So they aren't affected by the legislation.

And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.

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.

Furthermore, what is ethical about placing bureaucratic red tape around free speech?

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

Re:Ethical=Making it harder to criticize politicia

[Zopilote]

And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.

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's one definition of astroturfing, but I'm sure that politicians may have another definition. Like, "any irritating deluge of calls from those pesky citizens" (who may really be concerned citizens being urged by an interest group that shares their interests to contact politicians on something they really, genuinely care about).

Be careful, because who is going to be applying the standard? It may seem clear to you, but laws often get applied far differently than their writers intended.

It's quite telling that groups across the spectrum, from the ACLU to various family advocacy groups, were against this portion of the bill. It quite literally puts a greater burden on organizations that want to keep the public educated about what their elected representatives may be doing.

Link please?

[MarkusQ]

The bill effectively creates "blog cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in speech. If you don't register, and you have been paid, then you're silenced (fined, arrested, intimidated, harrassed, etc.) by the blog cops. Period.

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:

The murder laws effectively creates "skateboard cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in skateboarding. If you wear shoes, and you have been killed someone, then your skateboard will be taken away by the skateboard cops. Period.

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

Re:Link please?

[Kohath]

Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue.

When speech is the service, that's a false distinction. And that's what the blog provisions of this bill attempt to restrict. Restricting the "service" of speech restricts speech.

I don't believe it's OK to restrict political speech. You apparently do. Only you're calling it "fraud", and "a service" and "astroturfing" and whatever else you can come up with to muddy the waters and provide cover for restricting political speech.

Re:Link please?

[MarkusQ]

When speech is the service, that's a false distinction. And that's what the blog provisions of this bill attempt to restrict. Restricting the "service" of speech restricts speech.

Nuts. A false distinction? The distinction is a clear and salient one, which runs all through our culture. I'm allowed to have sex, but not to charge money for it. I can have all the kids I want, but if I try to sell them to someone I'll get in big trouble. I can invite friends over for dinner without so much as a fare-thee-well, but if I want to open a restaurant I'd darned better get a business license first, and be prepared for a visit from the health inspectors. And on, and on...

In fact, I'll go so far as to speculate that there are very few (if any) things where the rules do not change at least slightly depending on whether or not money changes hands. Can you think of, say, three or more? 'cause off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

I don't believe it's OK to restrict political speech. You apparently do. Only you're calling it "fraud", and "a service" and "astroturfing" and whatever else you can come up with to muddy the waters and provide cover for restricting political speech.

News flash: repeating something doesn't make it true. You keep saying that I want to restrict political speech, and (after repeated requests) have yet to point to a single instance where I said any such thing. And as for "muddying the waters," please note that I'm the one who has consistently cited and linked to the bill in question, while you simply toss straw men around like a tornado in a scarecrow factory.

--MarkusQ

Re:Link please?

[Kohath]

There's no First Amendment for sex or having kids or dinner or opening a restaurant or riding a skateboard or committing murder or any of the other things you keep bringing up to evade the free speech issue.

Re:Link please?

[MarkusQ]

There's no First Amendment for sex or having kids or dinner or opening a restaurant or riding a skateboard or committing murder or any of the other things you keep bringing up to evade the free speech issue.

Correct. They are adequately covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

But if you read back through the posts, you will see that:

1. The question of which amendment covers which rights doesn't effect the point I was making in the slightest
2. There is no free speech issue involved in the bill in question.

As I pointed out previously, it has nothing to do with any First Amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:

1. Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does not do so: no need to register
2. Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does so anyway: no need to register
3. Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does so: must register
4. Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does not do so (defrauds client): must register anyway

This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.

--MarkusQ

misinformation is rampant here

[moerty]

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.

Re:misinformation is rampant here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

...as opposed to the democrats, who are not intelligent enough to use tools, and who believe anything another democrat says without question. (Please pardon my counter-generalization.)

Asshats like you make it so easy to not want to be associated with the democratic party. Why don't you suspend your posting until you can actually provide some quality insights or logical arguments for the readers, and not the same tired liberal "lecturing" bullshit?

Sheeple....Pfft. You sound just like one.

Lobbyist use whatever tools work the best.

[vinn01]

... and the tools that work the best are hookers and booze.

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.

There was me thinkin'

[dueyfinster]

Good oul Bill had finally copped on that those Acer Farrari's can't be you love....

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[jdavidb]

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.

How is this insightful??

[Eric Damron]

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.

Serious Discussion Attempt.....

[IHC Navistar]

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

Re:Serious Discussion Attempt.....

[LukeCage]

An erudite response, my friend, but sadly derived from a mistaken premise. It was NOT bloggers who were targetted by this but rather lobbyists PRETENDING to be bloggers; these would be retained political shills pretending to be a man (or woman) of the people while collecting a check for pushing the agenda of their corporate masters. So please read some of the other responses that spell this out explicitly, as well as an article at http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_r egistr.html.

THis is more democrat than you realize

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Ethical=Making it harder to criticize politicia

[rossifer]

That's one definition of astroturfing, but I'm sure that politicians may have another definition.

For a pejorative term, I'm not expecting the insulted to agree with the definition. The objection of the astroturfer doesn't serve to dispute the definition, IMNSHO. The original request for "everyone's" agreement, when taken literally, is not a necessary or even desirable condition for discourse.

Be careful, because who is going to be applying the standard? It may seem clear to you, but laws often get applied far differently than their writers intended.

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.

It's quite telling that groups across the spectrum, from the ACLU to various family advocacy groups

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

I must be missing something

[orgelspieler]

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.

To All Of You Who Think Everyone is Paid...

[BigAssRat]

...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.

The new Democrats are not conservative!!!!!

[vegmotorcycle]

Republicans are always repeating this lie. Here's a link to the truth. http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200007

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.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[coleridge78]

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).

Another indication that both parties are dumb.

[rdean400]

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.

Why not fix crucial omission?

[vineman]

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.

Dems and Second

[antizeus]

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.)

Socialism

[Mark_MF-WN]

I wouldn't agree with that. Socialism, at least in the modern parlance, is concerned with the good of the individual. That is, providing mechanisms to protect and support individuals. IE: the welfare state (which America is already an example of, albeit a shoddy one). The classical definition is no longer very relevant. It's comparable to the way in which communism, which originally referred to a system of economics and politics in which wealth and political power were both completely decentralized (anarcho-syndicalism is probably the closest analog to classical communism these days). Now it refers to a totalitarian system of state ownership, which is completely the opposite of what Marx envisioned.

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.

Re:Socialism

[MrNaz]

Buddy, disagree all you like, I was not stating my opinion, but fact. Socialism, by difinion, is "belief in society". Just look at the word: Social + ism.

America is not a welfare state. Having a welfare office does not make a state a welfare state any more than Hong Kong makes China a capitalist state.

Communism does not refer to a totalitarian system of state ownership. That is just what happened when leaders who professed to be communists took charge. In case you haven't noticed, leaders' real agendas != their stated political beliefs. Communism, as in "commun" + "ism" is a system of political, economic and social order defined by Marx in his manifesto, anything that deviates from this is, by definition, something else, a derivative work so to speak. One of the few bonna fide attempts at implementing communism that I can think of off the top of my head was that by President Allende in Chile, who made an amazing attempt at direct economic management using technology decades ahead of its time. If anyone else can think of another example then feel free to chime in.

The word "conservative" is a relative word, it refers to a position less agressive or unorthodox than another. Thus, it's meaning does change with context. Words like "communism", "socialism" and "capitalism" do not, as they are nouns that refer to specific ideological concepts. The word "conservative" is a comparative adjective, which only has a meaning when used in a comparative context. E.g., "Fred's ideas are more conservative than Bob's" makes sense while "Fred's ideas are conservative." does not. It's like "Fred is fatter than Bob" makes sense, while "Fred is fatter." does not outside of a specific implied context.

It really pisses me off when the US media uses the word "conservative" as though it refers to some political system or ideology. At best, the word "neocon" can be used as a vernacular noun, but it's use to refer to fundamentalist militant capitalism is not really, in my mind, correct usage. I prefer the term "fundamentalist militant capitalism", as that really is what it is; a marriage between the highest echelons of the capitalist system and the military to employ force in securing business advantages for corporations in countries too weak to resist. It is the militant spread of capitalist organisations into countries that may or may not embrace capitalist values. This was nicely illustrated when Allende won the presidential elections in Chile in 1970 on a Marxist platform, and the then US Secretary of State said, upon launching a debilitating campaign of economic and political disruption, that they "would not stand by and let a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its people". I.e., "screw what they want, we are in a better position to know what's good for them". Fundamentalist militant capitalism. If there are fundamentalists spreading their doctrine by force in this world it is not Muslims, it is the US government. Further examples: Bechtel in WWII, Unocal in Afghanistan and Halliburton in Iraq.

So yea, I digressed a fair bit, but the words Communism, Capitalism, Socialism and Liberalism are proper nouns referring to specific things, so their meanings do not change with time. Derivative systems will call themselves something different. Conservative is a comparative adjective, so its meaning does change. Yes, real politics is in practice a practical application of ideas from many areas, but that does not mean the ideas themselves change.

Sorry to tread on you like that, but when you're wrong, you're wrong :)

Re:Socialism

[Wandering Wombat]

I think I love you.

Re:Socialism

[MrNaz]

Awww *blush*

Competition in radio

[antizeus]

Does your desire for competition in open markets in radio extend to the idea that I should be able to set up nearby transmitters on the same frequencies as other broadcasters?

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.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[misanthrope101]

I'm extremely offended by the suggestion that liberty be infringed in this way.

To use a leftist example, if the govt makes a blogger who works directly for George Soros making $100,000 a year acknowledge his affiliation, rather than pretending to be a grassroots citizens group, that isn't "infringing liberty." Again, you havn't shown how anyone's speech is being limited, abridged, shut down, cut off, silenced, or anything like that. They wouldn't be made to stop blogging, just as lobbyists are not made to stop lobbying. We have too many groups shilling for a corporation (oil, timber, pharmaceuticals, etc) that are pretending to be just concerned citizens's groups. Making them acknowledge openly who their employer is isn't endangering liberty. You are pretending that this bill was doing something it wasn't doing. You may think "it's the first step to..." but it did none of the things you're worrying about. People aren't being "registred" like Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. They just making people who are being paid to blog acknowledge that they are being paid to blog. They're making paid shills register as paid shills.

Powers

[Mark_MF-WN]

What on earth are you blithering about?! The Democrats are NOT the government. Dubya and company are the government. Saying the democrats need to "consolidate power" is just saying that they need to cooperate and demonstrate that they can get legislation passed, so that people will take them seriously (which is something that they presumably want). I'm not even suggesting that this would be a good thing to have happen. I'm saying that, if I were a Democrat, I'd avoid trying to push through any piece of legislation that will divide my party. It's a completely fucking stupid move, and makes the Democrats look like a bunch of idiots. Part of the reason Dubya has done so well is that he's kept his party relatively united. I'm not talking about the Democrats passing a law that says the Congress have the president ceremonially beat or anything like that, or any other kind of new power. I'm suggesting that if the Democrats have even an ounce of sense among the lot of them, they'll work together rather than letting the Republicans slap them around like a ten dollar hooker .. which is what they've been doing for the last six years.

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...

mod funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Not doing this undermines Slashdot's credibility.

Re: Democrats v Ted Stevens

[sumdumass]

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.

Necessary and sufficient conditions

[antizeus]

It seems that a lot of people here have really awful critical thinking skills, or at least pretend to. The bill exempts those who attempt to influence less than 500 members of the general public. This means that the readership of 500 is a necessary condition for registration.

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.

Rights

[Mark_MF-WN]

I promise I'll shutup about abortion if I can carry a gun and smoke in a bar.

Best deal ever! I love all three *. Hey, what will you trade for letting me smoke pot and see explicit sexual activity on broadcast television? Can you offer any good deals on prostitution? What about getting rid of copyright and other market-interventionist bullshit? I'll give you complete deregulation of firecrackers and fireworks as a bonus for any of 'em. ;)

* (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?)

Target

[Mark_MF-WN]

The target was actually, in this case, astroturfing. The republicans have already demonstrated their complete willingness to be duped by astroturf, so it's not surprising that the democrats would move against it.

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

[Mark_MF-WN]

That's the best idea I've heard all day!

Lobbyists are pretty much the bane of democracy. That alone is reason enough to lock them in the stocks and have them soundly caned.

Point

[Mark_MF-WN]

Way to miss the point. The majority of people that criticize them? Are you actually suggesting that the majority of (50%+1) of the bloggers that criticize the democrats are only doing so because they are being paid more than $25,000 a year to do so? There are only a handful of bloggers in all of the united states that are paid to blog. No more than a few hundred are paid more than $25,000 to do so. And only a fraction of them criticize the democrats, leaving probably no more than 10. And according to you, that miniscule number of bloggers constitutes at least 50% of all bloggers that criticise the democrats. Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of thousands of blogs criticising the Republicans. So, according to your retarded didn't-read-the-article logic, bloggers that criticise the republicans outnumber bloggers that criticise the democrats by a factor in at least the tens of thousands.

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.

Second

[Mark_MF-WN]

Yeah? Name one time the second amendment has actually protected the first.

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.

Even Under Scrutiny and Critique

[flyneye]

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.

Re:Even Under Scrutiny and Critique

[/dev/trash]

Amen!

Re:Even Under Scrutiny and Critique

[dragonturtle69]

Dude! I could not agree more.

Wouldn't it be great if people would RFTB?

[epee1221]

Since you don't seem to have read it either...
From Section 220:

`(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.'.

That enough for you?

damn flip floppers!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Dumb, dumber and dumbest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 ./ers understand.

"Country Club" Republicans screaming censorship?

[sethstorm]

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".

Money = free speech

[unassimilatible]

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.

Welcome to the left's idea of free speech

[unassimilatible]

All of you who thought the Democrats were going to save YROs, think again. First this, then the resurrection of "fairness doctrine," demanding that liberals get equal time with Rush Limbaugh, since Air America couldn't survive in the marketplace of ideas. Boy, them Dems really love free speech!

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!

Neo-con

[tepples]

yet you throw around "neo-GOP" like we're a bunch of Neo-Nazis.

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.

One dollar one vote

[tepples]

silencing them via government intervention seems pretty unAmerican

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.

YAY! barely

[samantha]

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.

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sadly

[Mark_MF-WN]

Sadly, in any discussion whatsoever, the guy who takes the position involving the immutability of the definitions of words is wrong. Inherently wrong. Language evolves -- deal with it. Many words mean radically different things than they used to. Like it or not, communism is -- for all intents and purpose -- the thing that the communist party of the USSR did and which the communist party of China does. Socialism is -- for all real-world purposes -- the thing that socialist parties are endorsing. And a welfare state is a state in which there is a strong welfare system, and in which most people work -- ultimately -- for the government. And most Americans do work for the government either directly (the army, the civil service, and the gargantuan beauracracy) or indirectly (every single person working for a company that does government or military contracting of any kind whatsoever). The fact that Americans try to ignore this and bray about how wonderfully capitalist they are is one of the many reasons that we can all have a good laugh at the expense of American intlligence.

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.

Re:Sadly

[MrNaz]

A descent into "language changes over time" is really a last resort appeal to semantic flexibility to change the borders of correctness so that they encompass your position. I'm sorry, certain words refer to fixed concepts. Language syntax may be fluid, but underlying concepts are not. A spade is a spade and it will be in 200 years. New technology that automates the digging process is called something else. The whole "language isn't fixed" argument isn't a one-size-fits-all counter point to anyone who points out that you have misunderstood the meaning of a word or concept.

Oh, and words like immutable don't make you sound smarter by default.

Spade

[Mark_MF-WN]

So what is a "spade"? Sorry, but you really are deeply, deeply incorrect about this. Is a spade a type of sword? A small flat shovel? Any type of shovel whatsoever? The act of using a shovel? A derogatory term for a black person? A component of large guns? A playing card suit? A card game? A term used to denote great amounts? A completely abstract item that is named as itself in a particular idiom? Even the very word that you chose to use has multiple meanings that have come and gone over the years. It truly is better to live in the real world, where words simply are not immutable (there's that word again! Try not to pop a vein just because I don't restrict myself to a 500 word vocabulary). Take some linguistics classes, or even a philosophy class (if you're masochistic enough to subject yourself to that horrible environment). One of the first things they get into is the importance of accepting that language is a dynamic and fluid thing. For Historians this is doubly true, if their work is to make even the slightest bit of sense.

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.

Re:Spade

[MrNaz]

Look OK, Communism is defined in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Capitalism is the economic face of Liberalism, as described in the works of people like Adam Smith. While I acknowledge that in 2,000 years when the work of these people is long forgotten and their ideas have been lost, these words may come to mean different things. Feel free to say "I told you so" when we are having this discussion in 2,000 years. Until then, however, these concepts are clearly defined and their meanings are not some fluid shapeless mass with no fixed meaning. They are clearly defined. Philosophy and politics were a big part of my legal degree. Now STFU because I'm getting embarrassed on your behalf.

Re:Spade

[Mark_MF-WN]

Lots of things were defined one way or another at some point by someone. That means exactly ZERO in the real world. In a specialized domain with a clearly laid-out and normalized jargon, sure -- you can resort to underlying definitions. Mathematics and law are examples of this. But outside of those specialized domains, where the vernacular is, definitions mean absolutely nothing. All that matters is what people use the words in question to refer to.

Let's be honest now -- outside of a political science classroom, how often do you hear the word "communism" used to refer to Marx's ideas, and how often do you hear the word "communism" used to refer to the system of politics and economics in North Korea, Cuba, China, or the USSR? You know exactly which is the common usage -- the usage that is meaningful in the language that we speak. You know which usage people will assume you are using in casual conversation. Similarly, capitalism -- in the vernacular -- has nothing to do with Adam Smith and everything to do with what the guy at the service station will use as an excuse when you bitch that gas prices are too high. Most people who talk about capitalism have never even HEARD of Adam Smith, and wouldn't have the slightest idea what his ideas were. They use the word to denote something rather different.

Now I remember exactly why I didn't take philosophy classes, and why "philosophy major" is synonymous with "pedantic jackass" at almost every university on Earth.

Re:Spade

[MrNaz]

Let's be honest now -- outside of a political science classroom, how often do you hear the word "communism" used to refer to Marx's ideas, and how often do you hear the word "communism" used to refer to the system of politics and economics in North Korea, Cuba, China, or the USSR? You know exactly which is the common usage -- the usage that is meaningful in the language that we speak. You know which usage people will assume you are using in casual conversation. Similarly, capitalism -- in the vernacular -- has nothing to do with Adam Smith and everything to do with what the guy at the service station will use as an excuse when you bitch that gas prices are too high. Most people who talk about capitalism have never even HEARD of Adam Smith, and wouldn't have the slightest idea what his ideas were.

That's my whole f&^%king point you lay dolt! That an idea is commonly misrepresented by lay people whose education doesn't go far past the multiplication tables does NOT make that common misrepresentation correct! Just coz enough people think that 2+2=5 does not make it so. The entire population of Earth at one point in time thought it was flat. That did not make it so. If your understanding of political science is on par with the gas station guy then what the HELL are you doing talking to me? I don't mean to high horse you but it's hard not to when you set the bar at the level of intellectual sophistication expected of the guy who pumps my gas. Just becase 99% of people have never read the works of Marx, Smith, Mill or Franklin doesn't mean their ideas no longer exist as they were conceived. They do, you just need to learn to read them rather than regurgitate the trash you hear from your local gas pump droid. If you consider philosophy majors to be pedantic jackasses then don't pontificate on the subject. You're like those idiot armchair football coaches who think they can take a team to victory in the superbowl despite the fact that their experience in the game is limited to their remote control.

Oh, and for the record, most of the time I hear "Communism" referred to it is a reference to the relevant concepts of socialist economics. Most people with even the remotest modicum of an education are aware that China, North Korea and USSR are about as close to being Communist as Care Bears are to being flesh eating reptiles with two heads.

But for the sake of finishing this I concede. You're right. Let's start burning dictionaries and textbooks and doing away with all points of linguistic reference. Who needs educated accuracy when ignorant ranting is so much fun?

P.S., Oh, and "vernacular"? It's very obvious when a person is using words for the sake of adding vocab. Words like that are incongruent with the rest of your lay shit talk. Put the dictionary down unless you plan on using it for something other than referencing big words.

P.P.S I'll have a tank of unleaded thanks.

Re:Spade

[Mark_MF-WN]

You HAVE noticed that dictionaries are regularly updated to incorporate the new meanings of words, right?

Merriam-Webster would appear to concur with me that the word "communism" can mean a "totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production". So there's no need to burn the dictionaries. Or is the Merriam-Webster dictionary not valid? Is it just a hippy tract written by a bunch of liberal wackos who have committed the heinous crime of making their dictionary relevant to real-world usage?

Incidentally, I do use these words regularly. You may not be able to reconcile a large vocabulary with not being a pedantic jackass, but I can. "Immutable" is a particularly interesting one because I picked it up in my computer science classes, where it comes up quite regularly. Funny how no one here in Canada so much as blinks when people are audacious enough to use multisyllabic words.

I particularly like the comment about having "unleaded" -- as if I should be ashamed of working while I get my degree. How does it feel to know that all your education can't buy you one single ounce of respect?

Hey, it turns out that wikipedia has several relevant articles. Enlightenment may yet be within your grasp. Of course, I'd love to see so much as a single reference contradicting me; before now, I've never even heard of anyone trying to suggest that words were eternally fixed and immutable (okay, this time I'm just using that word to annoy you... maybe I'll use the words "transient" or "declarative" and ruin your entire week! Programming terminology rocks).

Language change, in general.

Semantic change, in particular.

This is such a good illustration of the fluidity of language that it demands inclusion.

I think these make a very good case. Naturally, being a pedantic jackass, your initial response will be to cast dispersions at the validity of wikipedia, but you'll note that the article about semantic change make reference to -- among other things -- The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. So much for burning dictionaries...

Re:Spade

[MrNaz]

Please accept this in lieu of an intelligent argument: Bite me you sub-mediocre cock smoking moron!

Re:Spade

[MrNaz]

Yes, Christian right creationist. That's me! Did it occur to you that I simply can't be bothered arguing with you? You're the one with the blanket no exceptions rule that "all meaning is fluid over any length of time". I just can't be fucked discussing this any more with someone who obviously hasn't any insight into the topic over an above a lay understanding. It's like discussing the budget deficit with Uncle Joe. Sure he has an opinion like everyone else, but I wouldn't be putting him in Greenspan's shoes any time soon. Feel free to respond how you please, this is my last post in this thread so you win. I lose. You're smart. I'm dumb etc etc.

Re:Spade

[Mark_MF-WN]

Funny how my "lay" understanding EXACTLY matches the expert understanding of published linguistics scholars... while your (supposedly) expert opinion doesn't really seem to match anything whatsoever. One linguistics reference supporting your position ... just one. Is that too much for me to ask?

Re:Spade

[MrNaz]

*sigh* Fine I'll bite. One. Last. Time. Must... resist... forces... of... ignorance...

Your understanding matches nothing but some vague idea that "language changes therefore just about anything I say can be right". This was never a liguistics discussion, it was about what Communism and Capitalism are. You seem to think that they are vague ideas that are constantly changing. My position from the very start has been that whatever the commoners' understanding of the terms are, most -ism words refer to very thoroughly explored, albeit broad, ideological paradigms. These definitions may change in the future, but at this point in history their origins and intents are still clearly remembered by political and social analysts.

Example from here: "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement." Whatever you think Communism is, your idea is wrong. Communism is defined clearly in The Communist Manifesto and if you think it is something else then you are wrong by definition.

Read the whole of that Wiki article as well as the manifesto, and you will see that whatever the average person understands by the term, there is one correct understanding of it. The common person gets his understanding of communism by listening to the rhetoric spouted by American pop culture laced with residual propaganda from Mcarthy's days. This is the reason that most people misunderstand the term, it was and still is deliberately miscast by the western media to look like something sinister and dangerous when in reality it is just an opposing political viewpoint. Most people now think it is some totalitarian system when in fact it's goal is a stateless society. The very word Communist invokes images of Russian generals lurking in bluestone basements with a map of the US and a big red marker deciding which city to bomb first.

To quote from Wiki again: "The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; Marx, in fact, commented very little on what communist society would actually look like. However, the term 'Communism', especially when it is capitalized, is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes under communist parties that claimed to embody the dictatorship of the proletariat."

So you see the reference to any existing state such as China, North Korea or whatever as "Communist" is inaccurate. Assumption of the communist label is nothing but a political move by them to lead their people to believe they are acting in their interests. At best, and being incredibly generous, they could be referred to as the intermediate prolitarian revolutionary governments, but that's so much of a stretch that Marx would turn in his grave if you referred to the governments of China or NK in that way. It's just like the "freedom and liberty" rhetoric that western governments espouse to make their people believe they are truly acting altruistically.

You said that most people think of Communism as a totalitarian system. Referring to the Socialism Wikipedia article, "The primary concerns of socialism are social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.". Hardly totalitarian theory. In fact, most people wouldn't even know the difference between Socialism and Fascism, they just lump them both in the "these guys are nasty people" category because that's what they have been taught by the media.

The only ill-defined -ism from modern times is Fascism. Due to it's short life and strong political stigma, very few political and social thinkers gave

Re:I feel a great distubance-Well Duh!!

[misanthrope101]

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.

Not true.

[MarkusQ]

it would be illegal for you to engage in political commentary without getting onto that list in the first place

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

Re:Not true.

[Teancum]

Without trying to belabor this more than it needs, one of the problems with trying to read/interpret legislation like this that is in the process of being drafted and ammended is that it is very much a moving target. While at one point it may be exactly as you suggest that only highly paid lobbyists need concern themselves with this, that, or the other thing, other incarnations are much more inflamatory and concern private citizens and indeed require formal registration.

BTW, the analogy with lawyers and the various bar associations, while true, is flawed so far as I would hope and pray that nothing of the sort ever gets created for journalists and those who want to engage in political speech. Even putting together an organized group should not be regulated in any way, as the constitution clearly notes that no law should ever be created regarding this activity. That perhaps some minor regulations may by necessary in terms of the content delivery systems (aka broadcast television, mailing periodicals, etc.) but those regulations should be completely agnostic in terms of what sorts of content and speech is delivered. All they should regulate is the medium itself, and wheither you are talking about the upcoming 2008 Presidential election or the latest MMORPG should be irrelevant.

Collecting and spending money from like-mined individuals to further the goals of that group is by definition political activity. I fail to see the constitutional basis and justification for doing any sort of regulation of this kind of activity.

Could you feel more like goobers?

[Good Gravy]

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.

Spade

[Mark_MF-WN]

And we have a winner...

== 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.

*sigh*

[MarkusQ]

Without trying to belabor this more than it needs, one of the problems with trying to read/interpret legislation like this that is in the process of being drafted and ammended is that it is very much a moving target. While at one point it may be exactly as you suggest that only highly paid lobbyists need concern themselves with this, that, or the other thing, other incarnations are much more inflamatory and concern private citizens and indeed require formal registration.

Can you point me to the text of any such revision of the bill in question?

BTW, the analogy with lawyers and the various bar associations, while true, is flawed so far as I would hope and pray that nothing of the sort ever gets created for journalists and those who want to engage in political speech.

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.

Collecting and spending money from like-mined individuals to further the goals of that group is by definition political activity. I fail to see the constitutional basis and justification for doing any sort of regulation of this kind of activity.

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

Communism

[Mark_MF-WN]

I'm amazed that you're so goddam fucking stupid that you would bring up the Wikipedia article about Communism to support your point... which includes, among other things, this notable quotes:

"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".

Re:Communism

[MrNaz]

I think you just look for words or phrases that can be singularly construed to support your idea. Take that "The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917" quote for example. If you read the entirety of that section you'll see that the usage of the word changed from referring to the theory developed by Marx to referring to the objectives of that theory as applied by political parties of the time. The content of the theory did not change. It was, before 1917, and still is, the same body of political theory. Don't you tell me to read. I wouldn't reference articles I hadn't read in full. I suggest you read my reference, the short timeframe of your response suggests to me you haven't. If you're going to find a political scientist, try phrasing the question in a fashion more appropriate to this discussion. I.e., "Is the common belief that the USSR was a truly communist state an accurate belief?" Or even more appropriate would be "Are China and North Korea truly communist states?" seeing as you referred to them specifically earlier as being what most people thought exemplified communist states. If you refer to "Soviet style government" then yes he will say that is communism, as the soviets were modelled after Marxist theory. However in the USSR the soviets didn't hold much real power, as the central government held it all in practice, which is a very un-communist arrangement. I have always said throughout this discussion that a mistaken belief does not become correct by the mere fact that enough people are mistaken about it, so whatever your surveys of the public reveal is irrelevant. I think I said something about most people thinking the world was flat 500 years ago at one point earlier, and I refer back to that. And if you resent the label commoner, perhaps you'll be more comfortable with "plebian moron".