Slashdot Mirror
Bill to Treat Bloggers as Lobbyists Defeated
Lawrence Person writes "The attempt to require political bloggers to register as lobbyists previously reported by Slashdot has been stripped out of the lobbying reform bill. The vote was 55 to 43 to defeat the provision. All 48 Republicans, as well as 7 Democrats, voted against requiring bloggers to register; all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats."
It's as if a 100 million free-speech loving liberals cried out and were suddenly silenced.
(Actually, they were silenced when their heads exploded like Dantooine when they found out that it was Republicans who blocked the bill.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I freaked when I heard about the bill. Then I learned it was more about the astroturfing.
I hate fake campaigns. I think we are smart enough to learn and I LOVE the freedom to be told (about such things including hotchickonyoutube).
Now, can we get back some of our other freedoms, even if the government (or people) don't like them.
I promise I'll shutup about abortion if I can carry a gun and smoke in a bar.
This really surprises me, I'd have expected the republicans to have been more interested in the panoptic registering of bloggers. Can someone explain why this bill was pushed by the democrats?
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?
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
Though it would have been nice to see more of this sort of thing over the past few years.
If anyone had bothered to read the text instead of buying the PR piece by a professional lobbyiest that went up yesterday as news, they would have seen that the provision in question only applied to blogging for pay by a client. Not getting money for your ads or anything else. This was aimed at astroturfing, not bloggers. And paid political speach, which is what we are talking about here, IS regulated already. This wasn't the evil to end all evils and an attack on blogs, it was an attack on lobbyists and it would have likely as not been a good thing if it had gone through.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
I wasn't aware that "our side" was the Democrats. Did I miss the memo?
That it was such a close vote... and even more that most Democrats voted for it.
The Second Amendment guarantees the First.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
This is not a freedom of the press issue. This would have required bloggers who receive money from causes to file as lobbyists. As CNet puts it:
certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists.
A blogger who gets money from coroporations, parties, or organizations to blog for them is a lobbyist and an astroturfer. This doesn't cover Billy Blogger who talks about the local sports team, or even unsponsored political blogs. It isn't a way to surpress dissent, any more than requiring the same of lobbyists is. "But it's on the Internet" does not change the fact that politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists and should be treated like the normal K Street type.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Ironic. We need bloggers to explain why the Democrats seemed to almost like that anti-blogger provision.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech? Isn't that the most important kind of speech to protect? Why do you need to "register" as a PAC?
Isn't there already a law that limits how much political speech can happen leading up to an election and who can say it?
We can all find the bad in pretty much every law on the books. What i can't find is the "good" about any political-speech-restriction laws.
There are lots of voices out there that i'd just as soon not have to hear, but silencing them via government intervention seems pretty unAmerican (for historical values of "American").
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This is pretty much proof that it's business as usual with the new Congress, and that Democrats are going to be even more idiotic than the last guys. And no, before you read my sig and think I'm a Republican, I'm a libertarian who just dislikes the left more than the right.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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......
The part you conveniently leave out is that payment wasn't defined as receipt of cash. It was defined as communicating to 500 or more readers. Dems didn't want any criticism.
Perhaps you should actually read the bill*. Note that the part labelled "definitions", a "grassroots lobbying firm" is defined as someone who "is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period."
The "500 person" rule you're concerned about describes the action of influencing, not the influencer. Specifically: "The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public."
To be affected, you must be all three of these:
So if you're a regular blogger, you likely are safe.
*=if that doesn't work, search for S.1 on thomas.loc.gov
"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.
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.
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.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
You also conveniently left out that large lobby groups who don't rely on public communication are exempted! This means large corporations who spend millions on lobbying aren't even covered by the bill.
To quote the American Family Association's statement:
It's an attempt to silence political bloggers.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Dude, you're completely making up numbers. $25,000 or $100,000 salaries are not mentioned in the bill; there is actually no minimum specified, and "payment" itself is not even defined. Read it for yourself.
This bill would have stifled blogs from encouraging people to contact representatives. Good riddance to section 220.
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
No. It's defined in Section 220 as "any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.". It's in Definitions 18-A, which is right at the top of Section 220.
The payment part is in the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, which is also in the Definitions section (right below the previous definition).
The LOC links, by the way, only seem to work for 5 minutes.
I did read it. Here's what it says:
(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'
$100,000 is an extrapolation of $25,000 over a whole year. The bill said simply that a person who makes $25,000 a quarter for political astroturfing ($100,000 a year salary) or is given the same amount to spend on astroturfing is a lobbyist. It's straightforward, true, and doesn't affect bloggers at all.
The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?
"Sufferin' succotash."
If you guys need proof of how crazy this was, even the ACLU sided with the Republicans on this one. Ouch!
"Sufferin' succotash."
Actually, it's business as usual for Republican, hiding the facts: the bill applied only to astroturfers being paid over 100K. This wasn't a left-right issue, this was an attempt to control the power of money in campaigns. But if buying elections is part of the "free market," gosh, I guess some Libertarians don't have a problem with it.
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."
... and then they built the supercollider.
Here's a permanent link to the bill in question.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
What does the ACLU or its political affiliation have to do with the facts of this issue?
... and then they built the supercollider.
That's funny, I thought it was a reference to neoliberals. Why is it that you only associate the "neo" prefix with Nazis, when it is used in many other contexts, and has its own meaning? I think it probably says more about you than the post you are responding to.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I knew I should've said *something* when I heard about this on the Focus on the Family broadcast a week or so ago.
Sigh.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
As another poster pointed out, I had forgotten that MoveOn is already a PAC. Bad me.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Where the submission writeup says "previously reported by Slashdot," it should say "previously misreported by Slashdot." And presupposing that the way Slashdot "reported" it is right, as it happens, is a major piece of spin in this context. Because it's used to set up the rest of the blurb as an insinuation that Democrats were endorsing a bill that restricts freedom of political speech for bloggers (when in fact it's a bill that restricts commercial speech by people paid specifically to pretend they are unpaid advocates.)
Are you adequate?
That's ridiculous. A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now. I always thought a lobbyist was someone who was talking to CONGRESS about issues -- that's what "lobby" means to me, although wikipedia disagrees with me and agrees with you. All these efforts to control lobbying and speech are doomed to backfire, squelching true speech and exempting the big money interests. The real problem is corruption in Congress and the solution is for us to pay attention and vote people out when we smell corruption. Unrealistic? Then we get what we deserve.
Currently hooked on AMP
You're asking the wrong question. Why? Because here we're talking about laws that put restrictions on speech that is both political and commercial. Commercial speech, as I sure hope you already know, is not protected by the First Amendment in the USA. So the real question is whether we should restrict commercially produced political speech.
In both the case of PACs and the case of this proposed law, the idea is that such speech is restricted in a particular way: such speech is allowed, but it must disclose its commercial nature, i.e., the fact that somebody is paying to produce it. Why? In order to hold actors in the political field honest, and to enable the public to better judge political information that it receives.
Are you adequate?
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians - names, personalities and goals are not important. At the end of the day, there's only one thing that matters: the spice must flow.
In other news, CowboyNeal has stopped beating his wife.
Are you adequate?
The above poster is referring to that awful Fairness Doctrine that Democrats are trying to bring back, as well as this onerous new blogger law-that-almost-was. I have a long liberal posting history and I agree, the Republicans did good today. The Democrats really, really screwed up.
I've been saying this for quite a while... America does best with the Democrats steering America and a strong Republican minority slamming on the political antilock brakes when the Democrats start driving recklessly. Today is a good example of that.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Voltaire never said the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire, a book written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and was subsequently misattributed to him. Unfortunately, the phrase itself never appears in any of Voltaire's writings.
</smartass>
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
On the contrary. It's to avoid insulting the party of Goldwater by associating it with the neocons.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Which is odd since you read Slashdot which, while it predates the word, is pretty much a blog.
In fact, I detest blogs.
So what are you doing here? Slashdot is a blog.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Huh? Why don't you look it up, if you don't understand the term? It's a generic adjective that means new and different.
All kinds of people use it, not just liberals. In fact, some of the biggest supporters of the Republicans and Bush government call themselves neoconservatives. I'm not sure why you consider it an insult - why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?
... and then they built the supercollider.
No, slashdot is a discussion forum, not a blog.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
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.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
DUH telling me to "contact my senator or representative" should be illegal ? . encouraging more people to get involved in the political process should be illegal ? yeah that sounds real DEMOCRATIC.
Extreme liberals call for no deaths for anyone at all under any circumstances no matter what the cost.
(Costs like mandating seat belts and strictly enforcing the food pyramid)
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's so frickin' hard about this? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No law means no law.
No offense, but instead of reading "about the bill" at "PR News Wire", which is an organ of the Public Relations business (which includes lobbyists), why don't you actually READ THE BILL?
It's about fundraising bloggers and the astroturf types that have automatic email widgets on their blogs that generate automatic emails to legislators, even offering "sample wording".
Those are lobbyists, pure and simple.
You are welcome on my lawn.
here is a random example
Perhaps you should actually read the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.0The "500 person" rule you're concerned about describes the action of influencing, not the influencer. Specifically: "The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public."
To be affected, you must be all three of these:
An Astroturfer with 1 or more clients
Reaching 500 people
Being paid $100,000 a year
If you follow the link click on the "Text of Legislation", section 220 is the part that was under question. The original TFA itself which yesterdays slashdot article linked to was written by a blogger who gets paid by republicans to support thier views.
If this bill had passed HE would have had to register! I've already gone posted a long explanation of this yesterday as have many others. Please do just a bit of research if you are not clear on any part of this.
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now.
Trying to influence the public's opinion is now a huge part of lobbying. Because there have been finance reforms (not nearly enough but certainly better than before), you can pretty easily track who is contributing what to each politicion (there are ways to try to obfuscate this but its now getting pretty hard if you REALLY want to find out). So lets consider this example:
Congress is considering an outright ban on all smoking. All the tobaco companies will certainly give out a ton of money to politicans they think they can buy, however because this can be tracked fairly well now the politicans also need some cover or pretense to take thier side besides just all the money. So besides just lobbying (paying off) congress, they also need to try to raise a controversy over this and try to gain some popular support for thier position to give thier politicans an excuse for thier votes.
So the tobaco companies pool together to create the "Think of the Children, Freedom Liberty for America, Stop the Terrorists Institute". This "indepandent" organization will then fund a bunch of garbage studies to support thier position, produce and air a bunch of commercials, and pay a bunch of bloggers to take up thier side in an attempt to make enough noise to make is sound like thier is a popular upraising against this idea so thier politicans can vote for them and say its because they listened to the people.
The blogging part of this is a little new (but is certainly now well known), but the rest has been going on as part of "standard procedure" for decades. As far as your worry that "in which case I'm lobbying right now", the big question is someone paying you to say these things? Lobbying is more about being paid for trying to influence people then who you are trying to influence. If you think lobbying is simply about trying to convience congress, then everyone who has ever written to or called thier congressmen would be a lobbiest and would need to register as such. We can argue over strict definitions, but in reality lobbying today is about being paid to represent someone elses views or just being paid to try to influence people.
Now you need to be very careful in this as does having a blog and using Google advertising to make a bit of revenue make you a lobbiest? Thats where the fine line must be drawn and needs to be very carefully considered not to include TRUE grass-roots efforts and blogging. However, from what I've seen of this bill it seems like thier did a pretty good job.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
As it stands now doesnt it still target talk radio?
Whether or not you agree with the Rush and Hannitty's of the world, considering them under this bill is still a first amendment violation.
There is no spoon
Is anyone on /. rich enough to be Republican?
Should have added that overall, I do agree with your post. Just because this bill seemed pretty good at trying the line between lobbiest and true bloggers and therefore I think a pretty good bill, it certainly wouldn't be a shock to see some quitely inserted langauge on a future bill (military appropraitions now seems the most popular spot) to completely twist this into a horrible bill. So the question is do you not pass a good law for fear in the future it will be twisted into a bad law? This is a very hard question indeed. Instinctively, my (and probably most) reactions is no, you cannot ignore good laws out of fear for what they may become or you could never pass any law. However, given history you certainly have to think twice and be a bit skeptical. So I don't know if there really is a correct answer to that.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
While I don't know if they should register as lobbyists, I definitely agree that some sort of proper disclosure should be required. Otherwise, this is a way for corporations to sell their lies to the public without them knowing it. Just as political ads must tell you who funded it (even if it's a corporate front group, you can still look them up), so should paid bloggers.
My new blog
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"?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Please stop saying $100,000 a year. That is not accurate and paints a different picture of "the rich" or, at least, the well paid.
For example, someone could dump a contract on a blogger to get paid $28,091 in a single quarter for some political blogging. They are now classified as a lobbyist and never made $100,000.
I think you're absolutely right to help educate Slashdotters on the realities of the bill. I applaud your effort to do so, by countering the FUD with facts. But, you'll need to get this one straight, too.
Free speech ought to remain free and absolute in the political arena.
These restrictions were simply a way to silence critics by taking away their freedom of speech. There are plenty of justifications, but they all basically amount to "it only restricts people we don't like and it will give us an advantage".
I must have missed the memo too.
/. 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.
I find it really funny that
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.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
"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?
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."
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.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
"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.
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"?
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.
Actually you can't simplify it like that. A blogger that is paid $1 by a client, and then spends $25,000 of his own money running his website also qualifies under the definition given in (19). In other words, if you happen to run a wildly successful political site, accepting donations could possibly turn you into a lobbying firm. Wonderful.
And don't say "But that's not the intent!", as that has nothing to do with it. It says what it says, just like the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, which wasn't intended to be abused. We all know how that turned out.
Why is so hard to accept that bloggers could have hidden motives? Money is only one of many reasons a blogger might not tell the truth. This isn't really news at all, unless you really do believe everything you read. OMG SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET LIED!
It's completely legal for a blogger to tell you to contact your representative. It's only illegal if he's paid money to influence you, and doesn't tell the FEC.
Leftist and liberal mean very different things today. IMO, the Republicans seem to be much more about government control than the Democrats do after this current administration. The Republicans aren't what they used to be, something I doubt many really realize.
Legalize it.
That provision would not have made it illegal. It would have required astroturfers to register as lobbyists.
And that was exactly his point, dumbass.
So the question is do you not pass a good law for fear in the future it will be twisted into a bad law? This is a very hard question indeed.
Not really, it isn't.
Any "good" law can potentially be twisted into a "bad" law.
Therefore should we only pass bad laws to prevent the twisting?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Funny I thought that the ACLU was associated with the Klan, wait, most of those guys are just Republicans, so yes they are.
All kidding aside, I don't always agree with their positions, but I am alway glad that they take an interest. "Conservative" talking heads like to complain about the "liberal" ACLU (as if there is something wrong with having a liberal viewpoint), but really they are libertarian in nature.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
Link to the UCLA document on the bill http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/01/19/53-css- techniques-you-couldnt-live-without/
Those who doubt that the Democrats are just a very slightly more socialist twist on the same shitty formulae as the Republicans need look no further than this kind of stunt.
"Please don't partake of both at the same time." But if you insist, libertarians are OK with that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the Political Inquirer
"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.
"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.
I don't read AC A human right
No one would accuse slashdot of having pretensions of journalistic integrity much less journalistic ability. I think I would follow misreported with the word ineptly as in "previously misreported ineptly on slashdot."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
You appear to not be aware of this, but Conservative sites are largely funded by Mellon-Scaife, Koch and other sugar daddies working through "grassroots organizations". Not advertising. PajamasMedia was an attempt to follow the model created by the BlogAds used on the liberal sites, and while it has had some limited success it doesn't generate near the revenue for the sites.
Anyway, that's what this bill was about. Trying to force conservative blogs out of the closet and admit who they were getting paid by. It's too bad it failed, as that sunshine would have been quite enlightenining to people who have been hiding in the closet for so long.
Anyway, I just always thought it funny that conservative blogs rely on a communist economic model, and liberal blogs are largely funded through free market operations.
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.
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.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
What's the difference between apathy and ignorance?
I don't know, and I don't care!
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.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I would just like to remind everyone that Democrats are not liberals. Look at this vote for proof.
Care about privacy? Read this!
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 styleOutside of users' personal journals, the main pages of these sites are not written in journal style.
... and then they built the supercollider.
My Electric Coop keeps me informed through new letters included with my bill about legislative developments that affect rates and such. I'm a member of the coop so I guess that would be excluded.
m way-way.html. I'm not
an employee, I'm an associate. I might however initiate a company-wide announcement
that makes it to most of the customers that supports the agenda to increase access to
net metering. Am I retained? Maybe. Am I communicating with more that 500 people? Yes, sales
are growing incredibly. Am I a lobbyist in the way the bill intended? Very hard to say but I'd guess yes.
My cable company tries to get me to write congress so they can take over the land line market. This might be included because I am a customer not a memeber.
My cell phone company has had some gripes too and again I'm a customer not a member.
Now, the solar power company I sell for has a definite agenda when it comes to net metering laws: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-a
I feel pretty good that this was removed from the bill just because it was so vauge that many many activities might come under its scope.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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
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?
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think you are being blinded by intent; It's not an issue of what it is supposed to mean, but rather one of everything it could be interpreted to mean.
Let's say I run a popular website to stimulate a grass-roots election effort (thus 19 applies). The site gets millions of hits before an election, and my hosting is expensive (I never expected that kind of bandwidth usage!), so I have to pay $25k (this meets part B). I'm running out of money, and politician Bill McGreedy pays me $1 to "keep up the good work" (this meets part A). Oops. Now, this might get shot down at trial if the judge is a nice guy, since the case doesn't match the true intent of the law. However, you can bet your ass I'll need a good lawyer, and will have to go through a trial. Given the speed of the legal system, it won't be resolved until after the election, either. I think another poster had a more likely form of misuse however, which is that the bill can be used to assert hidden payment of bloggers and thus launch an investigation of them. That will either shut the blogger up or slow them down.
We don't need this law to "protect" us; We only need to tell people that random bloggers, just like people you meet on the street, might be lying. Don't trust random people you don't know -- It's that simple. A lying blog can always be countered with another blog which digs up the truth, and that is the appropriate way to respond.
Finally, I don't see the difference between one blogger paid 50k per quarter and 10 bloggers paid $5k per quarter. The latter is a yet more sinister approximation of a "grass-roots" effort, and would be completely legal under this (now defunct) part of the law.
So to recap, this law can be used for nuisance attacks, is based on the fundamentally bad assumption that you should be able to trust random people on the internet, and has a large loophole for exactly the type of shillery it is supposed to stop. Well intentioned as it may have been, I say good riddance.
Because it was an anagram of "One"?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Actually, there was a third issue that didn't get talked about very much this week, and was being pushed by the Democrats. I think it might have gotten passed, too. (No surprise there; it's not like the Republicans really have any backbone, or scruples, either.)
The issue is about the definition of a "lobbyist." The Democrats started off from a good premise -- something needs to be done about lobbying and the corporate/big-money influence on politics. Fair enough. However, where you should probably start getting skeptical is when you hear a bunch of people who were just elected due to the help of said corporate cash seemingly railing against it. Something just ain't kosher there.
Below the surface of the "lobbying reform" was a pretty obvious goal: it was all about chiseling away at the Republican power base -- big, ideologically driven social organizations, churches in particular -- while leaving Democratic ones (smaller PACs, unions) intact. The new law puts the same limits on a volunteer- and donation-driven organizations, which represent people with a certain set of beliefs, as K Street lobbying firms for corporations.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with their agenda, but there is a vast difference between a Tobacco-Industry lobbyist, and the Southern Baptist Convention. The former doesn't represent the views of any actual people, only a corporation -- an entity which, for good reason, doesn't vote and shouldn't have any direct involvement in the political process -- while the latter is simply a group of interested persons attempting to influence policy in the manner they see fit.
By painting both groups with the same brush, the Democrats completely missed the boat, and have probably created more harm than good. They had an opportunity to push corporations out of politics, while allowing regular people to stay in, but they ignored it. Rather than calling both groups "lobbyists," it would have been just as easy to create a distinction between a "lobbyist" who works for hire and can take funding from anywhere, and a "Political Action Committee," who is funded by donations from private individuals and exists for the sole purpose of furthering their views. This would have the effect of regulating corporate cash and campaign contributions, but also not impinging on people's rights to pool their resources in order to have a say in government.
Instead, the Democrats used their new-found power as an opportunity to gerrymander on a grand scale, and proved that they are no better than the Republicans; the only reason they seemed like it over the past few years, is because they weren't in position to do as much damage.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps you should read the actual bill. The bill clearly defines the monetary aspect of the whole thing starting in section 211. Stop reading about legislation and just read it...
The 500 person provision is stated in the negative. So paid attempts to reach less than 500 people are exempt. "paid attempt" isn't redefined, it assumes its natural meaning. This legislation isn't rocket science and it is getting all kinds of bad press from people who simply don't feel like reading.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Political Speech, paid for or not, is the very kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect.
The recent Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise are wrong will most likely be overturned in the future.
If you want to cleanup political speech, then it would be better to rescind the protections politicians have now against lawsuits.
If candidate A says candidate B is a drunk and candidate B clearly is not, then A should be on the hook for libel and defamation, just like the average Joe would be.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/
It's basically a bit*h fest for women.
There are really two different Democratic parties in the United States, The Democratic party, the socially liberal group (pro-choice, pro-health care, pro-civil rights), and the socially conservative one, or the "Dixiecrats" as most of them are from the South(who are anti-choice, and against any spending on social issues at all).
Similarly, I am aghast by Slashdot's lambasting of the "Fairness Doctrine" an age old standard of the non-corporate controlled press, that helped to maintain the political balance of the United States for most of the 20th century, (with the result being the fostering of FDR's New Deal, and LBJ's civil rights reforms. Note that the Fairness Doctrine was destroyed under Ronald Reagan, and if you think he was any friend of the common man, you're a fool.
The United States (and most of the rest of the world actually) has been sliding to right quite steadily since the mid-1970's. The exact causes of this are multitudinous, but many of the spring from the death of FDR in 1944 and the subsequent failure of Harry Truman to force the old European powers to dismantle their empires. The result was the incredibly numerous revolutionary conflicts throughout the third world in the second half of the 20th century, and the placement of incredible strain on the military-industrial bases of both the United States and the Soviet Union.
i find it hilarious watching people defend this steaming-pile-of-crap bill just because they can't bear to admit that maybe the democrats can be the bad guys sometimes too. the redefinition of "paid" necessitated the death of this stupid bill, and I am personally damn glad it's gone. the resurgence of the democratic party is in large part DUE to grassroots and blogging efforts, but now that they have control back they stab those communities in the back?? yeh, uhm, NO.
now if they want to send it back up, sans "paid" redefinition, to try and reign in the REAL astroturfing, then maybe it deserves a second look. till then, good riddance.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I 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'.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Where do I sign up?
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I'm getting a real kick out of the new fealing of brotherly love and respect here on slashdot.
Dumbasses.
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.
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.
"But it's on the Internet" does not change the fact that politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists and should be treated like the normal K Street type.
Here is a question. What if I setup an internet lobbying/blogging company in Russia, Japan, Britian, or Canada, but mainly aimmed my blogging/lobbying efforts to the US public. I have no idea what kinda of lobbying laws exist in the countries mentioned, but say that I follow local laws where my site is hosted and my company is based. Is there anything that US anti-paid lobbying laws could prevent my company from doing business? Oh, a guess they could jail me or share holders in the country when we visit the US. Has anyone thought of that concept to make a global lobbying blog aimmed not just at the US government, but at all various governments? It's an interesting concept.
Excellent points all, perhaps with better wording this bill could have been useful but in its current form can be abused or easily overstepped. Also I note your listed url is cs.cmu.edu, I myself am a graduate of CIT, and your /. ID is quite respectible, are you faculty?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
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.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Flamebait? I guess I'm dense. Can someone explain how being neutral with respect to governmental operations can be considered flamebait?
I personally would like to see how many bloggers and right wing media nuts were paid by lobbying firms to cast this provision in such a light that it causes this much rancor. Unfortunately, since this provision failed, I doubt I will ever know. This provision was not an attempt to keep people from speaking their minds on blogs, etc. This was an attempt to make bloggers, etc. who are paid to speak other people's minds say who is paying them. It expanded payola laws to include other forms of media, which I personally view as a good thing.
Clones are people two.
Actually, it was only defined that way by a blogger who in turn got his/her definition from this alarmist writing: http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-home /articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=398&CMSCate goryID=24
If you read the actual bill, and not a lobbying organization's kneejerk reaction to it, you'd know that this applied to people PAID to blog, who also have a readership of 500+. In that light, it's a shame this bill was defeated. thomas.loc.gov: search s.1, then go to 220. Specifically:
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
Again -- the only time '500' comes into play is to exclude PAID bloggers with audiences of less than 500 from this legislation.The bill targets "bloggers" that are "retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients" and that take in at least $25,000 per quarter
In other words, it doesn't cover bloggers in any true sense of that word as most of us understand it - it covers people masquerading as "grass-roots" bloggers, but who are actually bought and paid for shills making at least $100,000 a year for online "lobbying" efforts.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
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.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
"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.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
First, I defy anyone to nail down a definition of "astroturfing" in a neutral non-political way. One man's astroturfing (probably the politician's) is another man's grassroots. When you are on the receiving end of it (as the politicians are) you don't like it. But when you are one of the outraged citizens who were alerted to something the politicians are about to do, and you take matters up with them, it is a genuine expression of concern.
People are too busy to read every bill that comes up-- come on, get real. So they subscribe to interest groups or go to blogs that share their interests and views, and have the time to analyze the things that go on in Washington. And the only way that these groups and blogs can devote that much time to this is by receiving funding in one form or another. It's not just corporations that provide funding: many groups are funded by the citizenry directly by subscription fees, membership dues, donations and the like. And it's not just conservative groups, but also liberal groups, that would be affected.
It should not surprise anyone that the politicians want to shut this down. But it's shameful that the vote was so split by party lines.
Here are some interesting paragraphs from the CNet article on the topic:
at least they got this one right
what scares me is how many dipshit democrats votes yes to it! wtf lets just do away with the whole media right?
"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?
> this is a way for corporations to sell their lies to the public without them knowing it
Usually, the public is smarter than that. But not necessarily when it comes to politics.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Sorry, how were the actual grass-roots bloggers not going to be affected by this?
And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.
Furthermore, what is ethical about placing bureaucratic red tape around free speech? The only purpose of this section of the bill was to get people off the politicians' backs. They don't like it when we express our opinions, and they don't like it when someone alerts us to problems we should know about.
That's a very good question. However, I think there are US laws regulating the campaigns insofar as foreign donations and stuff like that. I guess no one has tried doing it independently of the campaigns. Prior to the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was rare to have all these 527s doing stuff completely independently. I imagine that something like what you describe will pop up in the next few years.
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.
the Political Inquirer
"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.
Remember this the next time you step into the voting booth!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
That's okay. You lost that mod the moment you posted to this topic anyway.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Registration is one step from Regulation. And both Registration requirements, and penalties for not Registering properly, stifle free speech.
In addition, AND HERE'S THE BIG ONE, Registration prevents anonymous speech since the speaker has to prove he/she's registered, which proves their identity and makes them available for SLAAP lawsuits that a well-funded adversary can use even when they know they'll lose in the end.
Are we on the same page now?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
fishbowl writes:
and also:
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.
--MarkusQ
I always have better aim when I've smoked a couple joints beforehand.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
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...
"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!
I know. That why I posted.... it wasn't funny anymore.
You mad
This is all propaganda and bullshit.
I was a good little Limbaugh invisible-hander until I got a real job and left my parents' house...
In some respects it *is* a zero-sum game, and the fact that you don't get that it the problem. Yes, some wealth can be "created". Most transactions, however, do not create wealth; they just move it. When a transaction does create wealth, it is nearly always for the party that already has wealth, IE, has capital to "add value" or to force other people to strip mine someone else's land.
Clueless. Try economics 201, at least. 101 is to set the stage, and just like Newtonian physics, it doesn't work in the real world for anything more interesting than a marble sliding down a ramp. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.
The wording of the bill is solid. A donation is not a client relationship as your parent post said already.
You can't just criticize a bill saying that a misinterpretation of the explicit language would require a lawyer. For anything and everything can be criticized that way.
No, Bill McGreedy can't just pay you $1. They have to hire you. Making a donation and retaining your services are two different things, and the language is making a distinction about that.
Oh yeah, I understand now, you just have to apply liberal moonbat logic to undertand how something like this happens.
The Democrats voted for a bill that would have restricted free speech, therefore it must be Republican conspiracy masterminded by Karl Rove in which Halliburton makes billions of dollars.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I get it now.
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 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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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"
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.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I don't know why everyone is giving this guys such a hard time about the tubes analogy. While it was clearly harder to understand than he and his speech writer intended, it was not inaccurate. There is a common misconception among the non-tech savvy that the internet is this ocean of data where information goes in and magically comes out the other end. The Senator was using an analogy to illustrate that the internet was like tubes or pipes that big ISP's could restrict to serve their own political agenda. If a young Senator had used the same analogy, it would have never made the news. Because Ted Stevens is an old guy, it is more fun to mock him than it is to understand and acknowledge his analogy. I think that it is tragic that we let the opponents to Net Neutrality use this mockery of an ally to divert attention from the issue just so that we can have a good laugh. Way to go guys.
No, it says you must attempt to influence 500 or more people.
How many people you actually reach is not the standard that was in the bill.
$25,000 in any quarter; given that demand for paid political advocacy is rather seasonal, that is not the same as $100,000, even in a given year.
I don't know what part of Congress shall make no law can't be understood by the U.S. Supreme Court, but I think the wording here is very clear. And for political speech, I would have to agree even more with your sentiment, there can't be any regulation of any kind in any way, even if it is for more noble aims. This is not yelling "fire" in a theater, to give a classic excuse to regulate speech in some situations.
If they want to regulate speech, these election campaign reformers need to first ammend the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, how often does the current U.S. Government (any one of the three branches) really care about what is written in this governing document? That the Constitution isn't being followed should hardly be surprising any more.
sorry, dude(?) but corporations have been afforded personhood due to rulings on the 14th ammendment
Er, no. Corporations have some of the same rights as natural persons, but they're not legally the same thing. They're entities insofar as the ownership of property and taxes are concerned, but they can't vote.
Neither Sam Palmisano nor Bill Gates can walk down to the polls on November 2nd and vote twice, once for themselves and once as a proxy for the corporations they run; it just doesn't work that way. (And for obvious good reason.)
That's not to say that corporations cannot benefit from government; if a corporation has a positive impact on a great number of people, it makes sense that those people might vote in a way that's helpful to a corporation. This is totally fair, and there's nothing undemocratic about it. But when you let corporations begin to influence the political process directly, you start going down a dangerous path: it gives some people what amounts to a double vote -- once as individual citizens (natural persons) and again via the corporation they control. It would be trivial, if we allowed corporations to vote, to set up hundreds of shell corporations and multiply your power, at the cost of $500 a pop (or whatever the registration fee is in states like Nevada that have lax regulations for incorporation).
So there are good and obvious reasons why we create a distinction between natural persons and the legal entities of corporations; allowing them to play politics is anathema to the very concept of one-person-one-vote democracy.
Political action committees, which are strictly not-for-profit and take donations from individuals, pool them, and use them to influence public policy, are another thing entirely. They are the essence of democracy, and really should be thought of as miniature, single-issue political parties. Anything that individual, natural persons are allowed to do, they should be allowed to do.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Wow, two of the three are factually wrong, and the third is spin.
I've always seen "astroturfing" used to refer to fake grassroots activity like LTTE's by shills pretending to be "concerned citizens"; while that may be a technique of advocacy used by those seeking to generate grassroots action, it is not coextensive with being a paid advocate of grassroots actions.
No, you don't have to reach anyone, you have to direct your attempt to influence the public at more than 500 people. Whether you succeed in reaching that many people is irrelevant.
No, you don't have to be paid $100,000 in a year. You have to paid $25,000 in any quarter. You might notice that demand for public political advocacy is somewhat sporadic and seasonal, so the two are not equivalent.
You're joking, right? As a Republican linux user, I haven't heard too many alternative definitions. Seems pretty clear to me...
Astroturfing: fake grass-roots activity. If you're trying to look like you're just a part of the "noisy populace" but you're being paid to maintain your position by the side you apparently agree with, then you're astroturfing.
That definition holds for Microsoft astroturfing, Republican, Democrat, whatever. This bill sets the bar pretty high. $25k/quarter from one client (not from ads) or better than $100k/year from one source, and it calls you a paid political hack. I guess I can see where they're going, since that makes the law more enforceable, but still seems like there will be a lot of two client blogs the next year.
Political speech, like all freedoms, brings with it additional responsibilities. One of the most important responsibilities of political speech (compared to your average public griping) is that it's critical that people know exactly who is saying what. If you're just spouting off your opinion, great! Someone being paid > $100k to put up a political blog probably has the time to submit a form explaining who is paying them for "their opinion". And that seems like an excellent balance of responsibility with freedom to me.
Regards,
Ross
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.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
"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.
Actually, republicans have been spitting on them and telling them to come up with a better plan. They DON'T have any. On many issues.
Wealth is created by the banking system. You're right, it is usually the wealthy that get the additional wealth. But then they spend it and "move it" in normal transactions and the new wealth improves the entire economy. No-one believes that by buying a Twinkee you are creating new wealth in the economy. But when you deposit your paycheck and the bank turns around and loans a large percentage of that to someone else who in turn spends it and someone else deposits it in their account which is then loaned to someone else... you better believe wealth is created. LOTS of it. And it's not just the rich that benefit from that. In fact, the rich would probably do well regardless--but the vast majority of the population that requires a loan to buy a house would be S.O.L. if it were not for the wealth-creation that the banking system allows.
How odd. I read through the bill the other day and I didn't see anything about this. Could you point me to the specific section you are referring to please?
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue. For instance, using the same logical structure you could claim:
But no one, I trust, would take this as a serious argument that the murder laws were unfairly aimed at skateboarders.
And finally, note that the question to which you were responding was not "how do you interpret the bill?" but rather where have I said anything about my personally wanting to restrict anyones speech?...which you still have not answered.
--MarkusQ
i'd expect better of slashdot, this bill was specifically designed to kill astro turfing, you know, those blogs/websites of dubious repute which shill shit like microsoft/oil industry "studies" / anti global warming "studies" etc.. in exchange for monetary compensation, those sites(which promote massive amounts of mis-information) would have had to register as lobbysits, hardly something i'd cry about since it'd make identifying the bought mouthpieces easier. i'm not suprised that republicans voted against this bill, after all, mis-informing and pushing false information as true is an essential tool in their trade, it's sad to see the sheeple over here braying as if this is something strange when all they have to do is fucking READ.
Blogging is just the newest play thing for the lobbyist. As a lobbying tool, it effectiveness is unproven. As opposed to hookers and booze which has proven to be VERY effective. Next if terms of effectiveness are: free travel, complimentary sports tickets, paid golf club fees, courtesy cars, etc.
>Michael Criton
It's "michael crichton", actually, but spelling it so that it sound like "cretin" is probably more appropriate.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Good oul Bill had finally copped on that those Acer Farrari's can't be you love....
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
No they're not. They're supporters of the popular movement of the democratic party party for the moost part(This does not include movements for censorship and the like instigated by the party leadership). They have yet to come out in favor of the 2nd, even though when one considers the matter dispassionately and takes in all of the availible facts, there is no real doubt about it's meaning and which stance they would have to take as supporters of civil rights. End of story. The moment they decided not to do so because they find guns scary is the moment they violated their mission statement whatever their stated excuse. Being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties. No more, no less.
As a citizen, I'd like that astroturfing labeled as such
As a person with a brain, I'm offended by the suggestion that I can't just evaluate speech on the merits. And as a lover of liberty, I'm extremely offended by the suggestion that liberty be infringed in this way.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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...
I was merely responding to the poster's insinuation that it was strictly a Republican issue instead of a free speech issue. But you knew that.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Democrats position? Did you not even read the intro to the article or are you a retard?
It was the Republicans who killed the bill. THE ONLY VOTES FOR THE BILL CAME FROM THE DEMOCRATS!
Maybe you meant to say: "So the Republicans position was to shut down a majority of people that critisize them?" That at least would have ben accurate.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well, if the ACLU was libertarian, it would be pro-gun, but its past behavior does not support that conclusion.
The reason the ACLU is labeled "liberal" is not because it's an insult to be liberal but because the ACLU doesn't advertise that it is liberal despite how obvious it is, so conservatives feel the need to let people know upfront. Penn & Teller did an episode of "Bullshit!" that mentioned this phenomena, where people give their groups innocuous names to hide their political agendas. "American Civil Liberties Union" sounds fantastic by itself--who would be opposed to civil liberties, right?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok... here is my attempt at a serious discussion, especially when we live in a time when politicians from both sides of the aisle like to throw around terms like 'Fascist', 'Dictator', 'Commie', 'Ulta-Conservative', 'Uber-Liberal', and the like. If you want a post that will suit your political leanings by exploiting this as a prime opportunity to Democrat-bash, go read some other post. I am a very strong Republican, but moderate more than conservative, as there is no mutual benefit to either side by being an extremist. Don't agrre with me because you are a Republican, but don't disagree with me because you are a Democrat.
I find it curious to note that there was a considerable share of Democrats that actually voted *yea* on this bill, instead of nay. I am quite suprsed to see that it was a very one-sided vote, as I would expect to see it either pass by a majority (a very unlikely event at all), or be rejected by a vast majority by both sides. However, only 7 Democrats voted with the majority against the bill to defeat it. I was not suprised to see this bill fail, but was still happy nonetheless. I was under the impression that personal freedom from government was the supreme sacred icom of the Democratic Party. The bill, a flagrant disregard for anything, having to do, even remotely, with the Constitution, would have essentially required registration for the excercise of free speech that had a quantified popularity. Basically, if more than a specified number of people liked or read your opinion (blog), then you would be required to register with the Federal Government as a lobbyist.
Yes, lobbyists are a strong influence on The Hill, but there is a distinct difference between how lobbyists and bloggers conduct their political warfare: Ammunition. Lobbyists use money and other monetary particulars (gifts, trips, and other compensations that are not in the form of currency or cash) as a means of excercising political influence. Bloggers use arguments, finger-pointing, jokes, cynical with, and cheap shots as their means of political warfare. Another difference is Strategy. Lobbyists are a behind-the-scenes, shadowy, clandestine type of political soldier. They fight their battles in the dark, sometimes with a pseudo-guerrilla style, and until recently, usually go unnoticed and fade away quickly. Bloggers are the kind who fight in the open, conducting the political equivalent of an open bayonet charge and carpet-bombing. They usually don't care who sees them and sometimes prefer it. No weapon, including the 'Nuclear Option' goes unused. When lobbyists strike, usually all that is heard is a muffled thud or a brief whimper. When bloggers strike, it's usually a nuclear explosion followed by a three-day Blitzkrieg of network television specials narrated by talking heads. Both have different motives: Lobbyists are usually business-oriented. Bloggers are roughly, in my view, a 40/40 mix of armchair political analysts (I don't mean that in a bad way; just most bloggers are not working for 'analysis farms' like Brookings or Pew or other similar institutions) and self-glorifying 'social pyromaniancs' who love to make outrageous claims so people will look at them. The remaining 20% are those who blog with clear political intentions, and can not be swayed by even the most blatantly contradictory facts.
What this bill was intended to do is classify both lobbyists and bloggers as one in the same. It's like a new form of Newspeak: Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. Both are fruits. To make it easier for everyone, we'll just call them both fruits and eliminate the extra step of identifying each one as an apple or an orange. Both are fairly popular, so it is of great importantce that we just call them fruits, since that is all people need to know about them.
In no way did I expect this bill to pass, although I did leave some room open for the possibility, as other similarly-restrictive bills and nonesuch have been passed before. But the shocker for me was that only 7 Democrats voted against it. THAT was a
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The simple fact is that they both parties are doing the same thing; representing big business and lying about it. Republicans say that they want fighting crime, good jobs, low taxes, balanced budgets and to not interfere in other's countries. But they have pushed for allowing the top ppl in the gov to get off scott free (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Delay, Abramhoff, etc) while shutting down honest reps such as Joel Hefley, offshoring of jobs by sending gov. development to Bermuda, Awarding non-competitive bids to Halliburton, lie about why to invade Iraq, and ignore the deficits that they ran up in the 80's and current.
The Dem's speak of freedom for Americans, getting rid of corruption, balancing the budget, increasing stability, etc, while at the same time, they are pushing for loss of fair use, increasing oversight of bloggers, trying to push many into gov who have a less than stellar record (Murtha anybody), and they are waffling about getting us out of Iraq.
I was an in dependant who became a libertarian because it was obvious that the 2 parties are disasters. Yes, IMHO, the Dem's are less so. But that is a lot like comparing Hitler to Mussolini. You do not want either of them. There are good folks in each party, but both of them have many corrupt individuals and most are just so-so. Personally, I am in hopes that Ron Paul gets the republican nomination. Somehow, I doubt it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now that's an entirely different argument, and one that I'm very likely to have some sympathy for. Laws are at best, an approximation of "constraints upon immoral behavior", and the gaps between morality and legality are substantial.
Hm. I'm not familiar with the ACLU's website, but I just spent 15 minutes trying to find an ACLU position on this (search for "blog" or "blogging" or "bloggers" with "Free Speech" selected as a constraint) and I can't locate any mention of the bill or the issue. The "family advocacy groups" are religious right groups (the part of the Republican party that I detest, being non-religious myself) and it's supremely unsuprising that they want to hide who is saying what. Their very name is a deception, so why would their advocacy be any different?
Ross
Why is everybody upset about the fact that the bill wanted bloggers to register as lobbyists? There are bigger problems here.
Why should lobbyists have to register at all? It seems to me like the First Amendment clearly protects the rights of the people to petition the government. That is all lobbying is. People who like to think of themselves as libertarians should be against this sort of legislation. It is an affront to our civil liberty in the guise of protecting the political process.
If they really wanted to protect the process, Congress should agree to do away with earmarks and have more open accounting for where they get their campaign financing. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people to redress grievances, but it doesn't protect Congressmen from revealing their funding sources.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
If you're a right leaning libertarian, then you just want to be a right winger who can smoke pot and get away with it. Personally I think it's better if your a lefty who smokes pot and doesn't care what people think. (NOTE: I don't smoke pot or crack, but I have tried pot and I did inhale) Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Republican all that much. It doesn't in my eyes. Also note that I despise Libertarians because they don't grasp reality in any reasonable way. People need to be protected from themselves and each other (hence the need for government and law), and until you realize that, you won't get any slack from people like me.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
...for what they say, think of this. What if, I am a "lobbyist" who is getting paid by some group to espouse certain views? Ok, so I am getting paid $120,000/year to help in this dissimination of information. Well, why should I have to register as a lobbyist if I actually BELIEVE what I am saying?? Just because someone is getting paid by someone to say something it doesn't automatically mean that they don't believe what they are saying. So in that respect why should that person have to register?
Also, think about this in terms of advertising. If I am the owner of a company and my company is very good at what it does, but I am not the best at expressing why this is so, I hire an advertising company to say it for me. Why is blogging for money any different? In an ideal world anyone would research what they are buying before the purchase, the same goes (or even more so) with politicians, it should be researched who you are voting for and why. I dont' beleive that putting rules on this kind of speech just because we are not a perfect society puts us any closer to being a perfect society.
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.
I know I shouldn't but I just have to...
Ok, so, here you have a right granted by the constitution of the United States which was designed to ensure the independence of the states. Sure. A little bit outdated, probably not intended to allow automatic weapons (and you won't see the ACLU being for a total gun ban). We'll also ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and the (now untrue) implication that such a militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. We have something called the army now.
But seriously, ignore my rant. I will just go ahead and accept that the previous paragraph is crap. What is undeniably true, however, is that the right to bear arms is not a civil right. It is a constitutional right in the United States, undeniably. But let's have a look at what civil rights are. Probably a fair, unbiased starting point would be the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Have a bit of a read. It lists freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, the freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination. It even lists a need for guaranteeing due process of law and a fair trial. The one which we'll focus on, however, is the right of self determination (Art 1).
Article 1 is really what the second amendment was about: maintaining the rights of the people and ensuring that the government doesn't raise an army against its own people. This isn't about the right to bear arms generally. This is about the right to bear arms in resistance against a despot. Nobody denies anyone that right. These days it's called the right to self determination and it means that you get to vote and if you don't get to vote then you get to rebel. So quit all the crap about how "being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties." If we're talking about civil liberties (rather than civil rights) then the ULTIMATE in civil liberties is actually being able to do whatever you want - kill, rape, pillage, burn etc. But we don't do that. We restrict the behaviour of individuals for the betterment of society. If these restrictions become too much we have means to reduce them. These means can include, if necessary, bearing arms against an oppressor. Once again, this does not mean you have a right to keep an assault rifle on the back of your pickup for those really aggressive deer.
My apologies for the rant. But the second amendment is a poorly framed outmoded and unnecessary provision. People who claim that it is their right to bear any arms in any situation have no basis for that in the principles that underpin the constitution and the law.
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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.
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.
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
K Street? The Center for American Progress is on Eye Street (I street, but I is easy to confuse with 1, so it's often spelled Eye, even on buildings) and I know I've seen lobbyists' buildings pointed out elsewhere by a guy I know at CAP.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Highlight
the Democratic candidates who, as of November 14, had won Republican-held seats in the November 7 midterm elections have said they support central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security. Also, these new Democrats largely agree on the most contentious social issues of the day; as Media Matters has noted, all but two of the 28 newly elected Democrats (as of November 14) support embryonic stem cell research and only five describe themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.
I thought lobbyists were people who used cash, influence, post-office employment/chaiman positions, and whatever they can (hookers, drugs, trained monkeys) to cut through the pesky red tape of the popular vote and get what their clients want directly from lawmakers.
/cynicism
Circumventing the voters is a good reason to register in my opinion. Dumping gifts, cash, lunches, travel, etc. on lawmakers requires this supervision.
Now a blogger: what are they doing? They express an opinion to the public. The public can take it or leave it. There is no pressure and certainly no reward to this behavior on the part of the blog reader. The reader doesn't get lunch, the reader doesn't get free travel, the reader doesn't get shit. Well MAYBE food for thought, but even then there is no guarantee they will agree with what is written on the blog. And have you read some of the political blogs lately? Utter crap is the order of the day. Some of them are so incoherent as to be impossible to agree or disagree with.
Big difference in my opinion between the two. One relies on the influence of cash and power directly on an elected official in an environmet that the voters cannot directly observe. The other is a publicly posted piece of information that anyone can read and make their own decision about. Which is more likely to result in massive disenfranchisement and subversion of the political system? Hmmm....tough one.
I can see them being equal if Blogs had the magical ability to make anyone who reads them believe whatever was written on them. However, since they can't I don't see the parity and therefore don't see the need for this regulation.
If the law passes (it will be back in some form I am sure) I can see it as a bludgeon to hurt bloggers that express an opinion that garners endorsements. If that endoresement is over a certain dollar amount they get flagged as a "lobbyist." This could lead to them being discredited and marginalized in media reports, etc. It would not stop the behavior, it would just give the opposition a stick to beat their competetion with. It would also create credibility issues for some people that could potentially undermine their ability to persuade readers with logic and reason.
Maybe the Democrats voted for this after offering to pay all their sympathetic bloggers $99,999.99 per year? I am sure the Republicans voted against it because none of thier top bloggers will work for less than $100k.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Are you contending that you have the time and ability to investigate every single claim that you read on the Internet and determine its veracity and pparticularly context?
No, you can't. Context encompasses most of human knowledge in one way or another. At some point, you're trusting arguments and maxims from sources that you take to be more expert than yourself. And as much as you might like to contest this, all those claims and utterings, every one, do affect your opinions and judgement whether you've thorougly vetted them or not. That's just how the human mind works--once you see, you can't unsee. Thus, an integral part of evaluating speech on the merits is having the tools to know the source of claims, so that you may evaluate conflicts of interest along with the facts themselves (and so that, as appropriate, those who use their wealth to spread lies can be held to account if in no other way than the court of public opinion).
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.
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
Slashdot needs to change the news posting and make it "paid political bloggers", or else have some warning for the casual reader that the information is false. Not doing this undermines Slashdot's credibility.
I think a lot of Dems have realized that gun control is a losing issue. I don't hear them talking about it much anymore. But that may be a consequence of who I'm paying attention to. (I live in the western US.)
-- $SIGNATURE
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Or do you think that the FCC should prevent that, assigning a unique broadcaster to each frequency in each area? That sounds like government interference (and grant of monopoly) to me.
-- $SIGNATURE
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You don't consolidate "a power". You consolidate "power". That is, you demonstrate that you can get things done. And isn't that the point of congress? If the Democrats want to control congress, they have to get things done. If they can't pass a simple bill, then they have no power, and will find themselves standing in the food-stamp line at the grocery store soon enough. And that's why trying to pass a stupid bill that members of your own party don't support is an enormous mistake. I'd say exactly the same thing if the republicans tried to pass a bill and it was voted down by other republicans. That's the kind of thing that causes entire political parties to die in many countries. More's the pity that the Republican and Democratic parties DON'T die...
You know, we talk about conections to the internet and thru the internet as well as intranets as "pipes" sometimes. A quick search for internet and pipes will show this. But isn't a pipe really a tube?
I think your right, if this was anyone younger, it wouldn't have been the same deal. You could probably take the entire speach, replace tube with pipe and not have one complaint. And I would say that a pipe is a tube by definition and design.
Yes, I realized it was referring to the GOP. But I thought the use of the term was a meta-wink to neoliberalism. As in "inspired by," not the direct usage. RBTL.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I'm not sure that you should equate Goldwater with true Republicans and the old GOP. Actually, you should remember that the GOP itself started as a highly *PROGRESSIVE* party, advocating many positions that would make the new fangled neo-GOP wannabe brownshirts spin in their graves. (Whenever.)
The underlying problem is that the main political parties in America have never really had ideological positions. Yes, Goldwater was a true conservative, and yes, he was registered as a Republican, but there were (and are) many registered Democrats who share many of his views and agree with many of his principles. However, the winner-take-all mechanisms of American politics have worked against the success of ideologically based parties. (Which mechanism, by the way, may naturally result in the destruction of the GOP when it becomes trapped in dead ideologies.)
I do think we need a new label to distinguish between the old Republican Party and the neo-GOP opportunists who have effectively taken over the GOP. I also reject their propagandistic approach of destroying the meaning of old words, for example by trying to redefine GOP or by playing word games with upper case, etc. Actually, it is true that there are some old words that are quite applicable to the situation, such as oligarchs or even fascists (for some of the extreme cases).
No, I'm not actually a registered anything. It's not so much that I like the Democratic politicians as that the leading Republicans are really dangerous lunatics. The Dick Cheney. 'Nuff said.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
That doesn't say anything about it being purely a Republican issue. It doesn't matter what position the ACLU takes on it - there are people who will still be against the bill because the Republicans were against it. The ACLU opposing the law does not somehow prevent Republicans from opposing it.
You also seem to be trying to use the ACLU to bolster your argument (see your other ACLU-related post too) that it is a bill treat ordinary bloggers as lobbyists. Just because the ACLU opposes the law, doesn't mean it's for that reason. They have probably looked very closely at it from a legal perspective, and found other good reasons to oppose it - without having to lie about the facts of the case.
I don't like the bill myself - but how can we have a decent discussion if the facts are reported wrong from the outset? The way it has been described on slashdot is dead wrong, and that is causing people to exaggerrate what the bill is actually about. If it were reported accurately and non-sensationally, I guess the stories wouldn't have attracted much interest.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
Yet some people, be they trolls, self-interested liars, ignorant, or lacking in critical thinking skills, have presented this as if it were a sufficient condition, i.e. claiming that anyone with 500 or more readers was subject to registration requirements.
There is a difference between the two types of conditions. See wikipedia for more on this.
-- $SIGNATURE
* (Actually, I hate guns. But I don't particularly care if other people want to own a tool that is far more likely to be used on themselves or their family than it is on anyone else. As long as gun-owners are held legally responsible being dumbasses or for allowing their guns to fall into the hands of criminals, there's no problem, eh?)
To be clear, astroturfing is undeniably a heinous activity. Trying to usurp democracy is the kind of thing that should get people lynched. But the answer here is to ELECT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T RETARDS (yes, that would mean occasionally voting for the guy that DOESN'T have the better haircut, but there it is). Anyone that isn't collosally stupid and incompetent can see through astroturf. Trying to micromanage bloggers is pretty much the exact opposite of a good answer in this case. It's not only a violation of free speech, it's a completely intractable problem. It's like trying to herd cats ... hundred of thousands of cats ... with nothing but a taser and the carboard-tube from a roll of wrapping paper.
The democrats had their hearts in the right place ... just not their heads. Their heads were someplace terrible and foul. Possibly up their asses, but then again, even the dumbest of asses has the occasional nugget of sense hidden away in its folds somewhere. I can't even think of where their heads were at while developing such a ridiculously monstrous piece of legislation.
Lobbyists are pretty much the bane of democracy. That alone is reason enough to lock them in the stocks and have them soundly caned.
Frankly, I can't believe that the democrats that loved. I can't believe that there are only 20 or so bloggers that criticise the democrats. I thought they were substantially more contemptible than that.
Or maybe you can READ THE DAMN ARTICLE next time. If you had read it, you would know that the legislation only applies to professional bloggers who are paid more than $25,000 a year to promote a political position. This is VERY different than simply trying to regulate all blogging. Not that it's a good idea, mind you. Voting it down was a very sensible move. Campaign finance reform is important and necessary, but it can't come at the cost of free speech, even when that free speech is for-pay.
This is just one of those pieces of nonsense that idiots blather about. It makes no fucking sense. What does the right to form an armed militia have to do with not dying, not becoming a slave, or not being denied the right to pursue happiness? The police and government control whether or not you can do those things, and if you even SUGGEST that you will use a gun to influence their decisions, you'll lose your liberty, you'll lose any and all opportunities to pursue happiness, and you'll quite likely lose your life.
Don't misunderstand me: I support peoples' right to own guns. The first amendment IMPLIES the second -- owning a gun makes some degenerate psychopaths happy, and banning guns goes against the idea of liberty.
But suggesting that having a gun will protect you when the government bans the things that make you happy? That's just stupid. Being able to marry would make a lot of homosexuals happy, and so the first-amendment suggests that they should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, no amount of guns will make it happen. Japanese-Americans were locked in concentration camps during WW2 -- if they had tried to protect their liberty using guns, they would simply have gotten themselves killed. If you are arrested for a crime that you didn't commit, do you think that having a gun, either in your hands or those of a militia, will make the slightest difference? If you challenge the government's right to use deadly force, you DIE. PERIOD.
The first amendment stands or falls alone. The second is just a relic of revolutionary times. It means absolutely nothing anymore. If guns are to remain legal, it has to be on the basis of freedom, not on some stupid fantasy about being able to protect yourself from the power of state. To wield power against the state, you would need tanks, bombs, rockets, planes, ICBMS, etc. Having guns wont help you anymore than having field rations or combat fatigues will.
Note that the $100,000 per quarter is far above the stipend that some true grassroots bloggers get for their time.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
From Section 220: That enough for you?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
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.
Amen!
yes the proposed bill does not make unpaid political speach illegal YET . politicl speach, paid, unpaid or otherwise is not lobbying and is protected by the first amendment. What is lobbying is the spokesperson paid or unpaid dealing with the congressperson ( or his staff) directly , bypassing the voters . Urging ME to contact my representative and express MY opinion is NOT lobbying. This bill is nothing but a blatant attempt to shut down grassroots campaings as are the various attempts around the country to raise the bar on pettions by the voters to get laws on the ballot that the politicians don't want. If you want to make something illegal make Real lobbying illegal ( by unions , companies, pacs of all stripes and orginasations from the sierra club to the NRA). let the people in congress listen to the voters not the K street law firms.
There is no abridgment of freedom of speech or the press here, no matter how many littegreenfootballers have screamed out in unison.
How ironic of a statement given how they hide behind being a private entity to silence people. At least their opposition allows them to present their case, even if it defies the "majority opinion".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If you think McCain-Feingold was a good law, then this won't make sense to you. But money is a form of free speech just as much as burning a flag or sliding down a stripper pole is.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I say THANK GOD some bloggers make money. Seems to me that it will encourage more speech. Otherwise, we'd only have guys on welfare in their PJs.
When did making money become a bad thing? We can't all be on government relief!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The reason why you see no difference is because you are
a.) borderline socialist
b.) ignorant of the positions of Libertarians
c.) troll
You could say the same thing about Democrats and Libertarians. Don't believe me? Watch.
If you are a left leaning libertarian then you want to be a left winger that doesn't pay out the nose in taxes. Personally I think it's better if you are a righty who supports tax reform. Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Democrat all that much. It doesn't in my eyes.
Libertarians support:
1.) Drug legalization
2.) Prostitution legalization
3.) Strict adherence to the Bill of Rights
4.) Gay marriage
5.) Open borders
6.) Abortion
7.) Abolishing the FCC
I wish you were right that the GOP was libertarian, by the way. Republicans are bending over backwards for the social conservative vote. I am a right leaning libertarian because I support all seven, but not in absolutist terms.
1.) Start with POT
2.) Make it a business like everything else
3.) Pretty much absolute (exceptions for national security)
4.) Call it a Civil Union and you got my support
5.) Guestworker program you betcha!
6.) Prolife after neural activity
7.) Let people watch what they want to watch.
--Joey
The 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.
Dude! I could not agree more.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
Even proper nouns change in meaning over time. It's an unfortunate reality, and one that makes any examination of history a dicey prospect without a proper grounding in linguistics.
Language changes all the time. Basic underlying concepts change. We use ancient words to describe things that people in the ancient world could never have understood. They used these same words in ways that are long forgotten, and which we would not and possibly could not recognize. So yes, when I say that Communism refers to a totalitarian system of state ownership, I am using the current meaning of that word. The meaning that 99.9% of the world uses. You can go around using the old definition and making no sense to anyone but yourself and a few other pedantic nobodies that refuse to accept change, but who's the real winner? The point of language is to communicate successfully. So you either use the definitions of words that are accepted by the society of which you are a part, or you don't communicate successfully and end up in a lot of arguments with people that you ultimately agree with, just because you were too much of an ass to bother learning how English is used NOW.
You guys crack me up. Our government tortures people to death, holds people for years without charging them, keeps them in secret prisons with no due process or even so much as a visit from the Red Cross, puts Americans under surveillance without a warrant, calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint and outdated," says that no individual American actually has habeus corpus rights, and you say nothing. In fact, you impugn the intelligence and patriotism of anywone who is concerned about these developments. But if person getting paid $100,000 a year to blog is made to admit that he's paid for it, then suddenly you weep for the death of sweet, sweet liberty. Wow. Compelling worldview you have there. You're the one with the brain, all right. Thanks for weighing in on the issue.
You keep misrepresenting the text, despite the fact that it is clear, frequently linked to on this thread, and has been explained multiple times.
Nothing in this bill would have prevented unregistered people from engaging in any sort of speech they liked. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What would have required registration is hanging out your shingle as a service provider who would advocate points of view in exchange for money.
This is directly analogous to the situation w. lawyers. I can represent myself in court any time I choose. So can you. But if we want to go into the business of charging others to represent them in court, there are certain hoops we'll have to go through first. And that fact does not in any way infringe on our right to have a lawyer. Likewise, under the proposed bill, you could say anything you wanted, but if you decided that you'd rather hire someone to speak on your behalf they would (under certain circumstances) have to be registered.
Ignoring this point will not make it go away.
--MarkusQ
The Text of the Amendment in Question:m p/~c110NaSiwe:e38473:/
One click only, for your reading enjoyment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./te
Whoops! Essentially it was a bill to make legitimate grassroots campaigns more effective as opposed to campaigns run by ad companies. And the company who ran the "grass roots" campaign to stop it was one of the biggest ad companies involved in this type of caper. The ironing of this one is so delicious I just can't fit in any dessert. I propose a completely different bill: No one is allowed to have an opinion on anything until they've spent at least one hour researching it.
I don't believe I did. He was implying that the fact the Republicans were opposed to something made it good. I referenced a typically pro-Democrat mainstream group that was also opposed to it to prove that it wasn't some great thing only the evil conservatives were opposed to, and that it wasn't--or shouldn't be, rather--a party issue.
"Sufferin' succotash."
== Final score ==
Team A (Mark, dictionaries, linguistics experts, historians, and 99.9% of all Humans): 1.
Team B (Mr Naz and a handful of other philosophy majors): 0.
Does it hurt to be on the side that has absolutely nothing upon which to base it's argument? I bet you'd make a outstanding religious zealot, or a devoted critic of evolutionary theory.
Can you point me to the text of any such revision of the bill in question?
Nice spin. The analogy was about people who exercise the rights of others, by proxy. As you note, the rights of journalists (and citizens who engage in political speech, peacefully assemble, etc.) are being exercised by the people who have those rights in the first place. I find it difficult to imagine how I could exercise my own rights by proxy, but I suspect it would probably be painful, so I too hope and pray the concept of doing something proxy is never stretched and twisted to the extent you attempted to abuse my analogy.
Agreed. I also hope they never try passing a law mandating nipple piercing for people who make sarcastic remarks. Fortunately, I've yet to see any evidence that either of these was included in any draft of the bill in question.
--MarkusQ
"The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917".
9... 10... ding! The singular definition of the word "communism" is out for the count. "Communism" is as subject to change as any other word in the english language. I like the clarity of this statement, the implication that "communism" is just a noise that comes out of people's mouths and that usage is what ultimately matters.
You ought to read the whole article. It's good. Later on it explicitly discusses the different usages of the word communism, with respect to the group of political theories and the family of political parties and systems of real-world government. The authors seem rather sure that you can talk about Communism and be referring to Stalinist governments, states, and ideologies.
It's interesting that you can't get past "definitions". I'm not sure why you think that common usage is soooo deplorable and monstrous, and can never be considered a reasonable way for anyone to communicate. It makes me wonder how you have conversations with anyone that isn't a political scientist. Do you spend every moment in a state of hopeless confusion, as you try to reconcile your strict classical definitions of words with the ways in which those words are being used by those around you? Do you stop and lecture people when they use the word communism in the common way rather than the traditional way? Or do you, deep down, understand exactly what people mean?
I fully intend to find a political scientist prof at school on Monday and see if he or she agrees that Communism is, in the common usage (ie: the English language as it is actually spoken by 99.5% of English speaking people), generally synonymous with soviet-style governance. I think you know what the prof will say...
Oh, and you're calling people "commoners" now? Are you royalty now? Landed nobility? That is ... wow. And I'm supposedly pretentious for using the word "vernacular".