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.
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?
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.
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.
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......
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.
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."
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."
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.
No, actually it was 25,000 a quarter and it required that you be retained by a client. Pretty clear. The 500 thing was totally different than the payment. Read the actual bill and not the crap spin that was spouted by a lobbyist on PR Wire and picked up here yesterday.
And I don't think it was dems not wanting competition. MoveOn.org is equal to anything the right has going in this area, and I can promise you the Dems sure don't want it to have to fall under K street kinda rules.
Ah, but you are a troll posting anonymously...
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
While I don't know if they should register as lobbyists, I definitely agree that some sort of proper disclosure should be required. Otherwise, this is a way for corporations to sell their lies to the public without them knowing it. Just as political ads must tell you who funded it (even if it's a corporate front group, you can still look them up), so should paid bloggers.
My new blog
Please stop saying $100,000 a year. That is not accurate and paints a different picture of "the rich" or, at least, the well paid.
For example, someone could dump a contract on a blogger to get paid $28,091 in a single quarter for some political blogging. They are now classified as a lobbyist and never made $100,000.
I think you're absolutely right to help educate Slashdotters on the realities of the bill. I applaud your effort to do so, by countering the FUD with facts. But, you'll need to get this one straight, too.
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
That provision would not have made it illegal. It would have required astroturfers to register as lobbyists.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
I'm getting a real kick out of the new fealing of brotherly love and respect here on slashdot.
Dumbasses.
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 bill targets "bloggers" that are "retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients" and that take in at least $25,000 per quarter
In other words, it doesn't cover bloggers in any true sense of that word as most of us understand it - it covers people masquerading as "grass-roots" bloggers, but who are actually bought and paid for shills making at least $100,000 a year for online "lobbying" efforts.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
First, I defy anyone to nail down a definition of "astroturfing" in a neutral non-political way. One man's astroturfing (probably the politician's) is another man's grassroots. When you are on the receiving end of it (as the politicians are) you don't like it. But when you are one of the outraged citizens who were alerted to something the politicians are about to do, and you take matters up with them, it is a genuine expression of concern.
People are too busy to read every bill that comes up-- come on, get real. So they subscribe to interest groups or go to blogs that share their interests and views, and have the time to analyze the things that go on in Washington. And the only way that these groups and blogs can devote that much time to this is by receiving funding in one form or another. It's not just corporations that provide funding: many groups are funded by the citizenry directly by subscription fees, membership dues, donations and the like. And it's not just conservative groups, but also liberal groups, that would be affected.
It should not surprise anyone that the politicians want to shut this down. But it's shameful that the vote was so split by party lines.
Here are some interesting paragraphs from the CNet article on the topic:
"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.
"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."
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.
Actually you are wrong. Of course there are hundreds of regular conservative bloggers who aren't part of the money train, but the fact is that many prominent conservative blogs are funded from some part of the Republican money machine - not the RNC, of course, but via wealthy donors.
Remember Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert?
I've never heard of a single liberal blog that gets funded this way. Most liberal bloggers are pretty frank about how they pay their bills as well. Very, very few afford their creators enough dough to make a living off their blogs, but many manage to at least pay their server bills and maybe provide pocket change.
I know some people will cite Soros and MoveOn - but MoveOn is not a blog, it's a PAC. There are a lot more super-wealthy conservatives who have funded conservative causes for decades, e.g. the Coors. There are more of them than you can imagine. Wealthy liberals are more likely to fund new hospital wings or cancer research or schools in India or something.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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