Slashdot Mirror
The Grassroots Blogging Provision's Real Purpose
ICantFindADecentNick writes "The Register carries a report on the defeat of Section 220 of the reform bill (the grassroots provision). In an all-too-familiar scene, bloggers, Slashdot readers and several news outlets were taken in by the hype surrounding a provision in the Senate ethics reform bill that would have required grassroots lobbying firms to register with the US Congress. To be fair, some commenters did see through the deception but the campaign, organized by Richard Viguerie, still succeeded. From the article: 'Viguerie, for those not familiar with the tarnished panoply of backroom players in American politics, pioneered the use of direct mail techniques for conservative causes, and has been called the "funding father" of the modern conservative movement. His ad agency currently handles direct mail campaigns for non-profits seeking to stimulate grassroots activity or raise funds from the general public.'" This is, of course, The Register. Still interesting to look back at the news from another point of view.
Only a bastion of fine news reporting like slashdot can say something like this without sounding pretentious.
"Look back"?
People were screaming about the whole thing being a complete fabrication each time it was posted on Slashdot. You could have just, you know, read the comments?
This is, of course, The Register. Still interesting to look back at the news from another point of view. submitter makes it seem almost wistful that he and a bunch of other tards were taken in hook line and sinker when all they had to do was read and see what was really going on. it also makes me wonder how many posters here are paid shills of a misinformation campaign although as they say, "don't attribute to malice what is perfectably explainable by stupidity."
"pioneered the use of direct mail techniques for conservative causes"
So, you're saying that liberal causes haven't figured out how to use the mail box yet?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Shouldn't we get an apology from the /. "editors", since they swallowed Vigurie's spin hook line and sinker -- not once, but twice?
(Of course, since they apparently don't read the comments, where many people pointed out the truth on this issue, I expect the answer is probably no.)
Read my blog.
Since the provision was designed to silence some conservative grassroots guy, it must be okay. Surely there wouldn't be any unintended consequences.
Yeah... whoever heard of a Slashdot reader not RTFA and jumping at whatever conclusions are presented in the blurb.... I must be new here.
Kinda funny that the bill to try to prevent astroturfing was defeated largely by astroturfing.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Jeez, calm down. It was simply a law requiring paid political astroturfers to register with Congress, just like the K Street lobbyists have to already. Being registered as a lobbyist doesn't seem to have slowed Jack Abromoff down any.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
It's claiming that it's a good idea to have astroturfing paid political shills register, which was what the bill was about. Apparently you are missing the part where all the reporting on the bill was complete fabrications and had very little to do with the reality of what it covered.
Anytime you can limit free speech, you have done a good thing. /sarcasm
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
1) Senate proposes bill. Bill contains provisions that businesses will probably not like, but Senate feels pressure to do so from the public (?).
2) Influential conservative stirs up "public opinion" against bill's provisions.
3) Bill's provision is struck. Senate cites "will of the people" and shrugs. Senate gets to say "we tried, you didn't want it." Businesses keep astroturing. Everyone wins except the public who, as always, loses.
Just how often are the provisions of bills being discussed in Congress truly struck out because the people got wind of what was going on and spoke out--without some mouthpiece or rein-holding group to speak "for" us, or some vague poll number or other inaccurate metric telling the Congressfolks what we think, or some massive letter-writing campaign by just 2000 very angry people?
hormone driven women and wanking /.ers
The sad part is not so much that it worked, but that the same crowd buys into every pop-sci, nuclear power is bad, we're destroying the planet, your immogrant nighbour is eatint the neighborhood pets, child abductions and school killings are rampat, terrorists are really nice prople who don't like me because they thik I'm not sensitive to their culture, cuttlefish are smarter than dolphins are smarter than dogs are more deserving of life than humans, Al Sharpton is NOT a racist who instigated the killing of 8 people in Harlem, and thimblefull of other crap that makes them feel good, important, superior, or might get them some nookie.
Why do you support the "free speech" of paid political lobbyists? Again, it was just requiring registration - in other words admitting you're a political shill.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
... is the first step. Once everbody is registered they have to have license to have a public opinion.
I'm not saying here that astroturfing isn't a huge problem, but if I started
speaking out against the govt/big business astroturfers guess whose license
would be revoked?
Yeah, I can understand how Gonzales was confused that where the Constitution said that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended..." meant that it could be suspended anytime he felt like it. But what I don't understand is how you think that where the Constitutions says "Congress shall make no law..." means that Congress can make any law on speech or that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means that all powers not given to Congress in the Constitution actually are given to Congress in the Constitution--namely regulating political speech by corporations. If you can tell me the sections of the Constitution that I might have missed that actually give Congress the power to regulate corporate political speech please feel free to list them. Otherwise it seems to me that they are reserved powers and can't be tampered with without a Constitutional amendment.
But then again, I'm just an amateur. I'm not a lawyer like Gonzales who can read a sentence that says "No" and interpret it to mean "Yes." I guess I'm just not educated enough to understand what the Constitution really means. Maybe you have to look at it with a blacklight or read it upside down to understand it.
Ignoring the issue with the readership, what would the registration accomplish anyway? You can already see who contributes to the politicans' campaigns, and that doesn't seem to do change anything.
No, you don't have to register to have a personal opinion, or to voice it in public. The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.
It might be interesting to look back at those threads and see if we could figure out who the astroturfers are.
I've also thought, more ambitiously, that it might be interesting to see if there were discernible patterns to postings by astroturfers, or to threads on which this was happening. I'm not sure what exactly to look for (especially since we don't have access to the IP addresses), but their still might be some pattern of boiler plate text, or things block copied from other sites, or...
Ideas?
--MarkusQ
There might be an AI or pattern recognition thesis in there somewhere.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The liberals have plenty of dirty backroom boys. Don't expect to read about them in the liberal media though.
It's a follow up to a previous article. It corrects that article's mistatement of the facts of the legislative provisions to prevent paid-lobbyists ($25,000 or more in one quarter of a year and a specific client) from using "blogging" as a loophole in the lobbyist reporting rules. The previous article pretended the legislation the Republicans all voted against would have hindered all bloggers. In fact, as this "correction states, the Republicans all voted to prevent proper reporting of paid-for lobbying activity online (when done on behalf of a specific client's interests). You may not think correcting the record is news. I do.
Just because Richard Viguerie wants it out for selfish reasons doesn't mean the law itself is a good idea. Astroturfing is annoying, but there's a lot more to lose than gain by regulating political speech like this.
-Dave
The bill would have infringed the right of free speech. It's actually quite clear.
Astroturf campaigns are free speech. Fining groups engaged in astroturf campaigns is an infringement on free speech. Requiring speakers to "register" in order to be allowed to speak is not free speech.
All this BS justification is simply "we're in favor of free-speech only when we agree with the motives, methods, or message of the speaker". Agreeable speech doesn't need to be protected from the people who agree with it.
It is my honest opinion that this was bad legislation. Yes, I know most blogger wouldn't be affected, but organizations like the EFF would have been.
For a non-profit organization, even small expenses can make or break the efforts of the organization. There are a lot of non-profit organizations that have only a handfull of staff, yet influence thousands or millions of people. Groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood - which are generally well funded - are the exception, rather than the rule. Political advocacy for minority causes is generally not big business. Especially when said minority opinions are held by the poor or politically disenfranchised.
Furthermore, this legislation would remove the ability of politically influential bloggers and organizations to remain anonymous. It would provide a nice "tool" for an oppressive regime to eliminate dissent. Our Constitutional Rights are important, even if the average blogger is not affected! It's a matter of principlel, one I would expect the /. crowd to understand, considering all of the harping they do about Constitutional liberties.
Organizations like the FSF, EFF, and FIRE would probably be considerably affected by this legislation.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Being /. it's claiming that it was a good provision because it was not really about targeting free speech, but rather about targeting a "tarnished" "backroom" "conservative." That being the goal, anything goes.
Being registered as a lobbyist doesn't seem to have slowed Jack Abromoff down any.
Then what good would this law do?
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
So what if I were journalist and radio host like Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com) and I made
6 1605341661&q=alex+jones4 395043413&q=alex+jones+order+of+death2 703884418&q=alex+jones
a living investigating the US government and the United Nations and exposing them in
television documentaries like you can _buy_ on DVD from hist site at http://www.infowars.com/ (
or watch for free on http://video.google.com/
Watch Terrorstorm http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=terrorstorm
Watch 911 The Road To Tyranny http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-64954627
Watch The Order of Death (Bohemian Grove Exposed!) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=492717506
Watch Police State 2: The Takeover by Alex Jones http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-73284568
Why should _he_ or anybody else for that matter register for the RIGHT to express their opinions in public
to any arbitrarily large audience?!
As a LIBERTARIAN, I find the whole Censorship by the left wing wackos and the right wing nut jobs completely distasteful. Lets just label everything "hate speech" and "lies" and create laws to protect the sensibilities of the over sensitive people
.. etc) as much if not more so than right (book burning, Porno etc) does.
... never mind....
The left wants to limit free speech (Fairness Doctrine, Bloggers as Lobbyists, Political Correctness
I wonder how the left would feel if the right wanted to make it so that all porn producers and actors had to register to produce porn and anyone making or working in porn without a licence was subject to the same types of punishments.
They can take my speech away just after they take my guns aways. Oh wait
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Look you toffy-nosed, malodorous pervert, I got as far as "whoever heard of a Slashdot reader" and I just had to respond. Now admittedly, I have no idea what the rest of your post may or may not say, but I've never let facts, or lack thereof, stand in my way before.
Plenty of people have heard of a slashdot reader, only a moron would say otherwise.
Sheesh, you people...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't have a completely fixed opinion on the astoturfing bill except that is was vauge and thus dangerous, but apparently the IRS is getting into the same game so there is more going on I think: http://slashdot.org/~Ungrounded+Lightning/journal/ .
I think you need to be logged in to see this link.
To me the problem isn't as much the lobbyists and astroturfers as it is the willingness of those in Congress to take their gifts, payments, etc. I am sure many of them are upset that this bill was defeated, if this new group of people had to register, it would have been so much easier for the members of Congress to figure where to get their new "donations." Once Congress starts making laws that puts strict penalties on them getting caught taking this money, then I will be impressed.
was trying to accomplish.
I was opposed to this legislation for the same reason I was opposed to McCain-Feingold - it's a restriction on freedom of speech.
I don't care if a campaign is astroturf or if a group wants to get together and pay for an advertisment for a candidate.
Sure SCOTUS disagrees with me on McC-F, but I still feel that way.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Is he being paid to express his opinions/do journalistic research or is he a contractor to a PR firm trying to get a 'grassroots' campaign started to promote his employers agenda? The wording of the ammendment made clear that you had to do 2 things to fall under it:
So, unless you take money to present a specific opinion & attempt to influence government by having your readers contact their representatives, you don't have to register as a political lobyist. This is just an attempt to do with blogs what is already manditory with radio, television, and print - If you take money to work for a political lobby, you have to register, hell in traditional media, you have to identify your affiliation on every add/interview.
So for Alex Jones, he doesn't qualify. He's a journalist who presents his facts & then tells people to take action. If he starts taking money from a PAC specifically to expouse a specific POV and astroturf for them, then yes, he does need to register, because he is no longer expressing his opinion he is expressing the opinion a PAC paid him to express. Hence the original title - paid for speach is not free speach & is not subject to the anonymity provisions which accompany the first ammendment.
I fail to see what being a libertarian has to do with it. Free speech is not an absolute right. I'm sure you are aware that free speech cannot be used to justify screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Nor does free speech include inciting other people to criminal acts.
There are already limits to free speech. Some might argue that my examples do not have anything to do with political free speech, and that is what the core of this particular argument is about. To that, I can only point out that sedition is a crime, so there appear to be pre-existing limits on political free speech too.
It's not a left-right issue, and there really isn't anything to be gained from trying to make it appear that way, unless you have some other axe to grind. The end result is that wealthy special interests have won out against the public good yet again. I fail to see how that benefits anyone, on the left or the right.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
"Free speech is not an absolute right."
Either you have free speech or you don't. The US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, so this law was blatantly unconstitutional.
"I'm sure you are aware that free speech cannot be used to justify screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire."
You have every right to do so, but you can then hardly complain when you're locked up as a result.
"Some might argue that my examples do not have anything to do with political free speech, and that is what the core of this particular argument is about."
Your example has everything to do with political free speech. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd be aware that the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' nonsense was government restriction of free speech by anti-war activists.
Posting bill text might not have been as useful as you think, unless it went along with a pretty detailed analysis, because there was a lot of interaction between different sections.
As for groupthink, that was happening on both sides, and still is (except now the default direction of the groupthink is reversed). Section 220 had a problem in it, which The Register article mentions. That problem is exactly what was bugging me about the bill: that anyone paid enough to do "stimulation of grassroots lobbying" would have had to register as a lobbyist, and be subject to lobbying regulations, even if they have no direct contact with public officials. That's a heavy-handed way of dealing with the problem, and I think that it could even run afoul of the first amendment. So given the flawed nature of Sec 220, people on both sides had a point. In its proposed form, though, I'm glad the section was rejected.
That's the whole point. If Alice in Acapulco asks Bob to drop a package off at Carol's house in Chicago, and unbeknownst to Bob the package is full of drugs, isn't Alice responsible even though she had no "direct contact" with the drugs? If Dave hires Eddie to kill Frank, is Dave in the clear because he has no "direct contact" with Frank? If a PR firm creates a blog or some other form of astroturfing operation full of (possibly inaccurate) information and urges people to contact their congress critters on the basis of it, aren't they lobbying just as surely as if they had hand delivered the stuff themselves?
--MarkusQ
Well, technically he's right, as it's a right not explicity granted, but implied. That, of course, doesn't mean it's not a right (which is spelled out in the 10th Amendment).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
That is an interesting point. I assume you are talking about people like yourself, who persist in raising essentially the same objections even after it has been repeatedly pointed out (and, in some cases, conceded) that they are misrepresenting the issue at hand? I must admit that I am puzzled about this myself. From your posts on other topics you don't seem like an astroturfer, but yet you have persisted in posting the same misleading spin on this topic time and time again.
Why is that?
--MarkusQ
The morale of this story is that net neutrality and freedom of speech MUST be protected..... unless it's by someone we don't like!
/.
bravo register and
Do you remember my response? Unless they are charging money specifically for pushing that particular agenda, it's a non-issue. But if they are, then yes, they are lobbying. To see the problem, let's look at the same structure in a slightly different context:
Having paid spokespeople pretend to be independent isn't free speech, it's fraud. And no one, in any of this is saying that they can't write whatever they want, or that they can't be paid, only that they can't be paid under the table. Free speech is about being able to say whatever you want, not about being able to say whatever you are paid to say without revealing that you're only saying it because you were paid. That's why ads that look too much like news articles have a little box printed around them saying "advertisement" and why Google ads are set off in a different color and why actors who endorse products have to say things like "I'm not a Doctor, even though I do play one on television" before they sell snake oil.
Again with the misrepresentation. This is just flat out illogical, unless you are claiming that 1) everything is on the up and up and 2) they won't get paid unless they keep it a secret.
You can't have it both ways; either everything is fine, in which case having public record of the transaction shouldn't be a problem, or the whole enterprise depends on it being done under the table, in which case I don't see how you can justify the position that everything is hunky-dory. And before you start off on any red herrings, remember that the law specifically excluded things like donations from members of an organization, ad revenue, pay received by employees writing on behalf of an organization, etc.
--MarkusQ
You can, and have the right to say anything you want. However you are responsible for the results of that speech as well. This is where many fail to realize that speech has consequences, and worse, don't want to take responsibility for those consequences.
If I am offended by something you say, can I sue? How about if I'm offended by a racial epithet uttered in my direction. How about if someone calls my wife fat and ugly? Can I sue then?
Now, as for your "fire" example, it is a strawman attack. Yelling fire in a theater is NOT political speech, which is exactly what the anti blogging law is. Would you support a ban on Porn because some people view it as harmful (like yelling fire)? Would you support the banning of the "N" word because it "offends"?
What offends me, isn't the same as what offends you, so who gets to ban what speech? What is worse about this law, is that it isn't what is being said but WHO is saying it. The result is even more chilling when you realize that only approved groups can say what they want, and unapproved groups cannot say anything.
You don't see a problem with this???
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm going to out on a limb here, and speculate that you haven't RTFA, or the text of the proposed law. No worries, this is /. after all, where it is more fashionable to vent your spleen than have a rational discussion...
You appear to be suggesting that although there is a constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech, it is perfectly acceptable to be thrown in jail for exercising that right
Yet you also stated that either you have free speech or you don't. Personally, I don't think free speech is a binary operator, but you seem to be viewing it that way. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is: given that some forms of speech can result in incarceration, do you have freedom of speech or not?
Well, since I obviously know nothing about the subject, it's a good thing that you are here to educate me. I look forward to your lesson on contradiction next.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I'm not saying that anyone that disagrees with me is an astroturfer. I'm saying that that I do not understand why you persist in treating this as a free speech controversy when it clearly, demonstrably, was not and the point has been made to you, over and over, by several people, myself included.
The section in question had nothing to do with speech and everything to do with taking money. As I've explained several times, the provisions were completely independent of whether you even say or write anything (you would have been required to register for taking $30,000 to send a million e-mails, even if you never sent the e-mails). Conversely, you could say and write whatever you wished, and earn as much money as you cared to from your blog (or spam farm, or whatever) so long as you never took money from clients for specifically urging people to contact their congress critters.
You never seem to respond to this point, instead just ignoring it in your response or popping up elsewhere with essentially the same "it's all about free speech" claim.
Why is that?
OK, so disagree. I've shown that they are logically independent (with full links to the text of the bill in the earlier cases). Can you offer some logical, fact based argument to the contrary? Because I'm not claiming that you have disagreed with me; I'm claiming you have persisted in making factually incorrect statements long after it has been pointed out to you that they are factually incorrect. There's a difference.
--MarkusQ
I fail to see what being a libertarian has to do with it. ...
The end result is that wealthy special interests have won out against the public good yet again. I fail to see how that benefits anyone, on the left or the right.
It's clear that your understanding of politics is pretty limited.
The left and the right are the tools of special interests. When we get bigger government, they *both* win and the American people lose.
You need first to understand what the left and the right are and what they are right or left *of*.
The right is lock stock and barrel the supporter of wealthy special interests by definition.
The left ostensibly agrees with the principle that all people are created equal, but they believe further that the power of the state should be used against the individual to enforce that equality.
The right flat out disagrees with the whole premise. They beleive wholeheartedly that the rich and powerful are better and therefore the power of the state should be used against the individual to *prevent* equality.
That is what the left and the right are.
What they are right or left of is Liberalism, which is the philosophy that the indivisual's rights are important.
This isn't what it means in common useage in the US anymore, but that's becasue the left and the right both despise Liberalism as it is an inherently small government philosophy.
When the term got coopted by leftists and reviled by rightists, the Libertarian movement started. This is the closest thing we have to a Liberal party in the US. My issues with them are they've taken belief in the market as an absolute truth by faith, which is a problem.
So, the point of all of this to your questions:
I fail to see what being a libertarian has to do with it.
Because libertarians (apart from the above caveat) are the only party that actually does care about individual liberty. Any time we talk about Left versus Right and every time we allow an issue to be framed as if that was a meaningful distinction the point that there is actually a different view that doesn't support massively increasing government power and destruction of individual rights as both the right and left do all the time.
So both the left and the right love restricting free speech. The reason that the Libertarians are relevant is that they're the only party that doesn't actively stand against free speech (and most other freedoms as well.)
I fail to see how that benefits anyone, on the left or the right.
Bigger government always benefits the left and the right since big government is what they stand for since that's the only way they can achieve their goals of using the government against the people.
Do you understand now?
You can, and have the right to say anything you want. However you are responsible for the results of that speech as well. This is where many fail to realize that speech has consequences, and worse, don't want to take responsibility for those consequences.
Ok, so if I'm a politician, it's perfectly OK for me to lock up anyone who disagrees with me? Of course they're free to do so, they're just responsible for the results of that speech, viz. getting locked up.
What if I have to register to speak and the wonders of modern bureaucracy don't give me my "this guy is allowed to talk" card in time to affect the changes I want? Say the legislature is proposing a bill that would require homosexuals to drive pink cars. (Stay with me here; there are stupider laws on the books.) I want to start a grass roots blog to oppose it. I eagerly apply and six months after the bill is passed I get my approval to start blogging. Do you still think this is a good idea?
Where's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.
Actually requiring registration for political speech is a violation of free speech. The UCCS Justices have ruled as far back as the early 1800s anonymousity is an importnat part of political speech, that if a person couldn't speak while remaining anonymous then they couldn't enjoy free speech. As one court ruled: ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . Here's a search of Findlaw on "anonymous speech" "first amendment". Most of them are comments or editorials, but some have USSC rulings.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's not the situation that's unique, it's your interpretation.
You are proposing a novel theory of how the world works, and I was asking for an example (any example) of where it works like you seem to think it does. Are you admitting that you can't think of any either? If that is the case, on what basis to you support the claim that your interpretation should be taken seriously?
Because, if you can't come up with something more plausible, the rest of the "think of the children--I mean, think of the Constitution!" structure falls flat on it's face.
--MarkusQ
This is all about finances, not speech. If you are being paid millions of dollars to do lobbying work, you shouldn't be shielded from the law just because you pretend that you are an independent, unpaid blow-hard, and not a professional blow-hard.
If you had read the original bill you would have seen how a blogger with less than 500 members did not have to register, but it also said nothing about one who had 500 or more. So if a person had 500 people who read the blog it could of been considered as being paid.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Fair enough. But can it said that you have the right to free speech if you can be thrown in jail for exercising it? Personally, I would have thought that it is not much of a right, if you can be punished for doing it.
It's not a strawman attack, and I address that issue in the next few sentences of that post. Sedition is a crime, and that certainly falls under the category of political speech.
Dude, did you even bother to RTFA?
I don't understand why some people were so upset. Paid lobbyists who run an astroturfing campaign would have been required to publicly acknowledge that it was a work for hire and not a genuine grass-roots effort.
Honestly, what's the big deal?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
"Sedition is a crime, and that certainly falls under the category of political speech."
What the founders did when the signed the Declaration was Sedition and Treason. Sedition against tyrants is a responsibility .
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
*laugh* Not even close.
I'm a charter member of the "Republicans who hate Bush" club, a fiscal conservative who doesn't believe that corporations are "people" and doesn't like being lied to. At this very moment I'm sitting in a room full of boxes which I hope will soon be shipped back to the US, with me to follow shortly. I've got no TV, no radio, and most of my books are either in storage or in the aforementioned boxes, so I'm cruising the tubes and standing up for logic, truth, and The American Way while I wait. No one is paying me to do this. There are some crazy people out there, but not that crazy.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I shouldn't just single out Bush. I also can't stand his buddy Lieberman, McCain, Hillary Clinton, Cheney, Kerry, Rahm Emanuel,...well, let's just say that there aren't a lot of elected officials these days that I do like.
There was a time in the western world, when it was unified under a common government, culture, and language; where the citizens enjoyed peace and protection across the known world.
This was during the reign of the Roman emperors, and it was not some happy coincidence. These various peoples didn't unite willingly, but once they had, the resulting state of affairs was the best it would ever be for a thousand years thence.
No, not a king, but an emperor.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Ford shouldn't be allowed to run ads for Chevy cars that make them look bad, for example. Why not?
Because society is better served by requiring companies to be truthful in their advertising
And what if the ad is true? Wouldn't it serve the public for Ford to let people know that GM refuses to do the right thing - recall its dangerous C/K pickup trucks?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I would certainly not support a bill which block anyone's right to say whatever they wished.
Fortunately some USSC Justices have felt and ruled that anomynity is an important part of free political speech. If a person could not remain anonymous, ther ability to speak freely has been abridged or otherwise negatively impacted. By requiring registration anonymous free speech is being tossed out the window.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You appear to have not read the article, the summary, or most of the comments in this thread.....this may be an all new Slashdot personal best.
The provision didn't silence anyone, it makes you admit that you're a paid professional lobbyist pretending to be some grassroots guy.
Insightful? More like clueless.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
This is news. Is it the fact the Slashdot was HAD that bothers you?
And anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment - see Talley v California :
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
I wonder, when some lefty group launches one of their "spontaneous" demonstrations with paid protesters, should they register too?
You "Bush is tearing up the Constitution" lefties are such fucking hypocrites. And you non-lawyers really expose yourselves as insipid when you discuss the law.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Cascadingstylesheet said:
That depends, are they paying you to express a specific opinion, or your opinion.
also:
The average columnist does NOT have to register for the simple reason that they are paid to write columns expressing their opinions on current events. They are not being hired to write individual columns with specific topics & agendas. If they are paid to write a specific column with a specific agenda of motivating people to take a specific political action, then they are not expressing their opinion, they are contractiors lobbying for another group. The wording was specific that you had to be paid to simulate a grassroots movement. So, if you get up on the soapbox & shout your own opinions, it doesn't matter what you say. When the RNC pays you to stand up on that box to spout the party line, then you aren't acting as a citizen - you're a PR person lobbying the people instead of directly to congressmen.
rexrhino commented:
No, it's not, the right to free speach is garanteed to all individuals. PACs, companies, etc are not individuals and they require spokespeople. When you exercise your right to free speach, people listening to you base the value they place on what you say on what they know about you - your opinions in the past, your experiance, etc - when that reputation is bought for a political end, people have a right to know. It's called truth in advertising. Note that at the bottom of all the commercials with famous people, they have the notes that they are compensated spokespeople/satisfied users. At the bottom of all the political adds it says paid for by XXX. Those are so that the people who listen to them can identify the bias of the speaker. At no time does it limit what can be said, nor does it limit public discourse - it only limits the ability of people to hide their affiliations when they are paid to speak for a group.
rexrhino also went on:
SQL_error chose to quote the constitution:
For rex, this is a registration of affiliation, and it is currently required for all lobbyists who dirrectly lobby members of government - IE take money to talk to people who vote on laws. It's not a license, it's a registration so that the people you are trying to influence can see what groups you are speaking for. There is no way to prohibit registration, nor is there a way to revoke the registration. I can sign up as a lobbyist for the 'Commitee for the Severe Beating of Annoying Children' and there is no means to prohibit me from lobbying on behalf of my clients. Also, there is no means for me to legally hide that affiliation while I am lobbying, nor should there be. When I engage in lobbying, I am not speaking for myself, nor am I exercising my right to free speach, I am speaking for a company or a group and anyone who cares to should have the right to determine which group I am speaking for.
For SQL, again, there is no abridgment. You, as an individual can say anything you want - including attempting to create a grassroots movement to legalize pissing on the shoes of lawyers. Your freedom of speach is in no way inhibited. The only thing that is inhibited here is the
If the right thing to do was illegal, would you hesitate to do it?
There is a short list of people who dared to do what was right, in spite of the fact it was illegal, we tend to call them "heros". There is a very long list of anonymous cowards who didn't, and nobody remembers their names for a reason.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. At the time of the War of Independence, George Washington could legitimately be viewed as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on your perspective.
Besides, sedition and treason are still federal crimes today. Regardless of circumstance. I stand by my original assertion that there are limits on political expression.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Once again, paid speech on behalf of a political campaign is advertisement and should be treated as such. The general rule is that if you get a W-2 for what you're doing, it's susceptible to regulation.
Actually Thomas Paine was being paid at least some while he wrote. His "The Crisis" wherein he wrote the famous line "These are the times that try men's souls" he wrote while he was serving in the Continental Army under Washington.
FalconShould there be a Law?