Senators Announce New Bill That Would Regulate Online Political Ads (theverge.com)

First post by wyattstorch516 · 2017-10-19 15:33 · Score: 4, Funny

All this for 100K of Russian ads?

Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 17:01 · Score: 0, Insightful

The Russan ads WERE promoting Hillary. Though the more people knew of Hillary the less they liked her. That is the problem with long time Democrats, they get a lot of shit in their trunk and when it is opened, no one likes it.
Really, who pays for them isn't important, it is if they are true or not is the important part. (though Democrats would never support a bill like that)
Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 17:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, they werenâ(TM)t. They were race baiting republicans with fake BLM content, and right wing talking points. And it wasnâ(TM)t 100k. Stop getting your fake news from Brietbart.
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 17:20 · Score: 0, Troll

No you got that wrong, it was actually $140 million.
You're talking about the bribe paid to get the Uranium One deal, right?
Re:First post by Mashiki · 2017-10-19 18:37 · Score: 0, Troll

You're talking about the bribe paid to get the Uranium One deal, right?
You gotta get those talking points right man. That was pro-quid legit business for the Clintons, and that massive bribery and kickback scheme that the FBI were investigating before the Obama admin stomped all over it. It's not that she and the DNC were actually doing this shit, and this was all projection or something. They're totes good peoples!
It's like all those directors, actors, reporters, gamejurno's and other "male feminist allies" who screeched that they're really, really, really good people, and never evar sexually harassed anyone! Before it all came out that really, they sexually harassed multiple people and even raped several(with a toss-mix of bomb threats). There's no projection going on here, none at all!

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:First post by jellomizer · 2017-10-19 22:05 · Score: 1

Actually the the people who actually knew Hillary liked her. Her problem is she was rarely genuine in front of the camera. So she always seemed hardnosed and uptight.
I have heard the same response from people on both sides of the political spectrum who actually met her and worked with her.
The more media press on Clinton is actually bad get her because she puts on her tougher then the guys persona.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 22:41 · Score: 0

Russia exposed a criminal organization operating within our government. You would think that we could at least thank them for exposing what a cesspool our government has become since the People have head their heads up their asses for over forty years. You are one of those people.
Re:First post by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:19 · Score: 3

as opposed to the current WH occupant, who has had his S on display openly for 70 years, and GOP voters were like "i dunno, lets see what he's got to say".
proof that lying about a woman for 40+ years can pay off in the end.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:First post by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:19 · Score: 2

requiring them to disclose who paid for the ad != banning.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:46 · Score: 0

The 100k figure came from several Slashdot submissions so....
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:20 · Score: 0

And a million times more in paid trolls commenting on the ads.
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:45 · Score: 0

They've got to deflect from their own issues.
Soros dumping dozens of BILLIONS into the political left. Dems having their own actual Russia-scandal. Better report on some ads on Facebook!
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:10 · Score: 0

"tougher THEN" - LOL.
American? Don't understand what the words "then" and "than" mean? Hmm...
Re:First post by rickb928 · 2017-10-20 02:29 · Score: 1

Being two-faced is a problem for some politicians. Choosing the right faces is key.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:First post by rickb928 · 2017-10-20 02:32 · Score: 0

0. The camera doesn't lie.
1. 'second-most votes' is an ongoing canard. He won the votes that were needed. Figure it out, or find an 11th grade civics class. OR change the rules, legally or illegally, if you can.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:41 · Score: 0

that didn't stop the riots and vitriolic behavior of blm, now did it?
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:56 · Score: 0

if you want to ignore the billions that Israel invests in manipulating the US public, then sure
THAT TRUMP IS RUDE TO WOMEN! NEVER TRUMP
- signed, Harvey Weinstein and the rest of the disgusting degenerates and pedophiles from (((Hollywood)))
Re:First post by Rob+Y. · 2017-10-20 02:57 · Score: 2

It's not just the Russian ads, of course. Facebook has been skirting all standards for advertising. They've taken 'native advertising' to such a level that there's essentially no difference between advertising and other content in your feed - as long as somebody you know hit a 'like' button there. Other stuff may be labeled "Sponsored Content", or "chosen for you" or some such thing.
As regards political advertising, there's a reason for preventing anonymous political ads - and Facebook essentially invites them by doing nothing to prevent them. Political ads are time-sensitive, and outright lies need to be addressed if we want our democracy to function based on any sense of reality. But lies slipped into your Facebook feed close to election day and not even identified as funded in support of one candidate or another make a mockery of the concept of an 'informed voter'.
And then, let's not forget the hundreds (thousands?) of fake users commenting on these stories and amplifying them. Some in direct support of a candidate - some fraudulently pretending to support a third candidate in order to harm another one. Anonymity is one of the 'charms' of the Internet as well as one of it's curses. It's probably not going to survive - at least as a business model. The same can be said for Bitcoin. A digital substitute for cash might be a good thing - but if it's main purpose is to support an illegal underground economy, it's not going to have an aboveground life for long...

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-20 03:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't believe that the riots were the problem.
Angry Black People: -RIOTING and/or LOOTING-
White People: "Can't they protest peacefully?"
Black People: -Marching and blocking traffic-
White People: "Can't the protest quietly?"
Black People: -Kneeling-
Clueless White People: "NO! Not like that!"
I think the problem is that black people are daring to complain in public.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re: First post by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-20 03:21 · Score: 1

Racist: Watch as I generalize about an entire race of people based on the actions of a few.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 03:43 · Score: 0

The point isn't that he didn't win. It's that clearly the majority of people don't support his platform. Acting as if you won with enough margin for a voter mandate when you lost the popular vote is not smart even by Trump standards.
If he spent more time building consensus instead of divisive behavior and tearing down everything Obama did cause Obama then he would be in much better shape by now to actually do what he wanted to do. Instead he's the dumb kid on the playground throwing rocks and then crying when no one sits with him at lunch.
Factually speaking now too, Hillary lied a hell of a lot less than Trump, up to half as much. People supporting Trump in the beginning and especially now are delluding themselves. There is nothing Trump has done or is doing that is actually going to help us especially in the long run.
While Trump's legislative progress is largely stunted his administrative progress has been astounding. In 8 months we effectively no longer have a state department leading to our current crisis in North Korea, Iran, lord knows where else. The EPA has relaxed regulations allowing coal companies to dump their waste back into our still recovering rivers and lakes. His Administration is incredibly destructive so far with little to no creation to replace what's been lost. Now inexplicably he has taken money tax payers contributed to healthcare and is withholding it from insurance companies who set prices based on how much they were getting re-reimbursed. Now his own voters are going to get hurt by this the most but they will point at it as how Obamacare "crashed and burned" despite the fact that it open did so due to sabotage.
We could be working towards better solutions for almost everything out there, instead we're focused on tearing down pillars of support throughout the country.
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 03:52 · Score: 0

Except Soros spent 25 million. Still a lot of money but no where near what the Koch brothers spend on the right which was 890 million. Sounds like you've got it rather backwards there chief.
Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 04:27 · Score: 0

If your not not peaceful then your message is lost and frankly irrelevant at that point.
Blocking traffic? Stopping people from getting to work and getting people fired that affect every race and emergency response. That seems like a terrible idea and makes those working people and emergency response people mad at you and your message gets lost. Keeping my job is more important than a statistic.
No one is stopping them from kneeling. If the NFL puts an end to it (because of dwindling viewers) how is that different than Google firing memo guy? It's private they can do what they please I thought.
How can I disagree with them or disagree with their methods without it being criticized with race bait like your "black people daring to complain in public"?
Also, you sound like a racist generalizing races.
Re:First post by whitroth · 2017-10-20 04:30 · Score: 1

Yep, sure, it was only $100k paid in rubles. Yup, there weren't any others. And no one in the US was actually paid (money not in that Facebook revenue) to retweet, like, whatever.
Nope, nothing here. By the way, if you want to make some real money, I've got this bridge for sale....
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 05:14 · Score: 0

You realize that every syllable you've written could have been written in 2009?
Politicians act like politicians. They are all full of crap. Trump is unique in style more than substance. I don't think he even has an actual platform, other than "I'm great!"
But as for "getting rid of Obama stuff because it was Obama stuff", remember Bush's big push to Mars? Yeah, Obama killed it because Bush. And then he brought it back after a few years, to the thunderous applause of the far left, who were so recently applauding getting rid of it.
Or immigration reform... Bush had all that on the table - way more than Obama ever thought about doing. And who fought him? Right... the left. (to be fair, the right wasn't really all that with him either).
Tearing down the pillars of support is tribal politics 101. The left has been frantically trying to gin up racial animus ever since the 2000 election, as we moved into a post racial world. It took all the way until Trump for them to gain any traction with their race-baiting, because people were tired of it. But now we've got another 20 years worth of voters who don't know anything about race relations in this country... they've never lived in a world where Al Sharpton could get famous for being part of a hoax to accuse police of abducting and raping a black teenager.
Well, now we are heading back there. So congratulations. You've gotten what you want. Everything is the other tribe's fault. Even the fact that nobody will cooperate.
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-20 07:56 · Score: 1

No one is stopping them from kneeling. If the NFL puts an end to it (because of dwindling viewers) how is that different than Google firing memo guy? It's private they can do what they please I thought.
No one is directly stopping them from kneeling but the entire point of the boycott is to force the NFL to ban kneeling.
Google firing memo guy was wrong too.
But what's different about this? The NFLPA. The players are member of a union and there is a valid contract in place that governs what the owners can and can't do to the players about kneeling.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re: First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 08:41 · Score: 0

If your not not peaceful then your message is lost and frankly irrelevant at that point.
In general, I agree. Specifically, riots are the language of the unheard. Had there been no riots in LA after those cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted, do you honestly believe there would have still been a civil rights case brought against them? I don't.

Keeping my job is more important than a statistic.
Me, my children and my friends not becoming statistics are more important than if you get to work on time. If you lose your job for being late, due to an incident that will doubtlessly make your local news... they were going to fire you anyway.
Your anger is precisely why they do it.
There you are, in a situation that you don't control, you didn't cause and you're going to face negative consequences because of actions that other people are taking and there's nothing you can do about it. How do you feel? Do you empathize with them? Do you feel pity for them? Or do you get angry? Do you want to run them over with your car because you have things to do and they're standing in your way? You want to kill them, don't you? All because they're going to delay your commute by 20 minutes, on this one occasion. Just imagine how angry you'd feel if you lived every day of your life with the knowledge that the law enforcement officers, who are sworn to serve and protect you, could kill you with impunity and at most, they'll face a paid vacation while their colleagues and friends "investigate" your execution. How angry would you be? Would you want to do something more drastic than block traffic?
It may be generalizing, but it's generalizing racists. You seem to think that just because you don't use "The N-Word" in public, you're not one.
Re: First post by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:06 · Score: 1

there is a valid contract in place that governs what the owners can and can't do to the players about kneeling.
You can bet there is a clause regarding player behavior that impacts that value of the brand (e.g. "morals clause"), and actively disrespecting the flag that results in lowering viewership would meet that criterion.
"But they're not ..." Yes, they actually are, no matter what other reason they give for doing it. It's passe to teach kids in school proper behavior and respect for the flag, but lots of people still remember and know what they are deliberately choosing to do. If they aren't choosing to disrespect the flag in order to get publicity about their cause, then why not kneel some other time?
Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:44 · Score: 0

25 million? Per day maybe. He recently dumped another 18 BILLION into his activism foundation.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/17/soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-open-society-foundations/
Re: First post by PlaynBass · 2017-10-21 04:57 · Score: 1

I think that kneeling does NOT show disrespect for the flag at all!
It is the most respectful way that these players can make a significant statement about the atrocities of people getting shot and killed by an out of control police culture.
The respect for the flag remains unchanged. It's the disrespect of the boycott of the NFL by the fans that is the real show of disrespect being acted out here. These fans have absolutely no understanding of the true meaning of the First Amendment. They also do not have any understanding that the First Amendment also guarantees that no one should be forced to show obeisance to any symbol.
To be forced into such acts is not expressing a love of freedom, but is only showing another form of tyranny.

--
PlaynBass
Re: First post by kenh · 2017-10-21 07:52 · Score: 1

No one is directly stopping them from kneeling but the entire point of the boycott is to force the NFL to ban kneeling.
No, the point is to stop them from kneeling.
The people boycotting the NFL are simply choosing not to support players, teams, league that (in their opinion) dis-respect the flag, and the fallen soldiers the playing of the anthem before a game is meant to honor.

But what's different about this? The NFLPA. The players are member of a union and there is a valid contract in place that governs what the owners can and can't do to the players about kneeling.
And the owners have the explicit right to control the behavior of the players when they wear their uniforms while representing the team on the field of play... that Rodger Goddell chooses to pretend they donâ(TM)t doesnâ(TM)tchange that simple fact.

--
Ken
Re:First post by eric_harris_76 · 2017-10-21 14:34 · Score: 1

And this is a problem because ...?

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-21 16:40 · Score: 1

Kneeling is the most respectful posture one can assume.
People take a knee when they speak to their God's.
It's not disrespectful of the flag or the military. It's disruptive because it forces you to think about issues that you'd prefer to ignore. You have to put on the charade that it's disrespectful because you can't speak honestly about why it upsets you.
Why not kneel at other times? "The land of the free" is a lie. If we're not free from the threat of summary execution at the hands of government agents, we're not free at all. Additionally, have you heard the latter stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner? The song glorifies the killing of black people.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:First post by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:24 · Score: 1

0. the ones youve been watching have been.
1. or maybe it's just a witty bit of snark and you're over thinking it.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: First post by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:28 · Score: 1

is he wrong though?

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-22 15:44 · Score: 1

OK. I see you're just going to be contrarian but I'll play along.

No, the point is to stop them from kneeling.
And how exactly is boycotting the NFL going to stop them from kneeling?

The people boycotting the NFL are simply choosing not to support players, teams, league that (in their opinion) dis-respect the flag, and the fallen soldiers the playing of the anthem before a game is meant to honor.
No, they're pretending it's about disrespecting the flag because it's no longer socially acceptable for them to tell the truth about what's bothering them. They don't like that black people are complaining.
These are the same people that are crying "ALL LIVES MATTER"!

And the owners have the explicit right to control the behavior of the players when they wear their uniforms while representing the team on the field of play.
Could the owners mandate that the players engage in gay sex while in uniform? No, of course not. There are limits to the control any employer has and in a case like this, those limits are determined by the contract.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re: First post by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 06:35 · Score: 1

I think that kneeling does NOT show disrespect for the flag at all!

Then you are ignorant of the significance of the national anthem and the flag. A likely product of our modern educational system.

The respect for the flag remains unchanged.

This may be true. If you have disrespect for the flag to begin with, then kneeling simply demonstrates a continued disrespect.

These fans have absolutely no understanding of the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Now you believe this is a First Amendment issue, which only demonstrates an increased ignorance. There is no issue here; the President is allowed to express his opinion about the matter just as you and the players are. The owners are allowed to act as they see fit. And nobody has said that the players are prohibited from a public disrespect for the flag. Congress has created no law and government has made no demands.

They also do not have any understanding that the First Amendment also guarantees that no one should be forced to show obeisance to any symbol.

I have yet to see any complaint about NFL players simply standing while the anthem is played. In fact, that's their normal activity. Some sway in time to the music, some simply stand immersed in thought. Very very few ever actually execute the salute that flag etiquette calls for.
Nobody is forcing them into any action other than their employer, who says they should stand in a line. While true respect means performing certain actions, active disrespect also requires an action. Nobody is forced to do either.
Re: First post by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 06:51 · Score: 1

Kneeling is the most respectful posture one can assume.
Not according to the standards of flag etiquette. Not in the US. We fought a war against a monarchy and kneeling is explicitly not a part of US diplomatic or other etiquette standards. One kneels before one's King, and in the US we have none. If you'd have had a proper civics course in our public schools, you'd have learned that.

People take a knee when they speak to their God's.
Some do, some do not, but the entity to which they are showing respect is different, so different standards apply.

It's not disrespectful of the flag or the military.
Yes, Lord, it is.

It's disruptive because it forces you to think about issues that you'd prefer to ignore.
No, I'm sorry, it does not. All it forces you to think about is that someone is actively disrespecting the flag and by extension the country for which is stands. It points out that people who live a pretty wonderful life making good, if not great in some cases, amounts of money playing a game, are behaving poorly. The excuse that it has something to do with whatever other peeve the kneeler has only comes out later. They tell us later why they disrespect the flag, and then try to claim they weren't actually kneeling at that specific moment to show that disrespect.
Oh, yes, Lord, they know what they are doing and chose the time to do it to make that very statement.

You have to put on the charade that it's disrespectful because you can't speak honestly about why it upsets you.
Yes, I've honestly told you why it upsets me. It's not a charade. Of course, I grew up during a time when we were taught common courtesy and etiquette, even for the flag.

Why not kneel at other times?

You just said they do. A better question is why the few who are pushing this agenda didn't simply use the power of the press that they have free access to to make their point by doing something productive and healing instead of being deliberately divisive? Do you imagine that if what's-his-name the now unemployed football player and several others called for a meeting with the press to announce some program they were creating that nobody would have paid any attention?

"The land of the free" is a lie. If we're not free from the threat of summary execution at the hands of government agents,

Oh, please. Hyperbole is such a tired technique.

The song glorifies the killing of black people.
Now who has to put on charades? There is no mention of black people, and no glory in killing them, in the National Anthem. That's just nonsense.
Re: First post by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 06:59 · Score: 1

And how exactly is boycotting the NFL going to stop them from kneeling?
Well, what's-his-name the unemployed football player who started this broohaha is no longer kneeling at the start of an NFL football game, is he? That's the point of the boycott.
Whether the NFL management decides to avoid the appearance of actively supporting deliberate disrespect for the flag by keeping the players in the locker room prior to the anthem, or fires the people who are behaving in a way that tarnishes the brand, same result.

No, they're pretending it's about disrespecting the flag because it's no longer socially acceptable for them to tell the truth about what's bothering them.
You are speaking nonsense on behalf of other people. Please stop. You have no clue what people who don't agree with you think.

Could the owners mandate that the players engage in gay sex while in uniform?
It is very hard not to tell you how absolutely stupid that question is, and how homophobic you have shown yourself to be.

There are limits to the control any employer has and in a case like this, those limits are determined by the contract.
Yes. And the morals clauses would apply here.
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-23 07:26 · Score: 1

Well, what's-his-name the unemployed football player who started this broohaha is no longer kneeling at the start of an NFL football game, is he? That's the point of the boycott.

Colin Kaepernick isn't kneeling but because of the backlash against the backlash against him, so many more are.

Whether the NFL management decides to avoid the appearance of actively supporting deliberate disrespect for the flag by keeping the players in the locker room prior to the anthem, or fires the people who are behaving in a way that tarnishes the brand, same result.

Ah, you mean the way they did before 2009? I wonder if they'd have to give back the government's money.

You are speaking nonsense on behalf of other people. Please stop. You have no clue what people who don't agree with you think.
Hypocrite. You do the same thing by characterizing the kneeling as disrespect of the flag.
The difference is that I'm right. The people who are wetting their panties about players kneeling were as silent as church mice over the various and sundry ways the flag is actually disrespected by the NFL(and countless others). Like how they carry it horizontally, how they incorporate parts of the flag into the uniforms, how it's used in advertisements or how the flag is allowed to touch the ground before, during and after such displays. No, none of that warranted a boycott or fake outrage. It was the black guys complaining.

It is very hard not to tell you how absolutely stupid that question is, and how homophobic you have shown yourself to be.
The question is neither stupid nor homophobic. It's just one that you don't like. I chose that question because I suspect that most football players would find it distasteful in the extreme if they were compelled to take part in it. It's something that I know you'll understand.

Yes. And the morals clauses would apply here.
After the tolerance NFL has shown for rape, murder and domestic violence, they'd never prevail in court if they were to try to sanction kneeling under the theory that it violates any morals clause.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re: First post by PlaynBass · 2017-10-23 08:28 · Score: 1

I know perfectly well that the National Anthem and the flag are merely symbols. They can be an expression of a person's free speech.
The First Amendment says "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."
The significance of a flag is to identify the combatants on the field of battle, so naturally, those who have fought may consider that the flag symbol has a special significance for them.
However, if a person is REQUIRED to stand or make any other expression, THAT is PROHIBITING the free exercise of a person's right to speak freely. Forced speech is not free, and therefore any law requiring such speech is not permitted. To require a lockstep obedience to a symbol would be disrespecting the content and purpose of the First Amendment of our US Constitution.
Kneeling during the National Anthem is, therefore, an expression akin to petitioning the government for redress of grievances in a public expression of the right to peacefully assemble and express those grievances.
The President has called for those players to be punished and he has actively advocated that the player's employers be the instrument of that punishment. tRump's actions while in office are those of an official of the government and show a profound disrespect for and a lack of understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment. He does have the right to express his opinion, but he does not have the right to advocate punishment. Except possibly in the case of allegedly black-balling Kaepernick from NFL play, the team owners have correctly refrained from punishing any of the other players, even while they are pressuring them to stop their public statements of conscience.
The whole thing stinks of McCarthyism on the part of tRump and the NFL owners for publicly pressuring the players to tow the line and abandon their right to make statements about their grievances in a public forum. Fortunately, there are still some memories of the consequences of such McCarthyism in the entertainment industry and in the minds of at least some US American citizens.

--
PlaynBass
Re: First post by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 08:47 · Score: 1

Colin Kaepernick isn't kneeling but because of the backlash against the backlash against him, so many more are.
That's nice. Herd immunity?

Hypocrite. You do the same thing by characterizing the kneeling as disrespect of the flag.
I don't speak for them, I just say what their action means. I see when they choose to act, and I see what they do. Actions speaking. It used to be taught in school; now people don't care.

The difference is that I'm right.

Uhh, yeah.

The question is neither stupid nor homophobic.

It is both. It is basic stupidity to even imagine that the NFL management would order such a thing, and by using "gay sex" with such an obviously negative connotation you show a strong sense of homophobia. What's wrong with gay sex that makes it a threat to you?

It's just one that you don't like.
I'm sorry, why don't I like the question? It shows how far you have to go to support your disrespect. It proves the point. I think the question is a great one.

I chose that question because I suspect that most football players would find it distasteful in the extreme
So not only are you homophobic by referring to gay sex in such a negative way, you expect that "most football players" are just as homophobic as yourself. Are you defending them here or condemning?

After the tolerance NFL has shown for rape, murder and domestic violence,

I see. In for a penny, in for a pound.

they'd never prevail in court if they were to try to sanction kneeling under the theory that it violates any morals clause.
And this is why what's-his-name is currently employed.
Re: First post by Lord+Kano · 2017-10-24 00:53 · Score: 1

That's nice. Herd immunity?
"I am Spartacus."

So not only are you homophobic by referring to gay sex in such a negative way, you expect that "most football players" are just as homophobic as yourself. Are you defending them here or condemning?
Most football players, like most American men, are heterosexuals. If they wanted to engage in gay sex, they'd already be doing it.

I see. In for a penny, in for a pound.
More like, speak not of the speck in my eye until you remove the plank from yours.

And this is why what's-his-name is currently employed.
It's why they have to pretend it's about anything other than the truth. The fans don't like to hear black people complaining about racism.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re: First post by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-25 05:29 · Score: 1

"Most generalizations are false, including this one." - Samuel Clemens
He's generalizing, so yes, he's wrong by default.
And racist.
If he kicks puppies, we've got a d-bag trifecta.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 15:34 · Score: 1

The 1st Amendment says "NO LAW"!

Re:Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 15:49 · Score: 0

Yeah, nobody cares about ginned up Russian ad buys either.
Re:Violation! by MightyMartian · 2017-10-19 16:09 · Score: 1

How is this proposed law abridge speech?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Violation! by jellomizer · 2017-10-19 22:12 · Score: 1

Wait a minute they are more word.
“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.”
It doesn’t say that the speech needs to anonymous or if paid the donors should be shone.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Violation! by jellomizer · 2017-10-19 22:15 · Score: 1

If you don’t like it. Then it is a violation of free speech. Nearly every law that could that has a punitive action in it. Will stop someone from doing something they want to do. And if that freedom of expression will often be called free speech.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Violation! by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-10-20 00:21 · Score: 1

How is this proposed law abridge speech?
Yeah! I mean, it's not like anybody is ever persecuted for their political opinions or anything.
Re:Violation! by sabbede · 2017-10-20 00:30 · Score: 1

Identifying yourself when you run an ad is not an infringement on your speech. It's also the rule for every other medium.
Re:Violation! by squiggleslash · 2017-10-20 01:52 · Score: 1

Can you explain how keeping copies of political ads and the criteria used to determine who should see them would result in persecution?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:42 · Score: 0

First, it doesn't just require keeping copies of the ads, it also requires keeping information on WHO produced those ads. Anonymous political speech is protected by the First Amendment, in over 200 years of tradition. This would strip away that right for anyone on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Second, what is a political ad? Is one mentioning climate change political? What about one about the weather? Jobs? "Come to Texas! We've got jobs!" might be political to some people. Without a clear standard, this becomes open to arbitrary abuse.
Re:Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 03:19 · Score: 0

...unless such a law could help prevent incumbent politicians from getting THEIR elections influenced by outside forces. That's ok.
Re:Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 03:55 · Score: 0

You're thinking "On the Internet" changes things? When you watch political ads on TV they have to say who paid for the ad. How is this any different? The bill would just require Facebook to do the same. Right now Facebook is getting special treatment because "On the Internet"
Re:Violation! by Cytotoxic · 2017-10-20 07:01 · Score: 1

Wait a minute they are more word.
“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.”
It doesn’t say that the speech needs to anonymous or if paid the donors should be shone.
Yup. Note the operative phrase "no law". Not "some laws if they are really important". The phrase they use for that one is "compelling government interest", which is a BS phrase the courts made up to allow the government to violate the constitution at will.
No law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
What does that mean? That means that the congress cannot place restrictions on your ability to share your ideas with others. At all. No exceptions. Not even for "but politics!!" Actually, particularly for politics... because that was the entire point of enshrining that bit into the bill of rights. Political speech is what they were worried about.
So no, the government cannot say that Jellomizer and I cannot pool our resources and publish a website devoted to ridiculing the Republican candidate for the 5th district. And we can publish as Jellomizer and Cytotoxic, instead of using our real names and posting our real addresses. You know why? Because "Congress shall make no law". Not some laws that only require certain prerequisites for speech.
This one isn't even close people. If you want laws that restrict political speech in the United States, you need a constitutional amendment. The fact that we keep skipping that step and rely on "judicial deference" to allow unconstitutional laws to be enforced is a really big problem.
Re:Violation! by Cytotoxic · 2017-10-20 07:13 · Score: 1

Infringe. Verb. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
As in "we are going to place limits on people speaking when they buy time on TV or the internet, requiring that they must identify who they are and where the money they used came from".
This unquestionably undermines free speech.
Look, I get it. You don't like it when "they" have an advantage. "They" might be the rich, who have lots of money and can swamp your speech. "They" might be a foreign government, trying to convince you that Trump isn't evil. Or "They" might be the same foreign government trying to convince you that Communism is a good thing. So we have to make sure that "They" are transparent. So we can keep tabs on "them".
But what if you are not in the majority. Let's say you are Harvey Milk, and speaking out publicly about your opinions on gay rights might get you killed. Maybe then you'd feel differently. Or maybe you are Michael Shwerner, and you think it is really important that all people be treated equally under the law... even people of color. Maybe you'd want the ability to post flyers anonymously.
Just remember.... sometimes you are "they". And maybe what you have to say is important, but unpopular.
Civil rights aren't just for the majority. In fact, if you are only protecting popular speech, you really aren't doing any protecting, are you?
Re:Violation! by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:10 · Score: 1

If you want laws that restrict political speech in the United States, you need a constitutional amendment.

No, actually, all we need are "Republicans" like McCain. Everyone can coo about how this is "bipartisan" because Democrats and McCain sponsored it, but McCain is the same McCain whose name is on McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that also violates the 1st Amendment.

The fact that we keep skipping that step and rely on "judicial deference" to allow unconstitutional laws to be enforced is a really big problem.
Yep. And I put some blame on McCain for pretending to make this a bipartisan issue so it will more easily pass muster. Well, if both sides can agree on this, it must be ok, right?
Re:Violation! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 05:11 · Score: 0

I shall refer you to the money shot that effectively closes the discussion Too many people here refuse to accept what "NO LAW" means. And I will remind all of you that there are NO exceptions specified, anywhere, in the constitution, therefore none can legitimately be applied without a constitutional amendment. Some things really are very simple. This is one of them.
A restriction on your right to speak without identifying yourself is a clear violation of the law, as explicitly specified in the 1st Amendment, which technically, is still the law of the land.
Re:Violation! by sabbede · 2017-10-24 00:03 · Score: 1

How is identifying who paid for an advertisement an infringement of anyone's rights? Do you have a right to know who is speaking to you? Keep in mind that this isn't speech you happen across, somebody paid a third party to show it to you.

Bipartisan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 15:35 · Score: 0, Troll

Two Democrats and the most spiteful RINO != Bipartisan

Re:Bipartisan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 21:50 · Score: 0

RINO? Christ, you are a fucking dolt.
Re:Bipartisan? by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:22 · Score: 1

definition of RINO:
someone who was considered deeply conservative and an exemplar of Republican ideology last year, but not this year, even though his positions have not changed.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Bipartisan? by JackieBrown · 2017-10-20 04:02 · Score: 1

McCain has been considered a RINO for over a decade now. Not just last year.
In fact, he won the primaries because of that - we were told by the media (and read it on a number of democrat posters here) that he was a republican that they would be able to vote for. Of course, once the true conservatives were out of the running and he was standing next to Obama, suddenly he was considered a hard core neocon.
We fell for the same thing with Romney. Democrats in the media (I know - redundant) and democrats elsewhere telling us that they would vote for him because they were disillusioned by Obama and could vote for someone moderate like Romney. We went along knocking out Santorum and Gingrich to elect someone we didn't care for but were interested more in following what we were told by the party and the democrats who was our path to victory . Then as soon as all the real conservatives (speaking of the moral conservative side / not just economic) were out, we hear how uncaring and extreme Romney was.
There is a reason this time around, "extremists" like Cruz and Trump where the top runners and "moderates" John Kasich and Jeb Bush lost handily. We were not falling for the McCain / Romney trick again.
Re: Bipartisan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 04:32 · Score: 0

This isn't telling the whole story. I don't think the problem in 2008 was McCain, but that Palin was also on that ticket. McCain is absolutely qualified to be President. The problem is, Palin most certainly wasn't qualified to be President. It's dangerous to have an incompetent Vice President, because there's always the chance they might become President. I can imagine that if Palin were President, it might not be unlike what we have right now with Trump as President. The President is incompetent and, as a result, the administration is an extremely disorganized mess.
If McCain had a competent running mate in 2008, I think he would have fared better in the general election. I tend to think Palin was more of the party's choice to appeal to their more conservative base, and not necessarily his choice. I'd have had a mich easier time if the running mate was someone competent like Gingrich, Santorum, Graham, or any number of other competent Republicans.
Also, are you sure it was Democrats saying that the Republican nominee needed to be more moderate to appeal to independent voters? I seem to recall plenty of Republicans taking that position. It also made sense in 2008 to have a candidate who was different enough from Bush that they wouldn't lose votes due to the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. McCain probably fit that mold better than anyone else who was a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
Re:Bipartisan? by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:29 · Score: 1

my point still stands.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

I actually think this is a good thing by El+Cubano · 2017-10-19 15:39 · Score: 2

There is definitely a need to balance free speech with anonymity. Placing political ads should should require some amount of disclosure. What will be interesting will be to see how the big tech companies, who tend to be pretty vocal supporters of lots of Democrat politicians, will react to this. It is easy to fight against something supported by your ideological opponents, but what about when it is the people who you just helped win elections?

That said, two Democrats and John McCain hardly qualifies as "bipartisan." I'm just saying.

Re: I actually think this is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 16:18 · Score: 1

Those aren't the most egregious issues with this type of law. Furst Devin e a "political ad"? Is it one that explicitly mentions a political party or person/ candidate or one that espouses a position on a political topic ( for or against), what off it is a topic that is a cornerstone of a party's or candidates platform?
If it's just an ad that mentions a party or candidate than what's the point as people who you're directing this at will just switch to ads about positions not politicians though it will be obvious they are directed at the former.
The point is that such laws are useless, probably violate the 1st amendment an d are pour theater and therefore a waste of time intended only to signal to "the people" that "no really us politicians are doing somethings.
Seriously is this really something that there is a "hue and cry" over by the general public rather than just the politicians themselves?
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by ShanghaiBill · 2017-10-19 20:23 · Score: 2

Placing political ads should should require some amount of disclosure.
Why? Please explain why anonymous political speech should be criminalized.
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by Rockoon · 2017-10-19 21:34 · Score: 1

He wants to know whose reputation he needs to ruin with false allegations.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by squiggleslash · 2017-10-20 01:53 · Score: 1

He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-20 03:28 · Score: 1

He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
How dare you inject logic into a political argument!

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re: I actually think this is a good thing by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:25 · Score: 1

Is it one that explicitly mentions a political party or person/ candidate or one that espouses a position on a political topic ( for or against), what off it is a topic that is a cornerstone of a party's or candidates platform?
For a very long time PACs and other groups have resorted it "issue-oriented ads" when they reach the deadline for airing direct political by-name advertising. Those issues are almost always cornerstone, so it is trivial to identify who is being attacked or supported even if the name is never said. E.g., if one candidate has been openly pro-gun, then the opponent or his representatives will run anti-gun ads and never mention that they're targeting the first guy.
Here's a novel idea I just thought of. It will make watching TV or listening to the radio much more pleasant. Any medium that accepts political ads at any time during a normal campaign season is prohibited from running ANY ads for the 30 days prior to the election. That means they have to charge enough for the political ads to offset the revenue lost during the 30 day silent period, which is a win. And we don't get bombarded with any ads, another win. Or that medium refuses to carry political ads, yet another win for us.
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:45 · Score: 1

He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
Paid advertising is speech. Banning something means there is a penalty for doing it based on a law that makes it a crime.
Sounds like criminalizing political speech to me. Kind of like the laws that make it a crime for foreign parties to advertise in the US on behalf of candidates.
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 04:01 · Score: 0

Paid advertising most certainly does not receive the same first amendment protections that other speech does. But that's beside the point. This bill doesn't limit speech in any way. It just requires disclosure of additional information about the source of the speech.
Re:I actually think this is a good thing by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 07:03 · Score: 1

Paid advertising most certainly does not receive the same first amendment protections that other speech does.
Wrong differentiator. "Commercial speech" does not; personal speech, especially that of a political nature, does. The First Amendment makes no distinction between "words uttered without pay" and "paid advertising".

This bill doesn't limit speech in any way. It just requires disclosure of additional information about the source of the speech.
The word the Constitution uses is "infringe", not "limit". And yes, banning anonymous speech is infringing on the concept of free speech.

this comes to mind by superwiz · 2017-10-19 15:50 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

I think you may be confused... by SuperKendall · 2017-10-19 15:59 · Score: 4, Funny

But this latest attempt has some bipartisan support: the act, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is also co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

If it were bi-partisan, wouldn't it have some Republican support as well?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re: I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 17:43 · Score: 0

John McCain is conservative, and well within the norm for the Republican senators, based on his overall voting record. Your comment would be more valid if you said it about Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, both of whom are moderate and well left of the Republican mean. McCain is conservative, and definitely fits better as a Republican than a Democrat.
If you judge him based on the Obamacare repeal votes, it might appearances that he's not in line with the Republican Party. However, I believe McCain that voting no was based on issues with the process rather than the content of the legislation. He seems to genuinely prefer trying to reach a bipartisan consensus on issues rather than using procedural tricks to avoid a filibuster and push through controversial legislation. Republicans have criticized how Democrats passed Obamacare. McCain is simply calling on Republicans to not use the mistakes of the Democrats to justify repeating them.
This particular bill is also in line with legislation has sponsored in the past, notably the McCain-Feingold Act which also instituted campaign finance reform. That didn't have much Republican support, either, but President Bush signed it into law in 2002.
Re: I think you may be confused... by Stonesand · 2017-10-19 17:59 · Score: 0

Sorry, you're wrong. McCain is no more Republican than Obama is.
Re: I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 19:17 · Score: 0

But McCain did that "Complete The Dang Fence" ad! Solid republican!
Re:I think you may be confused... by jellomizer · 2017-10-19 22:23 · Score: 2

He is a republican. However the Republican Party is split by different groups.
You are probably being pissy because of the Obamacare recall votes.
However do you find it odd that they had just enough votes to fail it and by politicians who have enough political capital to weather the action.
It is like Repealing Obamacare is a bad idea. But they don’t want to admit that they don’t have a better idea. Because it was based on the republican plan back in the 1990 s

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re: I think you may be confused... by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:53 · Score: 1

only if you keep moving the goalposts as to what defines a republican.
that's all these cries of "RINO" are anyway: moving the goalposts each year as the GOP pushes itself further and further to the right.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:I think you may be confused... by squiggleslash · 2017-10-20 01:56 · Score: 2

The vast majority of Republicans considered McCain a Republican in 2008 when they tried to elect him President, and his views haven't changed before or after that. You can't really get more "Endorsed by a Party" than "Being our guy for President."

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 04:27 · Score: 0

I would say McCain gained a whole lot more respect from reasonable people that believe congress should only pass bipartisan laws. If a law can't stand up to scrutiny then it shouldn't be passed. So if a law is negotiated in secret it shouldn't even be allowed on the floor. I'm an Arizonan and had a lot of issues with him in the past but great respect for his stand on wanting to get the process back on track. I didn't agree with in when Democrats did and I certainly don't agree with it when Republicans do it. If you can't do it together then don't do it at all.
Re:I think you may be confused... by bongey · 2017-10-20 05:26 · Score: 1

McCain is a RINO that if you go back to POW era you will realize he should have been court martialed. He would say anything to save his own skin, would throw anyone under the bus or say something nice just for himself. He currently has a personal vendetta against Trump, and by all accords just an asshole.
Re:I think you may be confused... by Mashiki · 2017-10-20 07:15 · Score: 1

The vast majority of Republicans considered McCain a Republican in 2008 when they tried to elect him President
Yeah they actually didn't. Rather most considered him a political insider, and there were huge pushes to stop him from winning the primary which the RNC pushed against hard. Gee, the establishment party turning around and trying to make sure that "their guy" won. Where have we seen that in the last 2 years? OH RIGHT it was with Hillary Clinton.
You realize that the reason Trump won, and won so hard was because he wasn't RNC establishment, he wasn't political establishment either. The warning signs were there when the Tea Party shit was kicking into gear. The DNC on the other hand still hasn't figured this out and are currently stuck in "it's 1999 and things are still great!"

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 08:53 · Score: 0

John "No Terrorist Left Behind" McCain is a Republican in name only. He was up there with Obama funding ISIS and other "moderate rebels." He is pro-illegals, pro-swamp, pro-deep state. He is anti-nationalist and anti-American (which explains why he loathes Trump). McCain hates ordinary hard working Americans.
Re:I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 08:57 · Score: 0

No, it's all Russia's fault. Or Martians. Or the KKK... That's the only reason Trump won.
Re:I think you may be confused... by Mashiki · 2017-10-20 13:08 · Score: 1

No, it's all Russia's fault. Or Martians. Or the KKK... That's the only reason Trump won.
I hope martians. It would mean that there's intelligent life in the universe.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:I think you may be confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 21:47 · Score: 0

you are a fucking retard
Re: I think you may be confused... by Jzanu · 2017-10-20 21:49 · Score: 1

Next year, once the transformation of the Republican party is complete, the line will be: "Hitler wasn't far right, our guy IS!".
Re: I think you may be confused... by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:31 · Score: 1

Reagan is a...what's the phrase they like now? "pinko libturd" ? by today's GOP standards.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Bi-partisanship by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 16:02 · Score: 0

Bi-partisanship: when politicians who are basically the same in every material way, but have different letters next to their name, team up to do something both evil and stupid and then tell the public that they are reaching across the aisle.

Re:Bi-partisanship by MightyMartian · 2017-10-19 16:04 · Score: 1

Because forcing accountability on advertiser's is just the evilest thing ever

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-19 16:21 · Score: 1

Did that comment of yours advertise your point of view just now? Should your home address be disclosed because you posted your opinion on the Internet?

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by MightyMartian · 2017-10-19 16:26 · Score: 1

Advertising and marketing have rather specific definitions, and existing legislation already deals with that. Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-19 16:33 · Score: 1

Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.
Why? Social media acts as social platforms (ie, town squares) much more so than as broadcast "media" platforms such as TV and radio. Why should social media be treated with the same gloves as TV and radio rather than the same gloves as town squares?

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by MightyMartian · 2017-10-19 16:34 · Score: 1

If you buy space on a social networking site, you're an advertiser. If the advertising is political, then it's political advertising. If it were in a newspaper or on the radio, Federal finance laws would apply. Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-19 16:46 · Score: 1

Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?
Advertising on Facebook is paying to participate in private conversations of others. Advertising in traditional media (even when it is distributed online) is injecting your messages into broadcast message stream which has the air of being vetted and authoritative. Advertising in social media is pretty much like paying the host to be invited to a private party. Advertising in traditional media is like announcing that you are the benefactor of a theater before a theatrical performance. These are entirely different and should not be treated equally.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-19 17:35 · Score: 1

Speaking of New York Times, should it have to disclose that its largest shareholder is a Mexican national with close ties to the Mexican government? Or is this something its readers are not entitled to knowing when they read all the criticisms of building a border wall with Mexico?

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by lucm · 2017-10-19 18:05 · Score: 1

Advertising and marketing have rather specific definitions, and existing legislation already deals with that. Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.
Looks like the exact opposite of what's happening in the ride-sharing or condo-sharing industries, where rules that apply to established organizations are thrown aside by "disrupters".

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Bi-partisanship by fahrbot-bot · 2017-10-19 18:14 · Score: 1

Speaking of New York Times, should it have to disclose that its largest shareholder is a Mexican national with close ties to the Mexican government? Or is this something its readers are not entitled to knowing when they read all the criticisms of building a border wall with Mexico?
Foreign ownership in US companies and media outlets is quite common. The second largest shareholder of News Corporation - the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, etc... - is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. (http://bigthink.com/Resurgence/sharia-prince-owns-stake-in-fox-news-parent) Should we be concerned that relationship influences coverage of Saudi Arabia - or other middle-eastern countries, especially those hostile to Saudi Arabia - by those outlets?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-19 18:29 · Score: 1

News Corporation's largest shareholder is Murdoch family (and Murdoch is not an American citizen). And the concern over News Corp's influence on US politics is quite frequently expressed.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-20 03:30 · Score: 1

Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?
Advertising on Facebook is paying to participate in private conversations of others.
Considering that not one ad I've ever seen on facebook has actively participated in any conversation I've had on the platform, I call bullshit.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Bi-partisanship by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 06:27 · Score: 0

Wrong.
Murdoch not only has become a naturalized US citizen, to do so he actually had to give up his Australian citizenship, due to Australia's rather strict citizenship laws at that time.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-20 06:43 · Score: 1

Oh? Well, good to know. I guess the concern is overblown then.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-20 06:48 · Score: 1

Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it. But it injects itself into a private conversation. A commercial playing during a TV broadcast is effectively part of the programming. So there is more of a need to remind you that it isn't part of the programming. Someone injecting himself into a private conversation is very clearly a sideshow rather than part of the show itself. So you are actually proving my point.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bi-partisanship by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-20 08:51 · Score: 1

Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it.
So then, it's less like someone trying to put something in my hand forcibly, and more like a newspaper stand you happen to be having a conversation in front of.
Wait, isn't that essentially what I said?
Online ads aren't aware of your conversations, nor do they join in or interrupt. The bullshit claim stands.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Bi-partisanship by superwiz · 2017-10-24 09:27 · Score: 1

The bullshit claim stands.
No, it doesn't. The point of extra disclosure during advertisements is to bring attention to the fact that what the viewer is seeing is not part of the regular content, but that it is some other content which has the aim of influencing opinion. An ad in a newspaper or on TV can be made to look like regular news content or TV content. So this extra flash of information (you are watching an attempt to influence! pay attention!) is required. On a social platform, you are presumably familiar with everyone providing "regular" content (because they interacting with you rather than just broadcasting at you). So anything which just projects a flat message already stands out (because it's not interactive and not communicating in a familiar manner). So ther is no need for extra reminders. The only purpose this law can serve is to increase barrier to entry of less organized speech. In other words, it's a suppression of free political speech.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-19 16:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The CU verdict explicitly states that anyone, regardless of nationality, can put money into US elections, as money is speech.

The CU doesn't mention nationality. In fact, it did not overturn existing laws banning foreign campaign expenditures. And, it has specific language about transparency in campaign spending. In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia specifically said that Congress needed to pass laws requiring that all campaign expenditures should be transparent.

All this new bill does is codify what the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by MightyMartian · 2017-10-19 16:18 · Score: 0

Yes, but it potentially interferes with poor Ivan's ability to use US advertising platforms to spread misinformation. You know, Ivan from St. Peter... er, I mean, America!

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... by CarterMeyers · 2017-10-19 16:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Knowing the buyer of an advert doesn't matter if you can't get any info about the buyer's doners... basically, all this will do is move the needle to anonymous superpacs... "this ad is brought to you by [insert name of superpac]". We need legislation that let's us know who donates to these pacs to begin to understand their agendas... no anonymous donations - could Be out shortly argued as being akin to the "no mask" laws that already exist in several states.

Re:Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... by doctorvo · 2017-10-20 00:10 · Score: 2

Knowing the buyer of an advert doesn't matter if you can't get any info about the buyer's doners... basically, all this will do is move the needle to anonymous superpacs... "this ad is brought to you by [insert name of superpac]".
Yes, but it is very effective against political speech by individuals, which is of course, the primary purpose of these bills: to make sure that only big, well-financed, well-organized political players can speak.

We need legislation that let's us know who donates to these pacs to begin to understand their agendas... no anonymous donations
This too hurts political speech by those of normal means most.
Re:Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 06:16 · Score: 0

Yes, but it is very effective against political speech by individuals, which is of course, the primary purpose of these bills: to make sure that only big, well-financed, well-organized political players can speak.
Only against individuals not smart enough to form their own superpac.
Re:Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... by Oceanplexian · 2017-10-20 13:12 · Score: 1

Or, ya know, maybe we don't need any legislation. Maybe we need public schools to teach kids not to consume media and advertisements like zombies and to think critically. Then it wouldn't matter how many billions anyone spent because people could think for themselves.
Re: Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... by CarterMeyers · 2017-10-20 21:50 · Score: 1

*mic drop...

i thought corporations were people?? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 16:31 · Score: 0

so, we make laws that limit how much money individuals can give money, and corporations cant...
then, we let people give any amount because it constitutes free speech... ok, whatever.
oh, and corporations are people, so they have unlimited too.
oh, and here are some more rules to make super-pacs with unlimited untaxed budgets to do anything.........
and now your solution is to silence the free speech of other corporations who would take their money to amplify their message?

what a joke.

You can't fight in here! by somenickname · 2017-10-19 16:34 · Score: 5, Funny

You can't fight in here! This is the war room!

-- From Dr. Strangelove

Re:You can't fight in here! by boudie2 · 2017-10-19 16:55 · Score: 1

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

-- From Dr. Strangelove

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 16:45 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The right to buy ads and display them is protected as ever.
This merely brings in line the regulations around internet ads to be similar to TV and print.

Did you read the article, or just come here to spout nonsense?

Re:mod dOZwn by lucm · 2017-10-19 17:51 · Score: 1

I understand that you're probably trying to mine some goatse coins, but still, could we get less goatse and more lemon party? Maybe a tubgirl once in a while?

--
lucm, indeed.

Okay, then ... by fahrbot-bot · 2017-10-19 17:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.

... how about also requiring all, and all types of, Political Action Committees (PACs) to disclose their donors and amounts donated (note that some, but not all types, of PACs are already required to do so). And, perhaps, prominently disclose when lobbyists and special-interest groups author or edit the legislation for you Senators and Representatives. And, how about more strictly enforcing the laws the prohibit the revolving-door appointments between industry and the departments regulating those industries -- like the new FCC Chairman Ajit V. Pai, who was previously Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications.

Americans deserve to know who's paying (off) our Representatives and deserve to have those representatives and the others running our government to work for the benefit of ALL the people as a whole and not just the rich and powerful. </rant>

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Okay, then ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 23:21 · Score: 0

The problem with a law like that is it will be enforced on a one sided basis. If you enforce it on DNC supporting groups, you will suddenly be labeled a racist Nazi.
That is one of the reasons Trump got elected. The laws/regulations were being enforced against some people but not all. If that's how it works, its better to just not have them at all.
As for paying off our representatives, Hillary Clinton got $140 million from Russia while SOS, but I'm told its perfectly legal/acceptable. So whats the point of knowing if it doesn't matter. (See my previous comment about applying rules to one side only above)
Re:Okay, then ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 23:25 · Score: 0

What you mean to say is that you want to be able to threaten people who have contrary opinions, like the violence against conservatives in California who donated against prop whatever.
Re:Okay, then ... by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:55 · Score: 1

last time they tried to do that conservatives got all pissy about the IRS trying to enforce the law as written and get groups to use the more appropriate 501(d) section of tax law rather than 501(c), and successfully forced the IRS to back down.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Okay, then ... by doctorvo · 2017-10-20 00:06 · Score: 2

Americans deserve to know who's paying (off) our Representatives and deserve to have those representatives and the others running our government to work for the benefit of ALL the people as a whole and not just the rich and powerful.
They are your representatives. They are supposed to represent you. If you don't know enough about them to need the federal government step in and attempt to force them to disclose this, they obviously aren't representing you and you probably shouldn't be voting for them in the first place.
Re:Okay, then ... by Green+Salad · 2017-10-20 02:36 · Score: 1

So, free speech, if it's political, needs to be regulated and those exercising it to call for change need to be identifiable? Really?
Re:Okay, then ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ugh, stop perpetuating this lie.
Re:Okay, then ... by fahrbot-bot · 2017-10-20 09:29 · Score: 1

So, free speech, if it's political, needs to be regulated and those exercising it to call for change need to be identifiable? Really?
Free Speech != Anonymous Speech

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Okay, then ... by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Free Speech != Anonymous Speech
As soon as you prohibit anonymous speech then speech is no longer free. That's called a tautology.
Ask Thomas Paine if the founders considered anonymous speech to be protected. I think it is Common Sense that it would be.

Stupid fucking morons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 18:06 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter. Make all the rules and regulations you want. None of them will do squat. They will always find a loophole.

It wasn't the ads dummy by Arzaboa · 2017-10-19 18:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The ad's were to suck folks in. It was the barrage of interactive trolling that sealed the deal. Propaganda works.

--
"No Branch!" -- Poppi

Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:54 · Score: 0

Propaganda does not always work. It is tricky business and can blow up in your face. The evidence is right there. CTR failed miserably to convince people, and the person with the highest propaganda budget lost the election.
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Xyrus · 2017-10-20 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

There should be an asterisk next to that statement. Propaganda always works IF you know the population you are targeting.
Russia knew EXACTLY who they were targeting. They knew the issues, the hot buttons, the ideologues. In fact, the world of global media made their job almost idiotically simple. Most Americans don't give a shit about what happens in the rest of the world, but the rest of the world certainly gets more than they care for of America via our never ending stream of media. No subterfuge or spying necessary. The Russians literally just watched our 24 hour news networks and built a targeted propaganda campaign from that.
And of course, that never-ending stream of idiocy also primed the pump to the point where it was almost impossible for the Russian campaign to fail. People WANTED to believe. They turned off the critical thinking parts of their brain long ago, and would just vacuum up anything that agreed with their world view no matter how ludicrous or questionable the source might be. The Russian troll masters didn't even need to try. One comment and an entire forum would go up like a tinder box.
Easiest intelligence operation ever.

--
~X~
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:28 · Score: 0

The ad's were to suck folks in. It was the barrage of interactive trolling that sealed the deal. Propaganda works.
--
"No Branch!" -- Poppi
No kidding.
People still believe Al Gore won.
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Arzaboa · 2017-10-20 04:30 · Score: 1

Absolutely. You nailed it.
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 09:11 · Score: 0

Propaganda will work if the counter-propaganda is obviously a bunch of lies and fallacies. The mainstream media have demonstrably lied and covered up for Killary: they may have had good reasons for it, but it's a fact that they did. They got caught with their pants down, spreading the peanut butter for the family dog.
All the anti-Clinton forces needed to do was to highlight a few of the omissions/coverups/lies. With this, you convince the people that you are the only objective news sources, and that the MSM are "Fake News."
It's hilarious to still see the CNN/NBC/NYT blame Russia. Of course Russia was willing to exploit the situation, but it is the MSM that got us there in the first place. Unfortunately, this lesson is still not learned.
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:59 · Score: 1

One comment and an entire forum would go up like a tinder box.
You mean like any story on /. when someone comments about Republicans, Democrats, Trump, Clinton, Comcast, or God? Is everyone here a Russian?
Re:It wasn't the ads dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 10:04 · Score: 0

Or more likely, this Russian narrative is its own propaganda campaign with the intent of whitewashing Clinton and the DNC, and is being set to be used as a kudgel to try to silence or smear their critics so they can carry on with business as usual.
Fake news! Blame Russia! Right wing smear campaign! I'm not pissing on your leg, it's raining!

George Soros is laughing by Vinegar+Joe · 2017-10-19 18:22 · Score: 2

and laughing and laughing and laughing............

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

What's a political ad? by ScentCone · 2017-10-19 18:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things like, "Hey, internal combustion engines really aren't so bad. Firefighters need them!" or "Really, we need to be careful with our H1-B visa program" or "We need leaders that only want peace, non-GMO corn, and no guns" ... which politician or party just benefited from my spending? If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:What's a political ad? by sabbede · 2017-10-20 00:24 · Score: 1

Those are "issues of national interest", and if you ran them on any other medium you would face some regulation. Basically just identifying yourself as the one paying for them. Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
Re:What's a political ad? by ScentCone · 2017-10-20 03:01 · Score: 1

Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
How am I identifying myself when I'm walking down the sidewalk holding a sign? Am I having to show my papers? Do my signs, legally, have to have my name on them or explain which activist group gave me the money to print them up?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:What's a political ad? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 04:50 · Score: 0

No, people can physically see who you are. Have you never seen a politcal ad on TV? They don't go listing every name of every person involved. They just show what group paid for the ad. Not really a big deal and plenty of ways to hide your true identity. I would argue you shouldn't have to if you are campaigning for something that is just.
Re:What's a political ad? by ScentCone · 2017-10-20 06:09 · Score: 1

No, people can physically see who you are.
And from, that they gather ... that I'm male and white? Or female and black? Or dressed in a Che t-shirt, or with a flag pin on a lapel, or what? What does any of that you about who flew me to the protest, who handed me the printed signs, who's feeding me lunch, and who's buying my time so I don't have to be at a job while I'm being "grass roots" for a paycheck? Specifically, how does seeing me carry a sign tell you who I am?

you shouldn't have to if you are campaigning for something that is just
It's exactly because they knew there would be people like you that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution made the very first item on the Bill Of Rights a specific ban preventing people like you from using the power of government to decide who gets to speak because of what's "just" according to whoever has that power that particular week. If you don't get that, then please refrain from doing dangerous things like voting - you're not familiar enough with the constitution to have that power over other people.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:What's a political ad? by DRJlaw · 2017-10-20 06:13 · Score: 1

So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things.... [offtopic digression]. If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?
In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you. In the second, you're the one speaking. That's different.
When you're an anonymous individual speaking for yourself, you're still only an individual and you risk social consequences for what you are saying. When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying hundreds or thousands to speak, you're buying the appearance of a larger group of individuals. That's called "astroturfing." When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying an entity to speak without attribution, you're buying deniability in the form of a "front organization." Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Re:What's a political ad? by DRJlaw · 2017-10-20 06:31 · Score: 1

Look it up. Greatest information tool ever known at your fingertips, and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself. Yet you can manage to spin up a hypothetical that has been addressed ever since "dinosaur media" political advertising was similarly regulated.
Hint: those aren't political ads, those are issue ads.
Re:What's a political ad? by ScentCone · 2017-10-20 06:46 · Score: 1

So if I pay $501 to run ads on FB say things like, "Be sure to elect a president that hasn't deliberately allowed classified information to be stored on a home computer and then lied repeatedly about it!" without explicitly mentioning Hillary Clinton, I should be good, right?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:What's a political ad? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 10:02 · Score: 1

In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you.
No, he's not. The speech come from the author, not the medium itself. When you pay $501 for an ad, it is your speech that appears, not the speech of the person you paid for the advertising space.
Re: What's a political ad? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 10:58 · Score: 0

The speaker is the broadcaster. The issue is not authorship, especially when authorship is hidden.
Re: What's a political ad? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 11:22 · Score: 1

The speaker is the broadcaster.

No. The broadcaster is the medium; the author is the speaker of the message. And no, we're not talking about the actual person who speaks the words, we're talking about the content of the message.
Re: What's a political ad? by DRJlaw · 2017-10-20 13:22 · Score: 1

And no, we're not talking about the actual person who speaks the words, we're talking about the content of the message.
Don't tell me what I'm talking about. The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker. It does not matter whether they independently choose to speak or speak a message that they are given.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message. Not my problem.
Re: What's a political ad? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 14:05 · Score: 1

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.
Hello Anonymous Coward. I said that in reply to him.

The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker.
No. The "speaker" in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the person whose words are being "spoken", whether that is in print, audio, or any other medium. When you hire a voice-over artist to record your political ad, the "speaker" of the words, the person to whom the freedom of speech applies, is YOU. To assume your interpretation would result in the government being able to write laws preventing you from hiring a voice-over artist to convey your political or other message. Where is the "freedom of speech" for someone who is mute and wants to air a radio spot, if he can be prohibited from hiring a voice to speak his words for him? Does the First Amendment not apply to people who cannot speak, because they could never "speak the words" which the First Amendment would protect?
Where is the author of a pamphlet like Common Sense if he can be arrested and prohibited from passing his material to the publisher who would print and distribute it (your version of "speak")?
No, I'm sorry. The person who originates the content is the "speaker" when applying the First Amendment freedoms of speech. Note that copyright law would be unconstitutional on its face were your interpretation to be valid. The government would be prohibited from making any law abridging my right to take your words and reprint them as my own, because under your interpretation I would be the "speaker" of those words and the person to whom the freedom of speech would attach. You would have no protection because I would be the "person who spoke the words" (i.e. published the text), not you, even if you had previously "spoken" them in some other form. And, I might add, your freedom of speech is not abridged when I can steal your work and publish it as my own because I did not prevent you from speaking your own words, so you would have no First Amendment claims.

The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
Not in the sense of the first amendment, where it is the CONTENT and not the specific utterer of sounds that matters. The Communications Decency Act supports this when it makes it clear that the originator of the speech is the "information content provider" who is responsible for the speech, and not the provider of the interactive computer service. The computer service provider is the medium, not the message.

You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message.
It is the First Amendment that is focused on the content and not the specific utterer of words, and thus I focus on the same thing in a discussion of the First Amendment. Consider "Piss Christ". It did not say words, it had no utterances. It was a static piece of, well, some called it "art". And yet it was protected under the First Amendment freedom of "speech". Clearly, "speech" does not refer just to the physical act of speaking, so it must apply to much, much more. And even your example of the CDA makes it clear that the law does not consider the provider of the medium to be the "speaker" since it relieves him of responsibility for that speech.
The point is only relevant if you are trying to differentiate paid speech from non-paid speech, and that differentiation is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the voice-over artist is paid to say the words the content originator wrote for her, or the content originator says them himself. The First Amendment protects that speech either way. To assume anything else means that every bit of speech that is published by a publisher and not the author himself is not
Re: What's a political ad? by DRJlaw · 2017-10-21 02:27 · Score: 1

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.
Hello Anonymous Coward. I said that in reply to him.
You said that about our discussion. You were wrong.

The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker.
No. The "speaker" in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the person whose words are being "spoken", whether that is in print, audio, or any other medium. When you hire a voice-over artist to record your political ad, the "speaker" of the words, the person to whom the freedom of speech applies, is YOU. To assume your interpretation would result in the government being able to write laws preventing you from hiring a voice-over artist to convey your political or other message. Where is the "freedom of speech" for someone who is mute and wants to air a radio spot, if he can be prohibited from hiring a voice to speak his words for him? Does the First Amendment not apply to people who cannot speak, because they could never "speak the words" which the First Amendment would protect?
Overly lengthy, illogical drivel that continues to conflate the content of the message and the act of publishing or speaking it. There can be two speakers, the original author and the person or entity that publishes the message ("cable system operators are "speakers" for First Amendment purposes"). Your counter example is fundamentally flawed -- as if speech is limited to vocalization and not considered in the law to include any form of message, whether spoken, written, sculpted, signed, or the like.

Where is the author of a pamphlet like Common Sense if he can be arrested and prohibited from passing his material to the publisher who would print and distribute it (your version of "speak")?
He can. The easiest example is when the material discloses the existence of an NSL. There are several other bases as well, so long as they pass strict scrutiny and are a least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling national interest.

No, I'm sorry. The person who originates the content is the "speaker" when applying the First Amendment freedoms of speech. Note that copyright law would be unconstitutional on its face were your interpretation to be valid. The government would be prohibited from making any law abridging my right to take your words and reprint them as my own, because under your interpretation I would be the "speaker" of those words and the person to whom the freedom of speech would attach. You would have no protection because I would be the "person who spoke the words" (i.e. published the text), not you, even if you had previously "spoken" them in some other form. And, I might add, your freedom of speech is not abridged when I can steal your work and publish it as my own because I did not prevent you from speaking your own words, so you would have no First Amendment claims.
It's cute that you think that the First Amendment is absolute, as well as that it doesn't have to be interpreted in view of the fact that the Constitution expressly authorizes copyrights and thus copyright law. But you remain deeply, fundamentally wrong.

The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
Not in the sense of the first amendment, where it is the CONTENT and not the specific utterer of sounds that matters. The Communications Decency Act supports this when it makes it clear that the originator of the speech is the "information content provider" who is responsible fo
Re: What's a political ad? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-23 07:27 · Score: 1

There can be two speakers,
"Speaker" can have multiple meanings, but the one that applies when talking about "freedom of speech" is not just the one uttering the syllables. It's the one writing the script and hiring the actor to utter the syllables for him. Trying to exclude paid political advertising from First Amendment coverage is stripping the "speaker" (in First Amendment terms) of his Constitutional right to freedom of speech. The fact that one person pays another to speak his words changes nothing. The First Amendment makes no distinction here.

No. The First Amendment is concerned with regulation of the act based upon the content of the message.
The First Amendment contains no mention of the content of the message. It uses the phrase "freedom of speech", which includes anonymous speech, and paying for speech to be published in some medium.

My original post stated that " Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure."
Well, that's a nice opinion, but it is irrelevant to what I replied to and thus what I've been discussing. I don't care whatever else you said, this is what I replied to: "In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you."
That is not true. When I hire a voice-over to produce a radio ad, for example, I am paying someone TO SAY MY WORDS EXACTLY AS I WROTE THEM. In other words, to express my ideas and thoughts using my words. He is not "speaking for me" because I have the ability to create my own speech. That's the specific statement you made that I replied to. and that's it. And that's why it doesn't matter if I've hired someone to say my words or I say them myself, they are still protected by the First Amendment.

Then you ran off into the wilderness with your "The speech come from the author, not the medium itself" nonsense.
In the sense of the First Amendment, that is quite true, because "speech" isn't "sounds uttered by a human" in this context. Calling this concept nonsense means you must believe that the radio in your car spontaneously creates "speech", since if the speech you are hearing out of it didn't come from the author, it must have come from the medium.

such as defamation law,

How cute. You're citing a law that deals with voluntary parroting of defamatory material and confusing it with paid publishing of otherwise legal political speech.

Sources. Use them.
And understand them.

LOL by intellitech · 2017-10-19 19:06 · Score: 1

Good fucking luck. First amendment will give you a swift kick in the ass.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

Re:LOL by intellitech · 2017-10-19 19:12 · Score: 1

Also, to be fair, I wrote in Colbert last election.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 19:43 · Score: 0

You realize that was a vote for French toothpaste, right?
Re:LOL by sabbede · 2017-10-20 00:22 · Score: 1

These same rules apply to ads on any other medium and have not been found to infringe on the 1st. It's more like closing a loophole

Lynch them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 19:15 · Score: 0

These evil senators are the worst criminals alive. How dare they infringe on our speech. How dare they.

"Honest Ads Act" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 19:43 · Score: 0

Am I the only one that chuckled at the name "Honest Ads Act" given to this proposition ?
I'm not from the US of A, but I can infer that your politicians are like those ones here, I may say that it's the sharks complaining about the sea crocodiles...

What about astroturfing? by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2017-10-19 19:58 · Score: 1

Facebook ads are a miniscule threat compared to astroturfing.

If they don't regulate astroturfing, then they aren't serious.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by ShanghaiBill · 2017-10-19 20:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Bullcrap. If the government was not trying to control speech, then there would be no reason for these laws.

This merely brings in line the regulations around internet ads to be similar to TV and print.

We should be removing restrictions, not extending them.

Oh look, they pretend to do something by houghi · 2017-10-19 20:34 · Score: 1

The Russian thing was just the last drip in a full bucket to make it overflow. I am sure that lobbying has a tad more influence in our life.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Keeping Political Ads by shayd2 · 2017-10-19 22:24 · Score: 1

Define "political" please. Is a skin cream ad political or just sexist, ageist? Why wouldn't Facebook keep ALL ads available? 1 I see most of the "good" ones over on YouTube. 2 They can charge the ad buyers for this new "service" They'd have to keep the archive by date, subject and key words. It would be nice if they kept them by the distribution questions the ad buyer set up for them but that's probably too much "under the hood" information for Facebook (et. al) to reveal.

Re:Keeping Political Ads by sabbede · 2017-10-20 00:11 · Score: 1

Which ads get regulated is covered in the bill, and it seems they're using a fairly strict definition. Ads for or against a candidate and some issues of national interest.

I know we're gullible by rcharbon · 2017-10-19 23:26 · Score: 1

Politicians know voters are dumb - after all, look at who they've elected! So they know that the voters are dumb enough to think that the elected politicians will do anything to change the system that elected them in any real way.

Honest Ads Act by emaname · 2017-10-19 23:35 · Score: 2

Any legislation called the "Honest Ads Act" is questionable. Just like "Citizens United" really should have been named "Citizens Divided."

And why is this happening? I thought we had too much regulation.

--
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.

Re: Honest Ads Act by ljw1004 · 2017-10-20 02:08 · Score: 1

Read it. The honest adds act does its work by actually striking out large chunks of previous legislation. It adds a lot less than it removes.
Re: Honest Ads Act by emaname · 2017-10-20 17:07 · Score: 1

First of all, I should apologize for my comment re "too much regulation." That was a sarcastic remark. I'm trying to point out that regulation is necessary. The entities that want us to believe there is too much regulation typically are the ones being regulated and their supporters. The sad fact of the matter is we do need regulation (eg, Wells Fargo, BP, Exxon, the recent recession/depression thanks to reckless behavior in the banking industry, Savings and Loan debacle, big pharma).
However, I don't get the impression from the article that the legislation is striking out large chunks of previous legislation. It may be exchanging one method of regulation for another, but in the linked article it's described as "a new bill" and how it's creating new rules for online political ads. It goes on to describe how companies will be expected to now keep records of who is buying the ads and how much they pay for them. Further, the "companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year."
It sounds to me like there will be a lot more research and record keeping required in the area of social media; at least more than they're doing now.
If this legislation is a modification of Citizens Divided (or United, if you prefer), then it might be swapping one set of rules for another and not adding more regulation. But if that is its purpose, I suspect this bill doesn't have a chance of getting passed.

--
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.

Nice effort, but naive by argStyopa · 2017-10-19 23:37 · Score: 1

Do they really think that the buyer of a malignant ad will be "V.Putin"? No, of course they will (as they do today) put them behind meaningless, disposable, untraceable front organizations. So that's pointless.

And "who they're targeted against"? Aren't most political ad buys today "issue ads" where no candidate is named but a side is promoted?

Finally, John McCain can hardly be called an element of bipartisan politics; he's been pissy since he felt pushed aside from "his turn" by Bush II, to say nothing of his visceral hatred of Trump (who is a RINO anyway)...

--
-Styopa

Re:Nice effort, but naive by swb · 2017-10-20 00:42 · Score: 1

I guess if you write the law to so that the named sponsor has to be:
1) The name of the organization if it is an officially registered organization
2) The name of the largest individual contributor or registered group if it is an ad-hoc unregistered group
This way it's much harder for a single organization or wealthy individual to hide behind front groups. They would be forced to either make the group official in some way or falsify the name of the largest individual contributor.
It's too much overhead to register an official group for every political ad you want to run as sponsored by the front group. If they did register a bunch of front groups, at least now its public information and these can be correlated to find the real backer.

Re:Reality Disfunction by Shogun37 · 2017-10-19 23:49 · Score: 1

What color is the sky in your world?

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by dywolf · 2017-10-19 23:51 · Score: 5, Informative

BS yourself.
Requiring disclosure of who paid for the ads != free speech violation.

Controlling means content.
This has nothing to do with content.
This has nothing to do with restricting speech.

All this does is bring online political ads to the same standard that already exists for all other forms of political advertising (print, radio, tv, etc).

You once again are miscomprehending and misrepresenting the issue.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

It's from Congress. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:01 · Score: 0

Si I know it will be the Dishonest Subtraction Inaction.

end of political speech by doctorvo · 2017-10-20 00:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

The companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year.

This would basically mean the end of political speech for individuals, because anybody who publishes a controversial ad as an individual will be torn apart by "activists" from the opposing political party.

It's also unlikely to survive legal scrutiny, since SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous free speech; this isn't the first time politicians have tried to restrict it after all.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by doctorvo · 2017-10-20 00:15 · Score: 2

Yes, but it potentially interferes with poor Ivan's ability to use US advertising platforms to spread misinformation.

And applied in reverse, it interferes with poor America's ability to use foreign advertising to spread information about the US, democracy, etc. And it interferes with the ability of Americans to hear foreign viewpoints

If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising, then you obviously don't believe in representative government or democracy; why even pretend to defend democracy and liberty?

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:23 · Score: 0

Lame joke. You could've turned it into "St. Petersburg... FL".

Idea for Amendment to this bill by ScooterComputer · 2017-10-20 00:29 · Score: 1

I have an idea for an amendment to this bill. Every politician in the US takes an "oath of office" that contains a statement to the effect that they will "faithfully execute" the office. I believe it is fairly clear to most citizens that lying is certainly NOT "faithfully" executing the role of public office. When in court, a citizen must swear or affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Let's combine the two!
Any citizen who submits to running for public office must agree to abide by the oath of office at the time of application, NOT at the time of taking office (too late by then, eh?). The person standing on the podium at the end of a race with hand held high should be the formality, the pomp and circumstance, not the initiation. And it should be ensconced that taking an oath of public office should effectively put the potential office holder under the same level of "truth telling" as a citizen testifying in public court. From there, ANY public office holder that willfully and knowingly lies, or even spreads mistruths when evidence shows they had ample fore-knowledge, should be held to the penalties of perjury. In other words, every time a politician speaks, they HAVE to tell the truth. NOT just when they're "sworn in" at a Congressional hearing; NOT just when they're in front of a Grand Jury for a corruption scandal...ALWAYS.
When Hillary Clinton went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' and baldly lied about how she used her mail server, then those statements ALONE should have been enough (with the information now known) to have her busted for perjury to the American people. When Trump makes completely false statements contrary to intelligence reports it is KNOWN he received, perjury. Any US citizen should have "standing", and more than a handful should intrinsically constitute a "class action".
Yes, this in the short term may lead to some (or many) politicians NEVER giving interviews... let's see how long they last in office then. Otherwise, if a public official talks, they'd best be telling the truth, political advertising or statements to the press or campaign promises to the crowds. EVERY TIME THEY COMMUNICATE.

--
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Re:Idea for Amendment to this bill by bongey · 2017-10-20 05:33 · Score: 1

"Obama Intelligence reports"
The same Obama administration that buried FBI investigation of Russian bribery through the Clinton Foundation for the Uranium deal.
Obama was one of the most corrupt administrations in US history but Obama was the liberal media's "guy" they literally just cover up his corruption.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:36 · Score: 0

This all really isn't about Russian interference or the like. It, like many other narratives on other topics, are beaten on the drum to make the call to systematically disassemble the Bill of Rights without having to do it the right way. And it has worked quite well because Americans have become drooling morons.

If you're a Trumptard to believes that Hilary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:46 · Score: 0

actually ran a pedophielia ring from the basement of a pizza shop will it really make a difference if you are explicitly told that the ad you're reading was paid for by the Russians? That person will probably think that is a good thing because they are not being influenced by the lame stream media.

BLM Advertisements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 00:57 · Score: 0

Are considered political now? Or are they just using this whole "scandal" to pass a law they wanted from the beginning. I have heard many times before that "its their website they can censor what they want" in regards to Facebook and Twitter etc... Does this logic magically not hold true anymore? Can I legally dox every BLM supporter now, if they Tweet because its a " political advertisement"?

TFA: this bill is out-of-date before it's launched by ljw1004 · 2017-10-20 01:03 · Score: 2

This bill wouldn't have had any effect at all on the ads in question.

This bill is a straightforward extension of the existing Federal Election Campaign Act so it also covers internet advertising. That's fine and is good. It says that any "qualified political advertisement" must be disclosed. A qualified political advertisement is defined as one which (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, (2) is targeted to the relevant electorate.

The ads in question? They weren't qualified political advertisements. They weren't geared towards any one political candidate. They were general sowing of division and antipathy between groups. "Some of the ads supported Black Lives Matter and other groups bringing attention to the tense relationship between law enforcement and people of color. Yet other ads painted these activist organizations as a rising political threat." (article1). "Some championed activist groups like Black Lives Matter, while others portrayed them as existential threats. Others aimed to split opinions through hot-button issues like Islam, LGBT rights, gun rights and immigration." -- (article2).

So this bill is fine and good and just makes sense. But if there were indeed Russian ads as described in the past electoral cycle, then their propaganda is years ahead of our own legislators.

PS. Here's the full text of the proposed "Honest Ads Act": https://coffman.house.gov/uplo...

And here's the relevant federal law which it amends: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Balkanization by LesserWeevil · 2017-10-20 01:03 · Score: 2

It's interesting that much of the "fake news" circulating today is, at its core, designed to balkanize national populations, increase factional friction and reduce cohesiveness of organizations such as NATO and the EU. It's time to ask who would benefit most from such a move? "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." -- Carl Sagan

The Long Ad by JimSadler · 2017-10-20 01:16 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Fox news is nothing but a continuous stream of lies and political ads and manipulations. Rush Limbaugh is also nothing more than a political operative. So how do we call out and punish these people and their absurd lies? For example trump claiming for seven years that Obama was not a US citizen was a lie inserted into Trump's political dialogue even when trump admits that it was a lie. To me that means Trump should be in prison. And how do we deal with those who bombarded us with crooked Hillary slogans now that it is known that Russian agents were often the ones pushing those lies. Is the ignorant citizen who makes such claims innocent when compared to foreign powers who spread the lies all along? Toleration of lies can destroy all of us.

Re:The Long Ad by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:47 · Score: 0

And you think MSNBC - which once advocated the torture-murder of a Vice-Presidential candidate - is in any way better?
But it doesn't matter, because the First Amendment protects their rights to lie to you, just as it protects your right to the near-incoherent mess of falsehoods you wrote.

Don't miss the forest for the trees by cordovaCon83 · 2017-10-20 01:24 · Score: 3, Informative

If the idea is to identify Psy Ops performed by the Russkies then indeed this bill is missing the forest for the trees. Just think Pizzagate - no one in their right mind would consider that a political ad. Still, it played a part in discrediting the Democrats and the Clinton campaign. I still think it's a good bill though - online political ads should be treated no differently than tv ads. Just don't miss the forest for the trees..

Three Leftists is not "Bipartisan" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:33 · Score: 0

Sorry, but that the bill was sponsored by three left-wing nutjobs does not make it "bipartisan."

Not bipartisan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:34 · Score: 0

Democrat + McCain is not "Bipartisan." It is, in fact, a Democrat proposal. McCain is just hiding out under the (R) label.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:36 · Score: 0

TV is governed by licenses. A license implicitly infers that that being licensed is not a right.
The internet is NOT TV.

This is geared more towards actual political ads.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:37 · Score: 1

.. and not propaganda ads.

The ads in question were propaganda - designed to manipulate social behavior among Americans. They were not political campaign ads, and would not have been affected by this law at all.

Truth in Advertising by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:38 · Score: 0

Why not require PAID protesters to display a badge saying they're being paid for their hate, and who's paying them?

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 01:45 · Score: 0

If there is wrongdoing, issue a warrant for the information. If there is no wrongdoing, why are you advocating the invasion of private property. i.e. disclosure. It is not your business, or the states business, who I do business with. The Print laws are unconstitutional, and undemocratic.

Doomed to Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:06 · Score: 0

This is doomed to fail because of the accounting aspect of it.

If I spend $500 on ads, the publisher has no idea if they are political or not, Hell most open RTB ads have hidden targeting within the ad creative, so even if they give me an ad for Dove Soap, when that ad fires on Yankee Doodle Trumpies in Arkansas it will show Trump giving the MAGA statement. Meanwhile the publisher thinks the ad is just for Dove Soap. That was an exaggerated example, but this is really how a lot of this shit goes down on Google and Facebook. If you allow for "native" or "html" ads instead of straight image/text ads, you ceed control over the targeting to the creative itself. Sure the creative can't override the geotargeting, but it doesn't have to, it just has to be sold as being "USA wide" and then the ad itself targets the MAGA Trumpies in rural Arkansas and Virginia.

Likewise one could piggyback a political ad on top of a benign ad (which happens way too often.) So the first time someone sees the ad campaign they see the intended one, but then the next time they see the political ad because the cookie was set to target them and not the people verifying ads.

I wouldn't put it past the hacking of voter rolls as being executed by getting voter information via fake surveys/gift cards/etc and then having russian agents fill out the paperwork online to change the voting status.

If you want to protect the integrity of the voting system, while still making it fast, you need a two-pronged approach where:
1) The digital vote generates an identical paper ballot that is fed directly to the lockbox upon confirmation
2) The voter gets a "receipt" filled ballot that they deposit into the "recount box" themselves. If it doesn't have the correct result, they bring it back to the voting machine, digitally sign a "I made a mistake" form, and it generates a "change of vote" ballot. These are put aside like provisional ballots and counted only if the number of ballots is larger than the margin of winning. Each change of vote is effectively a "negative" vote against one candidate, and a positive vote against another. To prevent ballot stuffing of change votes, each change of vote is marked with the original ballot number it succeeds, and time stamped.

An all-paper process is a little too cumbersome nowadays, but should probably be enhanced by digital technology. Like instead of filling out large pieces of paper, just generate something like a scantron card using the computer:

My vote for President is:
[X] Don J Moron (Republican - Incumbant)
[ ] Q T Pie (Dem) ...
etc and just print off a ballot whereby the optical scanning can't be spoiled by filling in the boxes later, hell, just burn holes in the cards with lasers and that makes it even easier.

Another great trick to prevent hacking is to change the character used for voting on the optical ballots by machine. So you get something like
Machine 1
[(^O^)] Don J Moron (Republican - Incumbant)
[ ] Q T Pie (Dem)

Machine 2
[ ] Don J Moron (Republican - Incumbant)
[:D] Q T Pie (Dem)

Re:Doomed to Fail by rickb928 · 2017-10-20 02:44 · Score: 1

Your balloting system is very close.
First, electronic voting. Then issue a paper receipt. QR Code. Scan that on the way out, but the voter keeps it.
Discrepancies between the electronic vote and the exit receipt scan may trigger a recount, or small margin as it does so often now.
For a recount, first make it public that there were missing exit scans, and give voters a day or two to post their QR code to a site. I know, this risks forgeries, inattentive voters, and complexity. If, IF you enlist the aid of various publicly accessible stations such as lottery machines, bill pay stations, even the cashier at the supermarket, you're only getting the QR code back, so transmitting it can't be that hard.
This could spur the development of civilian sites begging for QR codes to do a self-selected sample, which while not statistically precise, might be useful for exposing egregious abuse. Or not, but I would be tempted to put one up just to collect them and see if something seems wrong. No, I would not conduct the analysis, but plenty of qualified helpers out there.
In the end, mismatches between the digital count and QR receipts would have to be investigated. Your concept of depositing a receipt on exit also works, but a two receipt system also allows a voter to check if their vote was tallied. Time and date, QR code, only a thumbprint would meaningfully add to this.
Ultimately, though it is evident that some polls are simply dishonest. Some communities are, based on their 2016 Presidential election results, fraudulent. Would this system fix that? Certainly before we begin a discussion on a popular vote election for President, we need an honest debate and resolution to these known and provable problems.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Doomed to Fail by Cytotoxic · 2017-10-20 05:22 · Score: 1

There is the kernel of an idea here.
Independent election monitors could collect QR code scans on site. So you could have a republican scanner, a democrat scanner, an amnesty international scanner..... all right alongside the official scanner. That, along with a video of people leaving would be all you need to instantly validate the vote.
The only issue with voting receipts is the ability to have people paying for votes. So you'd have to control for that somehow.
And that sets up a fundamental conflict. Because if your QR code doesn't uniquely identify your ballot selections, it is useless. And if it does.. it is corruption incarnate. So the receipt would have to stay on site.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by bobschneider8 · 2017-10-20 02:15 · Score: 2

No, the law is clear here. While you have the right to speak, the first amendment doesn't give you the right to speak anonymously. The courts have been clear that speakers can be required to identify themselves, since that's a crucial element in letting the listener judge whether the speaker can be trusted. Also, the right to free speech is not absolute. The example first year law students all learn is that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because that poses a clear and present danger to the public.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by t0rkm3 · 2017-10-20 02:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The entire premise of freedom is that you must be "free" to exercise your rights. You are free to kneel during the anthem, and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so. However, if the employer has to look at cutting budget due to a downturn in viewership, and the action has a direct correlation with said downturn, then performers have just denied themselves a job. Interestingly, refer to Dolly Parton's opinion on this matter. She's friends with Lily Tomlin and other hard core libs but she doesn't express her opinions in a venue where it will affect her work. Smart.

However, due to the stupidity of equating words and opinions with violence we now can legitimately express concern regarding people expressing their opinion and having violent jackasses show up at their door or their place of work. Representative governments only work when civility is applied from both sides. Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold. In that climate, the eventual result is mob mentality, then violence (St Louis), then more restrictive reactionary government. Laws like this are the ropes of the Lilliputians attempting to tie Gulliver down, but, in this case, Gulliver will not negotiate.

This law in particular is taking rights away from people passively and setting us down the road toward places like the UK, where you can now be jailed for viewing "subversive" material. Is that really where we want to be? Some of us, those that cannot think that they will ever be on the receiving end will answer yes. Personally, I use this as an empathy test. If a person cannot imagine being oppressed in the future, then their current outrage is simply an expression of desire to belong or have power, rather than an interest in building a society in which no one need fear the government.

Just because jackbooted thugs wandering the streets are enforcing the desires of a totalitarian government rather than people dressed in fatigues does not make the government less oppressive. To avoid Godwin's law, I will instead invoke early Soviet Bolshevism or populist violence associated with Cromwell. Notice in both instances the violence of the people led to more power and oppression by the government.

Democrats against the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:26 · Score: 0

Imagine the outcry had a Republican tried this...

Not surprising, though.

Poll: Most California Democrats want to restrict free speech

“I would have thought the liberals would be defending the right to demonstrate in general,” said Mark DiCamillo, who conducted the poll of California registered voters for the university’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

Obviously, Mark hasn't been paying attention to today's "liberals".

Re:Bi-Partisan?! by bobbied · 2017-10-20 02:39 · Score: 0

I know right.... Everybody needs to remember McCain has brain cancer and according to some news reports is unlikely to survive long enough to actually vote for this bill. He won't be re-elected so he doesn't care what the voters want anymore, he's out doing something other than representing his state anymore.

It's sad, but I do think he's searching for a legacy, which is why the dramatic "show vote" on healthcare and his open defiance of the current republican president. It's about getting attention....

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 02:59 · Score: 0

the first amendment doesn't give you the right to speak anonymously.

This is odd to me. The Federalist Papers, the foundation of American government, was written by pseudonyms. Anonymity has been an American tradition since before the Bill of Rights. Speak without fear is part of that and it goes beyond just fear of government reprisals. Sometimes there is a need to have an anonymous voice.

The point of anonymous speech is that the ideas within or the claims made can stand on their own merit and do not need a reputation to support it. Again, the Federalist Papers are a prime example. They didn't need the real names for the arguments and ideas to be so powerful that ended up shaping the whole of American government.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-20 03:26 · Score: 1

If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising...

It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."

If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

then you obviously don't believe in representative government or democracy;

I don't actually; see above statement about empirical data.

why even pretend to defend democracy and liberty?

I won't defend democracy, because it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and that's an inherently fucked situation. I will always, however, defend the right of the sheep to be well armed, and contest the vote.

Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Yeah right! by p51d007 · 2017-10-20 03:40 · Score: 1

The ONLY ads that would be REGULATED, would be those in opposition to the currently elected group. It's a "good ole boys" club, and, they PROTECT each other and don't want ANY outsiders to come in and muck it up.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-20 05:56 · Score: 0

If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising,

Enough of them are indeed dumb enough. Especially if the ads can be targeted using private polling data from the Trump campaign. Russian troll farm ads were never going to sway a majority of US voters, and the vote totals showed that they didn't. But if you know exactly how to target those ads in states that were very close and which had significant populations of dumb people (Wisconsin, I'm looking at you), it can be enough.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 06:45 · Score: 0

If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

If $50k of advertising worked, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 06:48 · Score: 0

More than just odd, it is a bald-faced violation of the first amendment. As are all restrictions on political activism. You have the absolute right to speak your mind without intervention from the government. And you have the absolute right to group together in any way you see fit (freedom of assembly).

Beyond whether or not these freedoms are a good thing, or whether restricting them in some way is a good idea, it is black letter law in the constitution.

Every campaign finance law is blatantly unconstitutional. As is every "full disclosure" law about what you have to say in political ads.

And yes, there are very valid reasons to want restrictions on finances and anonymity. But you should be required to get an amendment to the constitution in order to implement them, because this "well, it really is important that..." exception to the letter of the law has rendered the constitution moot.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Cytotoxic · 2017-10-20 06:50 · Score: 2

Amen Brother.

Funny how people get all interested in civil liberties when it is their liberties being infringed upon. Yet somehow when people they find distasteful are having their liberties run over, they are not really so worried about it. In fact, they often seem to be cheerleading the steamrolling.

U.S Constitution doesn't grant rights by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2017-10-20 06:55 · Score: 1

While you have the right to speak, the first amendment doesn't give you the right to speak anonymously.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights! Our rights come from the Creator (God). The Constitution just restricts what government can do.

You have a natural right to speak anonymously.

ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 07:17 · Score: 0

It's yet another example of Senators trying to do something that's illegal and no court holding them accountable to it.

Where is the 4th or 9th circuit they was quick to block a travel ban? Why aren't they using that gavel to say "No law makers you will not do these things"?

fools. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 07:38 · Score: 0

People who believe that this will help are doomed to repeat history. Oh wait. They are repeating history. Can you think of any reason why we have a Bill of Rights and the First Amendment to that bill in the first place?

I won't even read about this as it will be shot down in the courts before it can even see the light of day.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by ShanghaiBill · 2017-10-20 08:17 · Score: 1

No, the law is clear here. While you have the right to speak, the first amendment doesn't give you the right to speak anonymously.

The law is indeed clear: The Constitution says "no law", and you can't get clearer than that. The federal government has NO authority to ban anonymous speech.

The example first year law students all learn is that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because that poses a clear and present danger to the public.

Perhaps you should read up on the history of that phrase. The example of "shouting fire in a theater" was first used by Oliver Wendell Holmes when he voted to have outspoken opponents of the 1st World War imprisoned. His logic was that since the government could arrest people for shouting fire, then they should also be able to arrest people for expressing political opinions, since, hey, free speech has limits.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by Obfuscant · 2017-10-20 09:18 · Score: 1

You are free to kneel during the anthem,

Absolutely.

and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so.

Why not? When you kneel during the anthem to disrespect the US flag or for whatever reason, you are using someone else's soapbox to make your statement. You do not have a right to use someone else's soapbox.

Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold.

Are you referring to doxing by Anonymous here, too?

Same for Bill Clinton, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 13:48 · Score: 0

Democrats were not marching through the streets demanding that he was not president, demanding recounts, forming "Never Clinton" groups, imagining every possible scenario to re-do the election kicking out the winner, telling foreign governments that Bill was not the president etc. Bill Clinton did not win the majority vote either; he won the electoral college. Republican who voted to impeach him later on did not do so over the election; they did so because he lied under oath in a court case where the law HE SIGNED INTO EFFECT required ANY American male in his situation to testify truthfully about his sexual history. Bil lClinton signed that law into existence and would have happily jailed any other American man who violated it, but then he himself violated it on national television like some olf European king holding hiself above the very laws he imposed upon others.

It appears that all the outrage which is supposedly about the fact that Trump did not win a simple majority is just another "progressive" lie - it's just a year-long temper tantrum by outraged leftists over an election that did not turn out the way they were told it was rigged to do.

Re:Same for Bill Clinton, but... by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:26 · Score: 1

you seem shocked that democrats werent marching in the streets after clintons election...i think you may be confused.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Incumbent politicians controlling challenger ads. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-20 13:58 · Score: 0

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Do you REALLY want establishment Republicans (like the Bushes) uniting with establishment Democrats (like the Clintons) to regulate the speech of anybody else on the left, right, or center who might challenge the establishment globalists who seek to maximize the cashflow to the donor class and its international organizations while depressing the wages benefits and freedoms of the middle class and making the lower classes fully dependent upon handouts from politicians?????

REALLY?

"Liberals" used to be opposed to massive globalists corporations and Wall St bankers..

"Conservatives" used to have a healthy dose of fear toward big government, globalists outfits, and businesses getting in bed with government.

All rhetoric aside, Republicans and Democrats inside the DC beltway have far more in common with each other and their funders than with the average American - which is nicely displayed by the friendship between Bill Clinton and George H W Bush. What they SAY on the campaign trail matters little compared to what they do while in office, like agreeing to bail out investment bankers.

Say What?!? by HuMJohn · 2017-10-21 05:52 · Score: 1

I love this: it is the HAA! bill. (Don't laugh!)

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by redlemming · 2017-10-21 06:01 · Score: 1

You have the absolute right to speak your mind without intervention from the government.

No, you don't. If there was an absolute right, then you could speakers in every persons home and force them to listen to your voice - at any volume level desired, even at damaging sound levels - interfering with a whole host of fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right to have working hearing.

Your freedom to wave your fist around is legitimately limited by law when it conflicts with somebody else's freedom to not have your fist in their personal space.

And you have the absolute right to group together in any way you see fit (freedom of assembly).

Not you don't, if this was an absolute right than your freedom to assemble would interfere with the rights of others to travel - your assembly could block the streets - and hence the right of others to assemble - your assembly could prevent people from getting together with people of groups you didn't approve of - and your assembly could interfere with the right of others to privacy as you could assemble in somebody else's house without their permission.

Every campaign finance law is blatantly unconstitutional.

False. The right to long term public oversight over government and the political process arises under the 9th Amendment, as a right retained by the people, and the 10th Amendment, as a right reserved to the people. Laws that provide this oversight are an implementation of the Bill of Rights, not a violation of it.

And yes, there are very valid reasons to want restrictions on finances and anonymity. But you should be required to get an amendment to the constitution in order to implement them, because this "well, it really is important that..." exception to the letter of the law has rendered the constitution moot.

With respect to finance, the Amendment already exists - and has since the Bill of Rights was written.

Anonymity with respect to speech is a different issue - but spending money is not something any rational person would consider a form of speech - and that can be regulated.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by doctorvo · 2017-10-21 12:34 · Score: 1

It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."... If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Which part of can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising did you not understand?

Clinton spent $565 million.

Trump spent $322 million.

Russia spent $0.05 million

Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.

Democracy simply means that political power originates with the people (as opposed to God or kings). There is no inherent conflict between democracy and liberty.

The conflict is between specific forms of democracy: majoritarianism, parliamentary democracy, and democratic socialism are incompatible with liberty (they are also unstable and tend to turn into totalitarianism or dictatorships sooner or later).

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by doctorvo · 2017-10-21 12:41 · Score: 1

Clinton spent twice as much money as Trump and more than 10000 times as much as Russia, and most of the major sources of consumer and political data in the US (including Google and Facebook) were supporting Clinton with people and data. The idea that somehow Russia managed to do with $50k and no talent what Clinton didn't manage to do with nearly the entire press, PR machinery, academic community, and big data brain trust behind it is ludicrous.

The election does show that political advertising works to some degree: people like you still believe in the political equivalent of the Easter Bunny, against all reason and evidence. Fortunately, the American electorate kept you from stealing the show... this time. With a bit of luck, we can repeat that for a few more elections. Kicking out a few million illegals should also help.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by dywolf · 2017-10-22 08:49 · Score: 1

again you are willfully ignorant.
there are many types of unprotected speech which you would clearly be aware of if you but thought for a moment.
you would do well to learn the relevant case law before speaking again (pun intended): https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...

relevant here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- clear and present danger
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- restrictions on speech meant to incite illegal activity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- libel is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- slander is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- defamation is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...

Also, you're argument about the fire in a theater makes me believe that you and Mi are the same person, as you have given the exact same straw man / deflection argument as him a few days ago. and you are just as wrong as he was in doing so.

quoting myself ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) :

as your helpful link points out ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), people shouting fire in crowded theaters or other gatherings had, at the time of that case, killed hundreds of people in the ensuing panics. thus the Justice in the case was not creating the reference for the first time (as you seem to want to imply), but pointing it out as something the people of the time would be commonly familiar with as a kind of speech that is dangerous and not worthy of protection.

once again you prove that you know nothing.

The fact that Holmes got it wrong in his case (a case that was later overturned) doesnt undermine the concept of the clear and present danger test.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by CanHasDIY · 2017-10-23 05:35 · Score: 1

It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."... If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Which part of can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising did you not understand?

I guess the part where you insist that more money = more effective influence.

Clinton spent $565 million.

Trump spent $322 million.

Russia spent $0.05 million

Right - Trump spent far less and still won. So larger dollar amounts obviously do not translate to better results.

Again, you've proven my point.

Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.

Democracy simply means that political power originates with the people (as opposed to God or kings).

democracy
noun
1 a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More

2 a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"

3 control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

None of the actual definitions of the term fit the one you choose to believe in.

The conflict is between specific forms of democracy: majoritarianism, parliamentary democracy, and democratic socialism are incompatible with liberty (they are also unstable and tend to turn into totalitarianism or dictatorships sooner or later).

LOL, "the problem isn't democracy itself, it's the forms of democracy that people use."

Um, dude...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill by doctorvo · 2017-10-23 14:09 · Score: 1

I guess the part where you insist that more money = more effective influence.

Not at all. I merely insist that the idea that $50000 won the election against Clinton's $650 million spending plus massive political and media machinery is ludicrous.

Clinton lost over and over again because people thought that she was a vile and incompetent human being; the only thing Russian operatives had to do with Clinton was massive donations to her foundation, which rightfully disturbed people.

None of the actual definitions of the term fit the one you choose to believe in.

Sure, your first definition pretty much says what I said.

LOL, "the problem isn't democracy itself, it's the forms of democracy that people use."

Minarchist democracies have been the norm through most of human history. The kind of totalitarian and majoritarian form of democracy you imagine is barely democratic and not stable.

Um, dude...

I know some of these concepts can be hard to understand. Keep trying.

Slashdot Mirror

Senators Announce New Bill That Would Regulate Online Political Ads (theverge.com)

232 comments