The way I read it, Slashdot would have to spend at least $1000 specifically on supporting a local SF candidate. Then they'd have to file a statement, unless they were considered a "recognized news source."
But so what? Filing a one-page financial statement is not a barrier to the free speech you just spent a thousand bucks on. Speechify all you want for free, no odious bureaucratic hoops to jump through whatsoever. But when you might be trying to circumvent campaign finance laws by spending substantial amounts out-of-pocket on campaign expenses rather than writing a check to the campaign and letting them disburse it on the books, you can expect to be scrutinized. You can quibble about the merit of campaign finance regulations all you want, but at the moment we've decided we want them, and that we want them to be effective. All this does is close a loophole.
Candidates don't make "donations," they pay for services. But either way, yes, that guy has to report income he gets from a campaign. He has to report all his other income too. Doesn't infringe his right to free speech at all.
Maybe before clicking "send" on that letter you should read the actual ordinance instead of taking the highly inaccurate summary as gospel. Blogs are not being singled out. They're not even mentioned. The legislation has to do with political contributions, not speech.
They're not regulating speech. They're regulating financial transactions related to political campaigns. (Which is why another poster's idea to host the content elsewhere is irrelevant.) You can say whatever you want, endorse whomever you want. You can even get paid by a campaign or PAC, you just have to disclose it.
From a somewhat cursory examination of the legislation being proposed, it looks like the summary is substantially misrepresenting it. It says that any person who spends over $1000 on "electioneering communications" has to file a statement with the Ethics Commission detailing where that money was spent and if they received any payments from anyone for the purpose of that electioneering. Furthermore, there's a list of exemptions which includes "news stories, commentaries, or editorials distributed through any newspaper, radio, television station, or other recognized news medium" which certainly might include a web page.
The purpose of this legislation is not to "regulate blogging," as the submitter so breathlessly exclaims, it's to provide transparency in election financing. No one's being prevented from saying anything, or even from taking money to say a certain thing, but if anyone, whether blogger or billboard company or bumpersticker printer, receives money from a campaign or PAC to advocate that campaign or that PAC's issue, it's in the public's interest to know that fact. This is no different than the Federal laws that require political ads to identify the source of their funding ("This message has been brought to you by Citizens For Financial Obfuscation," that sort of thing.)
Bloggers are understandably defensive at the moment, since the serious political commentators and newsgathering blogs are frequently lumped in with the likes of Free Republic and teenagers' LiveJournals, but misrepresenting the issues at hand to turn everything into "the mainstream media/government/alien overlord is threatened by blogging!" is not a worthy strategy.
They already have that control. It's called "robots.txt" and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than bringing this suit. And I'd be surprised if Google didn't have some existing procedure whereby a news provider could request to be excluded from their aggregator.
RTFA. The blogger/journalist distinction has nothing to do with the decision, which would have been the same either way. What was at issue was whether journalistic protections apply when the reporting is not serving the public interest.
Just as a simple example, opening a new browser window on the Mac takes 3 steps (click Safari to restore window, click New Window, minimize the first window)
That's two steps. Minimizing the first window is not part of "opening a new browser window." Besides, what's the default keyboard shortcut for "click quicklaunch icon?"
There's something else curvy you could get with that money, in my book that's 21 dates:P
Now make the real comparison, is the mac mini more sexy then.... something something.
That's fine, I'm not arguing the merits of abortion, but making laws to prevent it doesn't fall under the heading of "smaller government" by any stretch of the imagination.
Sure, it's obvious with "Salted Peanuts" but where do you draw the line? What if it's labelled "Salted Groundnuts?" Not everyone knows they're the same thing. Peanut butter, obvious. What about Soy Peanut Butter? Any peanuts in there? What about Peanuts(TM) brand candies shaped like Snoopy? Honey Nut Cheerios? Nutty Professor happy meals?
There's no sense increasing the complexity and cost of the solution just to avoid amusing the easily-amused.
No, it's because there's some regulation stating that peanut-containing foods must be labelled as such, presumably to protect the increasing percentage of the population with life-threatening peanut allergies. It's a simple, informative, low-cost solution that leads to an occasional harmless silly result. What would you suggest, making the regulation more complicated and subject to interpretation by suffixing "...unless it's like totally obvious already" to it?
"Doctor Smith, code blue! Your patient is... hello? Doctor? Are you hearing me?"
You're proposing a technological solution -- and a poor one, at that -- to a social problem. If people yammering away on cellphones bothers you, politely ask them to keep it down. If nonsmokers can do it, so can you.
Color me retarded. Somehow I missed the part where you said "I remember reading a short SF story" and thought you were asserting the tire thing as an actual fact. My apologies.
Why should the town be dictating what the citizens must spend money on?
The town is comprised of its citizens. It's not an alien overlord.
We're getting rather far afield here -- the story isn't about whether towns should fund broadband access, it's about whether the state should forcibly prevent them from doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
There appears to be a street fair going on near my house. Or possibly a riot. Rioters need funnel cakes too.
But so what? Filing a one-page financial statement is not a barrier to the free speech you just spent a thousand bucks on. Speechify all you want for free, no odious bureaucratic hoops to jump through whatsoever. But when you might be trying to circumvent campaign finance laws by spending substantial amounts out-of-pocket on campaign expenses rather than writing a check to the campaign and letting them disburse it on the books, you can expect to be scrutinized. You can quibble about the merit of campaign finance regulations all you want, but at the moment we've decided we want them, and that we want them to be effective. All this does is close a loophole.
Even should this ordinance become law, there will still be no one who is required to register in order to exercise their right to free speech.
Candidates don't make "donations," they pay for services. But either way, yes, that guy has to report income he gets from a campaign. He has to report all his other income too. Doesn't infringe his right to free speech at all.
Which is exactly no one.
Why don't you specifiy what "abuse" is taking place here? Whose rights to do what are being curtailed? Whose free speech is being restricted?
Maybe before clicking "send" on that letter you should read the actual ordinance instead of taking the highly inaccurate summary as gospel. Blogs are not being singled out. They're not even mentioned. The legislation has to do with political contributions, not speech.
They're not regulating speech. They're regulating financial transactions related to political campaigns. (Which is why another poster's idea to host the content elsewhere is irrelevant.) You can say whatever you want, endorse whomever you want. You can even get paid by a campaign or PAC, you just have to disclose it.
The purpose of this legislation is not to "regulate blogging," as the submitter so breathlessly exclaims, it's to provide transparency in election financing. No one's being prevented from saying anything, or even from taking money to say a certain thing, but if anyone, whether blogger or billboard company or bumpersticker printer, receives money from a campaign or PAC to advocate that campaign or that PAC's issue, it's in the public's interest to know that fact. This is no different than the Federal laws that require political ads to identify the source of their funding ("This message has been brought to you by Citizens For Financial Obfuscation," that sort of thing.)
Bloggers are understandably defensive at the moment, since the serious political commentators and newsgathering blogs are frequently lumped in with the likes of Free Republic and teenagers' LiveJournals, but misrepresenting the issues at hand to turn everything into "the mainstream media/government/alien overlord is threatened by blogging!" is not a worthy strategy.
They already have that control. It's called "robots.txt" and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than bringing this suit. And I'd be surprised if Google didn't have some existing procedure whereby a news provider could request to be excluded from their aggregator.
RTFA. The blogger/journalist distinction has nothing to do with the decision, which would have been the same either way. What was at issue was whether journalistic protections apply when the reporting is not serving the public interest.
No, they paid Xerox to license it, which is the exact opposite of "stealing."
Sounds a little like the Zombie Infection Simulator.
That's two steps. Minimizing the first window is not part of "opening a new browser window." Besides, what's the default keyboard shortcut for "click quicklaunch icon?"
Now make the real comparison, is the mac mini more sexy then.... something something.
It's sexier than any date that puts out for $33.
That's fine, I'm not arguing the merits of abortion, but making laws to prevent it doesn't fall under the heading of "smaller government" by any stretch of the imagination.
There's no sense increasing the complexity and cost of the solution just to avoid amusing the easily-amused.
No, it's because there's some regulation stating that peanut-containing foods must be labelled as such, presumably to protect the increasing percentage of the population with life-threatening peanut allergies. It's a simple, informative, low-cost solution that leads to an occasional harmless silly result. What would you suggest, making the regulation more complicated and subject to interpretation by suffixing "...unless it's like totally obvious already" to it?
You're proposing a technological solution -- and a poor one, at that -- to a social problem. If people yammering away on cellphones bothers you, politely ask them to keep it down. If nonsmokers can do it, so can you.
Inconsistency alert.
Color me retarded. Somehow I missed the part where you said "I remember reading a short SF story" and thought you were asserting the tire thing as an actual fact. My apologies.
That's from a Phillip K. Dick story, or maybe J.G. Ballard. Not real life.
Imploded. CRTs are vacuum tubes.
The town is comprised of its citizens. It's not an alien overlord.
We're getting rather far afield here -- the story isn't about whether towns should fund broadband access, it's about whether the state should forcibly prevent them from doing so.
It is supported by default.