Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet Politics

FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs 558

Posted by Zonk from the won't-someone-think-of-the-livejournals dept.
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs More

FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs

Comments Filter:

  • And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:45AM (#13628964)
    Gov't giving out free wifi. As soon as they own the channels, they have the easy ability to censor it.
    • I'd rather have the government (aka us) which is accountable to the people providing the public service than a company that is accountable to no one but its shareholders.
      • I presume you don't live in the USA, since its fairly apparent that the Government there arn't us, nor are they accountable to the people.

        • Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)

          by qkslvrwolf ( 821489 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:00AM (#13629553)
          Well, then start trying to convince people to
          1) Stop voting for people who have been in office longer than 10 years.
          2) Stop voting for anyone with ties to big buisness.
          3) Stop voting for anyone who inherited their wealth.
          4) Stop voting for anyone with a law background.
          5) Stop voting for anyone who has family closer than 2 generations who was in politics.
          6) Stop voting for republicans.
          7) Stop voting for democrats.
          8) Start voting for independents who fit the above criteria and whose views and record you support.

          The system is changeable, but unfortunately it'll have to get a lot worse before it penetrates the thick skulls of the complacent.
      • Its a lot easier to switch telcom companies that are giving you bad services, than to change your congressman or senator. The doubley crappy part about this is that we really can't count on the courts to say this is unconstituional. "Campaign Finance Reform" showed us that.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:52AM (#13629019)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:58AM (#13629063)
        Sigh.

        Corporations won't stay in business if they don't provide a product they can sell and have people use. Your argument has no basis to it. If a corporation has no product and has no government granted monopoly (people are free to compete), they will never, EVER provide a product they cannot sell to stay in business.

        I would never buy something that censored me. I am not forced to, where the government forces you at gunpoint at the threat of violence.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:10AM (#13629150)
            Really? How's that connection to the internet working out for you? You might not find yourself with a choice when you consider that a lot of companies have virtual monopolies on communications products (i.e: internet access) in certain areas. Read the article I linked to in my OP and this one for some perspective. Then think about your option if that was the only ISP in town.

            And do you realize, thanks to GOVERNMENT these companies have these monopolies? They grant the companies these monopolies, THAT is the reason you get limited access to them. But thankfully, I have a wide array of options to choose from. I could get FIOS, DSL, Cable, or even Dialup if I like, if there was a company "censoring" me. So your point is really moot. There are a wide variety of options to choose from. No company is censoring what I say. If one did, I would choose an alterative! Quite simple, I have no alternative to the government that is holding me.

            What has our government forced you to do at gunpoint? And who do you think is really more accountable? The private company with a board of directors and shareholders or the Government that governs with the consent of the Governed who can vote their asses out of office the minute they see fit.
            Please give me a list of companies that can force me to do anything? Microsoft? They can't force me to do anything, Walmart? I am not forced to go into their stores. Verizon who I have my cell phone with, they can't force me to do anything, I can use another provider if i wish. If you don't think the government forces you to do anything at gunpoint, I ask you, what happens when you don't pay your taxes? what happens if you don't follow silly traffic laws like buckling your seat belt? what happens if you jay-walk in an empty street?

            You must have a strange view of society if you think the government doens't force you to do things, but corporations do.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
              Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:09AM (#13629641)
                I think you miss the parents point. Yes, the government DOES get you to do things with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will try and confiscate your property. If you refuse to let them take your property, they will throw you in jail. If you refuse to go to jail, guns come out and they drag you to jail. A government IS that legalized use of violence. All power of the government stems from the fact that if you refuse to follow its mandates, a few guys with guns will show up at your house and do something unpleasant.

                The same thing goes with getting a speeding ticket. If I am cruising down a flat empty country highway and all of a sudden a police car shows up behind me, the only thing that keeps me from utterly ignoring him enforcing a stupid law for a wide open flat highway is the fact that if I just keep driving, he is going to use violence against me. The threat of violence is what makes people obediently pull over for speeding tickets, not some sense of civil obligation.

                Now, the government's use of violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it is good that if someone murders my mother, guys empowered to use violence by the government (police) go after the murder. That said, it is important to realize that a government solution to any problem is inherently revolves around the authorization of violence. That is where all power of the government stems from. Once you recognize that, you should pause before advocating any government solution. Ask yourself if the problem you are trying to solve really justifies the use of the threat of violence or use of violence upon your fellow humans. Ask yourself if you truly believe that coercion using the threat of violence is worthwhile in this instance.

                I am not saying that we need to abolish taxes, the federal government, or anything of that nature. I am saying that before we merrily swing the government around like a sledge hammer trying to solve problems that we consider fully what it is you propose.
              • If you don't pay your taxes the IRS might put a lien on any property you own and they might garnish part of your wages

                Consider yourself lucky to live in such a benevolent country. Up here in Canada, if you run afoul of Revenue Canada you can look forward to having police show up on your doorstep, and under threat of arms, confiscate anything and everything of value they can find, including property belonging to your spouse and children. We had a case not too long ago where medals that children had won at sc
            • or her has a very realistic view of reality that understands government ultimately is answerable to the entire population - but that corporations with vast market shares can get away with shitting on their customers if

              A) the competition is no better
              or
              B) there is no competition

          • Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Harry Coin ( 691835 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:23AM (#13629258)

            Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:

            • taxpaying
            • zoning
            • speed limits
            • vehicle inspection
            • vehicle registration
            • protest in "free speech" zones
            • building codes
            • surrender your house under eminient domain
            ...and that's just for starters.

            Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.

        • they will never, EVER provide a product they cannot sell to stay in business.

          Pfft, corporations have no such survival instinct. They will do whatever they can to make the most money as quickly as possible, even if it means cutting R&D to ensure they'll never have a competitive product again.
      • You're neglecting that it is always, in theory, possible to compete with a corporation. The government, on the other hand...

        Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.

        We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.
      • The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron).

        The corporation is answerable to its customers in the same way that gov is answerable to the voters. Customers vote with their wallets.

    • and, as pointed out further down:
      Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."
      Hmm... Let's keep the big bad government from providing internet access, see they're evil - they're trying to protect free speech on the internet. How dare they!

  • Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:46AM (#13628970) Homepage Journal
    Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem [lewrockwell.com].

    Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:

    1. Third parties are stifled.
    2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
    3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.

    Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."

    Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.

    Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.

    If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:

    1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
    2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
    3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
    4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

    Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.

    • Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)

      by untaken_name ( 660789 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:50AM (#13629003) Homepage
      Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended
      consequences:

      1. Third parties are stifled.
      2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
      3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.

      Check your premise. I seriously doubt these effects were unintended.

    • Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:53AM (#13629027) Homepage
      Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech.

      Money = speech - Interesting perspective.

      It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing. Well if you want to live in a society like that I guess it's fine.

      • Capping donations effectively criminalizes large donations, but criminals will still bribe those in power. Donation abuses will continue.

        Removing that unlimited power means donations become useless. Even if Wal Mart gives ten billion to a candidate, without unlimited power the candidate has no ability to pander to Wal Mart.

      • The problem here is that money trumps speech.

        "Dear Congressman, I write this letter to you to urge you to...."

        won't get you very far.

        "Suh, here is my con-tri-bution to your campaign to the sum of 1 million dollars. Now, I'd also like to discuss your views on...." on the other hand....

      • It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing.

        Well, bribery and quid pro quo would still be illegal corrupt activities. On the other hand, if I want to spend my own money to persuade other people that candidate X is the best choice, shouldn't that be my First Amendment right?

    • limiting the money is politics is good. it levels the playing field of speech so everyone has a near equal voice. but when Walmart can spend billions giving the republicans money or ad support, that sort of makes my 2 grand donation meaningless.

      I cannot spread lies about some one legally, I can not say things that endanger people (yell fire in a crowded theater). free speech still has limits, and limiting the money is a way to make sure all parties have an equal opportunity to be heard.
    • Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount

      So, what you're saying is that if it's legalised it's no longer corruption? Sounds barking mad to me. Name one country that sucessfully operates in this manner.

    • Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:59AM (#13629073) Homepage Journal
      4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

      Therein lay the problem. Ballots used to not require a "getting onto." You just wrote down the name of the guy you were voting for. The problem, of course, is mis-spellings, illegible handwriting, smudged ink, etc. So we adopted a new type of ballot and a large set of rules about what it takes to be on it for each state. Both Republicans and Democrats warmly embrace this system and prop it up, because without it they'd have been resigned the dustbin of history decades ago. Notice that the Republicans were the large major party to come into any prominence in America? There were some notable other third parties, like the Bull Moose and Granger business, but right around the turn of the century (i.e, 100 years ago-ish), third parties really dried up and became impotent. It's not a coincidence that the United States adopted the pre-printed balloting system for the 1892 election.

      • Both Republicans and Democrats warmly embrace this system and prop it up, because without it they'd have been resigned the dustbin of history decades ago

        Or, you could look at what's been happening to, say, Germany (where the entire country and its economy/public-life is swirling the toilet) and see what a train wreck you get when you have a highly fractured many-partied system. The small-scale, endless noisy squabbles result in a terribly unfocused, continually shifting landscape that never gets anything
      • Most other countries also have preprinted ballots. However, many of them have more than two parties in the parliament. Seems like the problem lies elsewhere.
    • Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.

      Are you kidding me? Politians are very much like (to use some imagery that you people can relate to) . You need/want a feature, you are willing to throw some money at it to make it happen, so you approach said open source project leader and say, "I am willing to donate 6 million dollars to your cause if you are willing to take care of our needs in terms of
    • "Campaign Donations are the ultimate form of free speech" This is possibly the single most idiotic statement I've seen this week.

      Spending money does not equal speech. Buying influence DOES NOT equal freedom.

      Your ridiculous premise leads to nothing except government by and for the rich.

      The root of the corruption of our political system is corporate influence. Eliminate that and you will take a huge step towards restoring political power to the people. But it won't happen because corporations and politicians
    • If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps: 1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC 2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount

      Some places (like Canada) are solving the problem by going in the opposite direction. Limit campaign financing serverely so that even those small third (fourth, fifth, sixth) parties can spend just as much on their campaign as the big two.

      I prefer this way. After all, ju
    • Money does not corrupt a politician

      that's the funniest thing i've ever read.
    • All I see is a bunch of assertions regarding campaign finance reform with no evidence to back those assertions up. How have third parties been negatively affected by recent reforms, for example? Any references to support that statement?

      If you really really want ultimate campaign finance regulation, you have to eliminate the connection between money and speech altogether. Presidential campaigns shouldn't cost millions of dollars to run. People who feel passionately about a candidate should be able to vol
    • This is what I think (/.ers, please destroy).

      All campaign finance is stopped.
      Each candidate is given a set sum, paid for by taxes.
      No outside money, including the candiate's, is allowed.
      We then have a situation where Money==Freer Speech.

      Other than those with money and a political agenda complaining loudest, where's the problem?
      This insures that everyone pays for a FAIR political process, that rich psychopaths don't have a free pass.
      We still have individuals and groups taking out ads, saying what they

    • Money does not corrupt a politician;

      I'm sorry, you lost me right there. You have to be more careful about typos, that has a totally different meaning from:
      Money is the ultimate corrupter;
      Which I'm sure is what you meant to say. But you lose your audience right there if you make such an egregious error. Who's going to bother to read on?

      Seriously, i've met thousands of people in my life, and inevitably, money and evil are positively and pretty much linearly correlated. Correlation does not require caus

    • Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.

      That may well be one of the more quaintly naive things I've read in a while. "money does not corrupt a politician"? Do you really believe that?

      1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
      2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
      3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so
    • If you really want to fix the system you would take away some of the rights afforded to corporations. Corporations have only financial interests in mind, nothing social or moral. Our representatives are supposed to be just that: ours, not the corporations. Even if corporations may have our financial interests in mind (third to their executives first and their stockholders second) they clearly do not represent the people, nor are they people in themselves.

      Campaigns should only be able to be financed by ind

    • 1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC 2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
      Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao '08 ?
    • "Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech"

      People saying whatever they want is the ultimate form of free speech.

      Campaign donations are the ultimate form of keeping a campaign financed.
    • 1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC 2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount 3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators. 4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

      Now THAT is a fine recipe for the return of The Feudal Lords (disguised as corporations). Could you explain, percha

  • Yep. (Score:5, Funny)

    by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:46AM (#13628974)
    They'll probably just turn blogs over to the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. You're good to go if you have the platinum "Gannon" license for internet bloggification. After several background and body-cavity searches, naturally.

  • So, uh... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by untaken_name ( 660789 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:47AM (#13628976) Homepage
    Why wouldn't political bloggers just move their servers overseas? I doubt some offshore data center would really care if you're running a political blog, as long as they get paid. Seems ridiculous and unenforceable. Then again, we ARE talking about the US Congress.

  • Wost Summary Ever (Score:5, Informative)

    by adavies42 ( 746183 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:47AM (#13628978)

    The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.

    Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

    For more info, see this blog post [redstate.org].

  • campaign finance = freedom of speech? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:47AM (#13628981)
    What am I missing here. How is campaign finance related to freedom of speech?

  • Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elphkotm ( 574063 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:48AM (#13628987) Homepage
    I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!
    • getting big money out of politics is good. squelching soap box speech is bad. that is what the FEC was ordered to do.
      • But we're trying to get money out of politics with laws drawn up by politicians who gain from said laws. Congress has been stacking law after incomprehensible law against this problem and the net result is not one cent less "money in politics." Their version of reform and regulation is "I want less money in (my chalenger's) campaigns!"
    • I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!

      prohibiting speech is not good, it IS the corruption that campaign finance reform is promoted as attempting to stop.

  • no (Score:2)

    by bigpat ( 158134 )
    That is my final offer.

  • Court asking for regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jumbo Jimbo ( 828571 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:51AM (#13629008)
    I was confused by one of the lines from the post, taken from the article.

    a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations

    I was under the impression that courts enforced the laws and regualtions written and approved by the Legislature, and wasn't in the business of ordering regulations to be made. I couldn't find anything to explain this in the article, but it's left me perplexed.
    I am not totally familiar with the workings of the US legal system, but can anyone shed any more light on this for me? (Maybe it's just an inaccuracy in the article, but I'd like to know more).

  • Government By, For, and Of the Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:52AM (#13629021) Homepage Journal
    Watch Congress carefully on this one. Any congressmember who votes to limit free speech, online or anywhere else, must be fired immediately. Convicted of violating their oath to protect the Constitution.

    US Constitution, First Amendment:
    "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."

    Of course, they're all capable of it: they've shuffled off to work their fat jobs in the Capitol for years while police have run unconstitutional "free speech zones" which exclude free speech and peaceable assemblies. When your Representative or Senator votes for this bill, demand their head on a platter. It might be the last "petition for a redress of grievances" you'll get to make.

    • Re:Huh..... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by technoextreme ( 885694 )
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      What about slander and libel laws???
      • They clearly apply the same to "political" speech already, without any new laws. There is quite a bit of debate as to their validity, as opposed to merely publishing counterspeech, and developing the public's critical faculties for sorting facts from fabrications. A technique even more compelling with unaccountable, transient, global, anonymous Internet publishing.

      • What about them? There's no law preventing you from slandering all you want; there are, however, no protections against the consequences of what you say.

      • What we have here (the OP) is someone who can read the Constitution, but not the Supreme Court opinions interpretting it. There are many allowable limits on the First Amendment. Depending on the type of limit, it has to pass a certain type of test to be valid. Political speech is generally very strongly protected by the court. Most of the campaign finance laws deal with reporting requirements rather than flat out speech restrictions. Also, limiting the amount of money you can donate does not prohibit y

  • Ring ring - Globalization calling! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:53AM (#13629025) Journal
    Why bother?

    Not to say we don't need some way to keep our political twits in check, but the FEC and the US government in general can't do a damned thing if a Canadian blogger vocally prefers candidate X instead of candidate Y in an upcoming US election.

    Now, I think most of the world understands what a joke our political system has become, and doesn't really care whether Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche wins. But all the happy paid party-shills can make use of that to trivially circumvent any relevant laws. When it comes to broadcast media, Americans don't tend to watch any foreign channels, so the existing rules more-or-less work. But on the internet, people regularly view material from all over the world, usually without even knowning exactly where in the world it comes from ("Oh, gee, they spell things oddly here, must live in England... Or Australia... Or one of those other funny little micronations that I couldn't find on a map").


    We don't need more feel-good laws - We need to make holding public office less of a free-for-all for the biggest lowlifes our society can produce.
  • regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech

    What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"

    I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
    • What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"

      I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".

      broadcasting signals over the EM airwaves are not free speech, they are tightly regulated and licensed because not everyone can have their own channel. It makes some sense that we would try to have a say over the content that is broadcast over
      • broadcasting signals over the EM airwaves are not free speech, they are tightly regulated and licensed because not everyone can have their own channel

        True. But even on cable or in print, big media and big business is heard a thousand times as loudly as othe folk. That's not freedom of speech, though for some strange reason it is seen as such in the USA.

  • Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SirChive ( 229195 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @09:56AM (#13629053)
    The emerging Fascist State of America will feel compelled to put limits on anything that might threaten it's power. When the voice of the little man can reach out to the multitude this is very threatening.

    America will accept this without a whimper. We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.

    Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power. They care more about the newest episode of The Lost than they do about their Lost Civil Rights. The 20% who do care are increasingly powerless.
    • We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.

      In other words, we haven't lost our right to assemble. What we've lost is the right to assemble wherever the fuck we want, which is a Good Thing, because until some limits were in place, "peaceful" assemblies of pro-life nutjobs would canvas abortion clinics and harrass women going in and coming out. I'm in favor of fencing people

  • Certainly the idea of regulating political Weblogs leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if you don't regulate them, then you've blown such a huge hole in campaign finance reform that you've essentially rendered it meaningless. The 2004 elections proved that rather handily.

    So the real question is, is campaign finance reform worth it? Certainly it's a good concept, but if you have to severely restrict free speech in order to make it meaningful, is it worth doing at all? I'm not sure it is.
    • Then fuck campaign finance reform. Free Speech comes first and before all else. As a citizen, i refuse to allow MY government to take such power away from citizens.

      If i get on slashdot and say "President Bush and his asshole friends are fucking scumbags" does that count as a blog? What counts as a blog? Ok, so lets say i only said it once... maybe then its not a blog. BUT what if i continue to contribute to slashdot, and speak my political beleifs whenever a political topic is posted?

      Does slashdot become re

  • a leap too far... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:01AM (#13629095)
    Bloggers [say] that regulations encompassing ... Internet ... advertising ... would have a chilling effect on free speech.

    Granted that controlling political spending is a two-sided philosophical issue. But...

    ...how does advertising-accountability limit the freedom of expression in a blogger's content? (...unless, of course, the two are more intertwined that any blogger would likely admit)

  • Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:04AM (#13629114) Homepage
    I can hardly wait for the next 18 months of C-SPAN, in which completely clueless congressional representatives and senators answer once and for all the question of "What is a blog?" It's not as though there's a clear line of demarkcation here. The definition they eventually settle on will necessarily be fundamentally broken, rife with false negatives as well as false positives.

    For that matter, all speech is political speech. Politics isn't a partitionable category that you can draw a line around. Politics touches everything, and everything has its political aspects to it.

    That aside, I thought that unregulated speech was the American way. Check out the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    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.


    Oh wait, I guess we've been misreading the Constitution these last 220+ years. Laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrdiging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc. is apparently kosher.

  • No. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DavidTC ( 10147 )
    The heart may be in the right place, but the issue isn't who can communicate how.

    What we need to do is to fine political candidates who lie, and the media that reports these lies without verification.

    The ideal solution would be to have the media jump on them, but as the media is a bunch of lazy fuckers who would reprint slander about the Pope having sex with a goat if someone anonymously faxed it in, that seems unlikely to happen, and we need to start punishing them too.

    Remember, slander is an already al

  • Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech.
    Well, sure. That's the purpose of campaign finance laws.
  • Sounds like the private lobbyists who write the laws for Congress to sign have heard of Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places [slashdot.org].
  • Not technically a dupe. [slashdot.org] But it might as well be I'm saying.

    -Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places-
  • You think Zonk could retract this?

  • Reporters without Borders Handbook for Bloggers (Score:3, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @10:34AM (#13629339)
    Perhaps American bloggers will now need Reporters without Borders Guide to Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents [rsf.org]. Ironic that the land that once stood for "free speech" should need advice from a Paris-based organization on the topic.

  • questioning (Score:3, Funny)

    by phlegmofdiscontent ( 459470 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:43AM (#13629971)

    "The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules."

    Sometimes, I question the necessity of a government.

  • What good is "free speech"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by X.25 ( 255792 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:45AM (#13629999)
    What good is free speech if you're regulated how you can tell it, where you can tell it and what you can tell? That's not free speech anymore.

    What you can say and how you can say it are things which are being regulated these days.

    Even if you say what you want, you can get ready to get sued (by some corporation or by govt or by whomever), so you also better have deep pockets.

    If you're a Washigton Post reporter and have backing of the management/lawyers, you can tell things. If you're a blog writer with the same information/sources as WP guy - you probably will end up in lots of trouble.

    Free speech my ass. We're all bloody slaves, people just don't want to realize/admit it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Close