Senators Announce New Bill That Would Regulate Online Political Ads (theverge.com) 232
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: As tech companies face continued scrutiny over Russian activity on their ad platforms, Senators today announced legislation meant to regulate political ads on the internet. The new bill, called the Honest Ads Act, would require companies like Facebook and Google to keep copies of political ads and make them publicly available. Under the act, the companies would also be required to release information on who those ads were targeted to, as well as information on the buyer and the rates charged for the ads. The new rules would bring disclosure rules more in line with how political ads are regulated in mediums like print and TV, and apply to any platform with more than 50 million monthly viewers. The companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year. It's unclear how well the bill will fare. Companies like Facebook have been successfully fighting regulations for years. 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). "Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.
First post (Score:5, Funny)
All this for 100K of Russian ads?
Re: (Score:3)
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 invite
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
requiring them to disclose who paid for the ad != banning.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Being two-faced is a problem for some politicians. Choosing the right faces is key.
Re:First post (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Racist: Watch as I generalize about an entire race of people based on the actions of a few.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 disresp
Re: (Score:2)
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 vari
Re: (Score:2)
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. B
I actually think this is a good thing (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Placing political ads should should require some amount of disclosure.
Why? Please explain why anonymous political speech should be criminalized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
this comes to mind (Score:2)
I think you may be confused... (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You can't fight in here! (Score:5, Funny)
You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
-- From Dr. Strangelove
Re: (Score:2)
-- From Dr. Strangelove
Okay, then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.
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>
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ugh, stop perpetuating this lie. [snopes.com]
It wasn't the ads dummy (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 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. You nailed it.
George Soros is laughing (Score:3)
and laughing and laughing and laughing............
What's a political ad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 hund
Re: (Score:2)
Look it up [congress.gov]. 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.
LOL (Score:2)
Good fucking luck. First amendment will give you a swift kick in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, to be fair, I wrote in Colbert last election.
Re: (Score:2)
What about astroturfing? (Score:2)
Facebook ads are a miniscule threat compared to astroturfing.
If they don't regulate astroturfing, then they aren't serious.
Re: (Score:2)
I know we're gullible (Score:2)
Honest Ads Act (Score:3)
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.
Re: Honest Ads Act (Score:2)
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.
Nice effort, but naive (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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 regi
end of political speech (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Idea for Amendment to this bill (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
TFA: this bill is out-of-date before it's launched (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [washingtonpost.com]). "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 [engadget.com]).
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... [house.gov]
And here's the relevant federal law which it amends: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Balkanization (Score:2)
Don't miss the forest for the trees (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah right! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because forcing accountability on advertiser's is just the evilest thing ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising and marketing have rather specific definitions, and existing legislation already deals with that. Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
How is this proposed law abridge speech?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!!" Actuall
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 conc
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill (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.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S Constitution doesn't grant rights (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 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 exp
Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 else
Re: (Score:2)