Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act 782
not so anonymous writes "The Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FEC rules." From the article: "In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules. The vote tally in the House of Representatives, 225 to 182, was not enough to send the Online Freedom of Speech Act to the Senate. Under the rules that House leaders adopted to accelerate the process, a two-thirds supermajority was required."
FEC....not the FCC (Score:5, Informative)
FEC - Federal Election Commission
FCC tells you what you can say on the airwaves. FEC tells you what a politician can say (during elections).
Learn the difference.
The Relevant Information (Score:3, Informative)
More detailed information (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/11254
Note that the act can still be brought up for a vote under normal rules and passed. The defeat was under special rules intended to speed the process.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:5, Informative)
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE (Score:5, Informative)
You can still post your political party bashing blog. Now you just can't get paid insane amounts of money to do so with out the backing party acknowledging it.
Nothing to do with your rights. Everything to do with campaign finances.
-Rick
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's a switch (Score:3, Informative)
There are lines between political speech and paid political speech. As long as somebody is speaking his/her mind without being paid, free speech for political reasons is nearly absolute (short of slander and libel, but even then, the burden of proof bar is set pretty high). As soon as money changes hands (e.g. a person being paid to say that a candidate is wonderful, someone being paid to say that they use brand x toothpaste when they really use brand y, etc.), the rules change dramatically and always have.
The bill, as written, would have substantially blurred those lines. If you are taking money from any political group, whether through ad revenue or otherwise, you have an obligation to disclose this fully. That's what these laws are about. It's that simple. Exempting bloggers and online communication would just mean a whole new flock of internet advertising with no money trail, potentially with the ability to say nearly anything, no matter how outrageous, and get away with it. Astroturfing is just the tip of the iceburg. Under the relaxed rules proposed, we could see all-out news stories that border on political party-financed libel, again with no disclosure.
I'm not saying that I think bloggers should have to go through the same legal hurdles as somebody doing ad copy for the RNC, but to say that all internet communication across the board is exempted, and to not put -any- rules on blogging (including blogging that is paid for by advertising dollars from political groups) would be disastrous.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:2, Informative)
Individuals can say whatever they want. The problem comes when they're spending gobs of money from a few, wealthy vested interests to promote their ideals. There's a popular concept in America that money shouldn't win elections; that's what campaign finance law is for. This is simply a bill that is designed to plow a hole into the McCain-Feingold act wide enough to sail the Jahre Viking through, and the summary that Slashdot gave is an heavy distortion of the truth.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
This is how it always works. It's called a poison pill [wikipedia.org], and both sides do it. You put together a basically good-sounding bill with some riders which are either pork or serve special interest groups. Then if it doesn't pass, you say "Look! The other side is against national security / eductation / freedom of speech / whatever."
Besides, the fact is the campaign finance law does regulate speech. It limits parties' freedom to "speak" (e.g. buy advertising) for a candiate. Now, I happen to be in favor of this particular restriction of speech because I think it serves a greater good in preserving democracy (including free speech) in the long run... but you have to realize a lot of people are against the campaign finance laws and see them as an unwarranted limitation on free speech.
Re:mirror world? (Score:5, Informative)
from TFWA:
So 1 democrat + 2 republicans = democratic project?
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
The bill doesn't say "bloggers can post what they like." It says "all Internet communications are immune from federal election rules." That includes not just bloggers, but major media corporations and advertisers.
The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?
TFB needs to be more precise. But amendments weren't allowed, so it was voted down.
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Informative)
It's all about where the money's coming from.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
You've got to be kidding. Slashdot has been blatantly partisan for years. Because it was leaning in a direction you agree with you obviously either missed it or ignored it.
So when a similar light-on-the-facts, misleading headline article appears to say something equally heinous about Republicans, that's okay. But if it happens to Democrats that constitutes a conspiracy?
Staying more on topic, I'd like to know why ANYONE in Congress is allowed to attach a rider that doesn't have a thing to do with the original bill. Congress would have to change their rules to prevent it, but both major parties apparently are addicted to this sort of nonsense.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:1, Informative)
Did Daily Kos happen to mention the huge whack of cash he received from the Democrats for "consulting work" during the last election?
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Informative)
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 the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
The existing law section 22 is:
(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.
So yeah, the Democrat's are against Free Speech on the Internet. The (GP) argument that they are also against Free Speech in general and Free Political Speech in particular isn't some sort of massive loophole trying to be created, it just means that they are being consistent in their opposition to Free Speech.
Those of us who agree with the Constitution that "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." wish the bill was simply to delete all of the laws that prohibit political speech in the U.S. That way maybe people who aren't billionaire liberals like George Soros might be able to compete without having to hire a bunch of lawyers first to find the loopholes.
And yes, "paying for advertising"="speech".
Political seppuku (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and at that time voting against something called the "PATRIOT Act" was political suicide.
But in some cases, seppuku [wikipedia.org] is the most honorable thing one can do.
Re:Rewind a bit (Score:3, Informative)
527s that appear suddenly with massive amounts of cash
Checking the 2004 expenditures, the Swift Boat Vets with their $17M is "massive" compared to America Coming Together's $79M. Sorry, $17M isn't much in the scheme of big politics.
Bloggers... (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me: Government has NO intrinsic authority or dominion over anybody; We The People are the ultimate and final source of ALL political power and authority... the government has ONLY what authority we grant it; and what is granted may be taken back at any time. Sovereign individuals not belong to, and are not subjects of, the United States government... they answer to us, not the other way around.
Re:Rewind a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans can be against a Union, yet still support the views of the working class, or be against a conservationist group yet still want environmental protection.