Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts The Internet News Politics

Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech 502

Posted by Zonk from the eep dept.
InklingBooks writes "Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet. It would have been a 'regulatory minefield for bloggers' and may yet return." CNet has a view of this earlier language as well. It's important to note that the regulation has changed much since the initial draft. The FEC began consideration of more developed regulation language on Thursday. From the article: "So, the original attempt to regulate started with the premise that everything was to be regulated except that with limited distribution or on password-protected sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech More

Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech

Comments Filter:

  • Yikes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:36AM (#12059455) Journal
    To know they would even CONSIDER such a thing is disturbing.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:46AM (#12059469) Journal
      Jumping ahead 50 years to a train tour of the Easy coast... On the left you will see North Korea, which as been towed all the way from the Pacific Ocean to Washington DC because we just felt there was no longer any difference.

      • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ikkonoishi ( 674762 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @09:56AM (#12059824) Journal
        So are you criticizing the current administration, the local governing policies of the District of Columbia, or the overall policy decisions of both parties?

        I think the whole campaign finance reform thing was a scam so the big money could control who could contribute to politics.

        Frankly I think we should go all declaration of independance on both parties and the horses they rode in on, but then again I'm tired and cranky from being at work for twelve hours. It just seems sometimes that the goverment no longer works for the people, instead it just works for the goverment.

        Any problem that comes along can only be solved by creating another branch of the goverment to deal with it.

        It raises taxes to pay for the subsidies on the incomes of the people who can't afford to live on their income because their taxes are too high. It robs the rich to give to the poor and defines the rich as 90% of the population.

        Meanwhile I know hardworking people who would have a higher income if they stopped working and started receiving welfare checks. (So long as they match the racial profile of the people who vote for the welfare supporters, you understand. We couldn't have racial equality in the eyes of the law, that wouldn't be fair.)

        I know I've gone off topic a bit here (and ranted), but something has to be done about the current governmental trend, and I just don't know what.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spruitje ( 15331 )
      Well, there is a simple solution.
      Move to Europe.
      Or keep your blog on a server outside the US.

      • B.S. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mickyflynn ( 842205 )
        Europe has so many hate speech laws and other crap you're no freeer. Freedom means being allowed to diseminate Nazi stuff along side the commie stuff. Freedom means being able to publicly support or protest immigration. Freedom means not having to associate with people if you don't want to for whatever reason -- race,religion, et cetera -- not being forced to, unless you want to.

        Europe also has stupid anti-gun laws. Britian has pretty much banned them. But in 2003 before I left Ireland, I was watching
        • Europe also has stupid anti-gun laws. Britian has pretty much banned them.


          Bzzzt! Wrong, thank you for playing.

          Most of the people I know own some sort of firearm. I don't, personally, because I don't really need one. Furthermore, it's easier to get a shotgun licence here than it is to get a motorcycle licence.

          • Re:B.S. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mickyflynn ( 842205 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:30AM (#12059566)
            I only need a license (class III) for fully automatic weapons. Also, States issue concealed carry permits (unless there are laws saying they are not needed, or Vermont where open carry is the law). At 18 I could buy any rifle or shotgun I wanted to. I can buy handguns this summer at 21. My father is giving me his 9mm Rugar and I am getting my concealed carry permit.

            As Patrick Henry said, "the great object is that every man may own a gun. Everyone who is able may." Whether you "need" it to not isn't the point. The point is you might some day and it's better to have it than be sorry. the 2nd amendment in this country isn't about hunting or "keeping king george out." It's about personal defense, of the family and home, as well as the ultimate check and balance on the government.

            A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all. Sure, some crimes will happen, but fewer. Legally owned firearms are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Criminals will always have them and its better that law abiding citizens do too than that only criminals have them. You cannot count on the police. In fact, they are probably more dangerous to liberty than conducive to safety.

            But like I said, Europe is different. I'll bitch and complain about government health care here because it's not what this country was founded on. You can stick "HRM" in front of whatever you do and that's fine and in keeping with tradition. I really don't care.

            • Re:B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by skahshah ( 603640 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @10:35AM (#12059975)
              A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all. Sure, some crimes will happen, but fewer.

              I suppose that's why the USA are famous for their lower criminality, compared to any European country, New-Zealand or Canada ?

        • Europe has so many hate speech laws and other crap you're no freeer.

          Europe isn't a country; pick one to discuss.

          I'm not going "the american continent has so many hate speech laws and other crap..."
        • But in 2003 before I left Ireland, I was watching Sky News and there were like, 3 drive by shootings in London in like a week.

          The US has a much higher murder rate than the UK. But never mind the statistics, tell us an anecdote.

          Criminals don't obey the law, that is why they are criminals.

          Obviously banning guns doesn't stop them from existing, but it does mean you can arrest someone who drives around with a gun in their car before they kill anyone.

          Breaking and enterings and rapes and stuff jumped in t

          • I particularly like this one...

            but it does mean you can arrest someone who drives around with a gun in their car before they kill anyone.

            Sure, if you check every car. Papers, please?
        • How sad that on /.--whose denizens speak loudly and often of freedom--one of said denizens deemed the factual and insightful parent "Flamebait." This is exacerbated by the fact that the comment was about a FREE SPEECH ISSUE.

      • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eraserewind ( 446891 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:10AM (#12059528)
        I'm not American, but can you please explain how moving to Europe is a solution to the erosion of American civil liberties? Seems it would only make things worse to have people who oppse a government leave.

        Even if you reduce the issue to an issue of your own personal rights (the rest of America can go to hell), just by moving to most European countries you would be giving up many rights. The right to vote (you are not a citizen), the right to work (unless you can get the required visa), the right to free speech, many states (e.g Germany for neo-nazi stuff) have government imposed restrictions on what you can say, and will put you in jail for breaching it, the right to use encryption for personal communications (france), the right to bear arms (varies, but most countries are significantly more restrictive than the US). I'm sure there are probably others.

        • Freedom of Bill (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Lord Prox ( 521892 )
          Did anyone catch the name of the Judge that started this BS...

          From TFA...
          The FEC is in the unusual position of being required to extend the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to online politicking because of a federal judge's order last fall. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled--click here for the PDF file--that the FEC improperly exempted the Internet. She also ordered the agency to rewrite its rules.

          Isn't that the same ho that let Microsoft off the hook a few years ago... She is really star

        • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Funksaw ( 636954 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @10:07AM (#12059866)
          I'm planning a move to New Zealand soon.

          The truth is that the most fundimental right is the right to know what your rights are. America's rights are codified in the Constitution, but they are not respected. The enforcement of, for example, right to trial, has now become arbitrary.

          To me, a government exists as a social contract - and I'd rather deal with a government that acknowledges fewer rights but keeps it's word about the ones it respects. That's not what's happening in America.

          I understand that by moving to New Zealand, I will lose the right to vote (until I earn citizenship, which is not an undue requirement. I waited 18 years to vote in America, I can wait 3 to vote in New Zealand.) New Zealand actually has a greater respect for free speech than America does - check Reporters without Borders if you want the skinny on that. I mean, "Free Speech Zones?" That's not the America I know.

          As for the right to bear arms - the problem with the right to bear arms is that those who bear arms then have a responsibility to monitor the government, and when it encroaches, attempt to change it - hopefully through non-violent means.

          Specifically, the NRA, despite being one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America, has done nothing to try to preserve and protect the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, by supporting Republicans, the NRA is undercutting the "other 9 amendments that the 2nd is supposed to protect." If you're not going to fight for your rights when doing so is a bloodless, painless excersise, then why would I believe you to fight for them when it means risking your neck and your family's neck?

          The truth is, in order for the 2nd amendment to preserve freedom, it needs not just an armed populace but an educated and motivated one. We don't have that in America.

          The truth is - and we see this around the world - that a motivated and educated populace is MORE likely to overthrow a corrupt government than an armed one. Look at the Ukraine. Look at Lebanon. These were not victories won by gunpoint - these were victories won standing up to a gunpoint.

          The problem is, in America, if you oppose the government, you're in the minority. Most Americans really do want a government that they feel protects the safety and social mores of the majority at the expense of minority rights. Fascism, to them, works, just so long as it's *their* fascist in power.

          And that won't go away anytime soon - Jeb Bush will be the next President of the United States because the Republican primaries and the national elections will be held on black-box voting machines. I really don't think, in America, we have the right to vote - and that's the one fundimental right in a democracy.

          If there was hope for things to get better - one, tiny, little shred of hope that things were going to improve - I would not be going. There is no hope and the difference between those who stay and fight and those who leave is that the latter have realized this.

          • Re:Yikes (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @11:15AM (#12060139)
            Specifically, the NRA, despite being one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America, has done nothing to try to preserve and protect the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

            Actually the NRA fought the so-called "campaign finance reform" acts which are making the main subject of this story possible, citing the 1st Amendment as their reason.

            The funny thing is that both the left and the right in this country pick and choose from the Bill of Rights depending on the issue. I find it highly amusing that the left is now trying to circumvent the right by citing the 10th Amendment "States Rights" provisions which they derided for so many years. Of course we have the right wing using the federal govt to hammer on state govt which is something they railed against for so many years.

        • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)

          by khallow ( 566160 )
          I think that a lot of the people "escaping" the US are the kind that got us into this mess. Ie, they are "US liberals" who support strong central governments (for humane things like welfare and alternative energy). Unfortunately as we're finding out, a strong central government that can feed the poor people of the US or manage Social Security is also a government capable of invading simultaneously multiple countries worldwide or potentially of imposing a theocracy, fascist state, or both.
      • The EU has no respect for free speech whatsoever. These days, you can even be thrown into jail for heresy against God, even if heresy is not a crime in the EU state you live in:

        Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy [guardian.co.uk]

      • Re:Yikes (Score:4, Funny)

        by croddy ( 659025 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @02:04PM (#12060940)
        honestly, I feel it would probably be worth the death or repression of millions if we could quickly clean the internet of bloggers.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by daniil ( 775990 ) *
      No, it's not. It's a perfectly natural reaction to the growing popularity of political blogs. They saw the potential in blogging and they saw possible danger in it. And now they want to regulate it (so that, say, one political party couldn't secretly fund a blog slinging mud at their opponents). There's nothing suprising there -- except for maybe the harshness of the proposed regulations.

    • The Sky! The Sky is falling! (Score:4, Informative)

      by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:19AM (#12059544)
      There are plenty of very good reasons they're tackling the issue and if you bother to read the related documents, it is quite clear they are attempting to draft rules that impact only coordinated, primarily directly paid, activity--and even then, they're simply requiring the campaign connections to be disclosed and, when appropriate, reported as contributions.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bobbuck ( 675253 )
      I'm glad this gets a negative reaction but I still remember how glad everyone was when Russ Fiengold and John McCain passed a law that said free-speech doesn't apply to politics. Political free speech is going to need more protection, either from new judges or another amendment.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smchris ( 464899 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:52AM (#12059621)
      Disturbing? I think the phrase you are looking for is "a predictable certainty".

      I quit reading dead tree news about 1999. TV news is far worse. A fecal mass of "human interest" fit for a teen gossip rag and the money shots of propaganda. If you find it an amusing use of your time, look for the editorial qualifying phrases that pay for so-called broadcast "news": ...the Italian journalist, WHO WAS SHOT ACCIDENTALLY, ...social security, WHICH IS IN TROUBLE, ...extending tax breaks [primarily for the rich], WHICH WILL STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

      That's why "news" exists -- to make these OPINIONS the de facto foundation of public consciousness. Americans seem more naive about this process than people in some other countries. I doubt that citizens have been as uncritical reading Pravda.

      Something like the web comes along and it isn't a problem. Until it comes to the awareness of a critical mass of people that there might be some genuine news available here. That citizens can actually reinsert their voices into public consciousness without an editorial gatekeeper. Then power predictably has to act to destroy the threat.

      The only interesting question is whether something as global as the internet can be coopted instead of trying to imitate the Great Server Wall of China here. It is American tradition to at least maintain the pleasant illusion of intellectual freedom.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by magarity ( 164372 )
      To know they would even CONSIDER such a thing is disturbing.

      This is just another version of campain finance "reform" like McCain-Fiengold. Are you so disturbed about that? I am, but I'm not acting like this is a suprise.

  • nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward


    threaten to kill the president on your blog and see how much "freedom" and "free speech" you have in America then ?

    you keep using that word , but you do not know what it means [livejournal.com]

    • A death thread about any individual on a blog could probably result in criminal pursuit. It would be like going on radio and saying "I'm going to kill !".

      There are criminal charges applicable here, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

      And treathening to kill a elected political leader is simply anti-democratic and dangerous. And I'm saying that as the last guy who would have voted for the actual president...

      • And treathening to kill a elected political leader is simply anti-democratic and dangerous.

        Althought it may be controversial, I am sure there is a natural given right to kill a tyrant. People who tried to kill Hitler (remember: he was lawfully elected, as opposed to certain US presidents we have witnessed) are celebrated as heroes in contemporary Germany.

    • I can't believe someone modded that "Interesting. " Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to threaten someone, any more than the right to bear arms gives you the right to discharge your firearm anywhere you please. Calling the President either "a patriot" or "an ignorant baboon", however, is just an expression of your opinion, and should be perfectly fine (note: there is no "threat" in either statement.) If you expect to exercise your Freedom of Speech, you should understand the concept (and the po
    • What if that guy was mentally retarded and actually wanted to kill the president? After many 'tragedies' I read that the guy who made that tragedy happen "wrote things on his website" which indicated the nature of the person and the impending disaster. Sure the government won't take action if the threat was against some ordinary person, but this is the president of your country - they can NOT take any chances. And once they found out he was harmless, they let him go without any charges. Fair enough.
      • how about stop being a fucking retard? It's a fucking blog, I've put several times "man I want to kill that fucking [name]" and gave reasons why they pissed me off. I'm not going to though, it's fucking retarded to think they would..

        This is the sort of bullshit that happens in China, not "the free world" as Bush likes to claim. When the secret service starts making house calls because some guy said he wanted to kill Bush jokingly on a public forum theres something wrong with the world.

  • Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:45AM (#12059467)
    Speech on blogs shouldn't be regulated. However, the public has a right to know when that speech has been funded by political organizations. The law should require such contributions -- of any amount; blogs are so low overhead -- to be made public.The blogger doesn't need to reveal it, the info just needs to be available so other bloggers can find.

    • Re:Political Money To Blogs Should Be Made Public (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JeffTL ( 667728 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @09:03AM (#12059643)
      How do you define a blog, then, and separate it from a regularly updated website?

      Political organization backing should need to be disclosed anywhere by anyone at any time.
    • The problem lies in defining "political organization" and "contribution" -- particularly because blogs are, as you say, so low-overhead.

      For example, if I work for Fox News (say, as an editor) and I have a blog, and my boss knows about it and approves of it, is Fox "contributing" to my blog? What if the boss tacitly lets me take an hour off work each day to blog? And is Fox News a "political organization?"

      In that case I think there's no way you could make Fox disclose its involvement, since it's not offi

  • Absurd and who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shanen ( 462549 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:51AM (#12059482) Homepage Journal
    Yeah,it's absurd, but we're at the point where no one seems to care about reality or integrity anymore. At least none of the politicians making the decisions, and they seem to have enough voters who are willing to go along. Most blogs are nothing more than silly personal diaries writ large for all the world to see--and why should anyone care? And now the politicians and their appointed lackeys think blogs need to be regulated and controlled? Bizarro world.

    All I can imagine is that it's related to the JG (Jim/Jeff Gannon/Guckert) fiasco, which they'd apparently like to blame on a few crazed muckracking bloggers. However, the "big story" isn't that someone with such a crazy and blackmailable past and no writing or journalistic skills was wandering around the White House. The real story is that he could pass for a "real journalist" for a couple of years. That's the real metric of how low America has sunk. Famous sense of humor notwithstanding, Benjamin Franklin would not be amused.

    • More people need to care, that's the problem here. People figure that just because a law restricting a personal freedom doesn't affect them personally it doesn't matter. The problem is if you allow them to start taking away personal liberties, even if it doesn't affect you at first, it eventually will hit home. I hate to sound like my old man, but he is dead right in this respect.

      "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Just m
    • And now the politicians and their appointed lackeys think blogs need to be regulated and controlled?

      There's no need to lump "the politicians" together on this issue. Some politicians are pressuring the FEC, arguing against regulation of blogs. [senate.gov]

  • Er did i miss the point or something? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:55AM (#12059491) Journal
    So wait, in US politics its acceptable to raise and waste billions of dollars on stupid, totally biased commercials for parties, and auxiliary organisations that use some tax loop-hole to make even more biased commercials that rarely provide any insight to the arguments, but blogging is not on? The only people who really win in all this are the media companies, and lets not get started about 'campaign contributions', bribery and 'e' voting, the FEC shouldn't even be looking at the internet with all these problems.

  • if the firs amendment means anything (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mickyflynn ( 842205 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @07:58AM (#12059495)
    it means I can say whatever I want to about politics and the government. If I want to rail against Bush, I can do it. Against Clinton, an do it. Against Communists, Nazis, the ZOG Machine or whatever the hell else, I can do it. And the Government has no power to regulate it.

    Further, "campaign finance laws" and TV ad shit. 'Freedom of Assembly.' If several people who have the same ideas I do get together and call ourselves the NRA or the AFL-CIO, doesn't matter, we have the right to do that, pool our money, and support our interests.

    Respect the constitution to the letter or don't pretend to honour it. Just admit we dont have one, like Britian.
    • Britian and America are two very very different things but right now we're both in the same shit hole.

      We're looking at a police state within ten years and you fuckers vote the bastard back in! ..I see this post haunting me again after the election.. mostly because the political state here is no better. It's all "God I hate Labour! They fucked up everything! We're all fucked... but I don't know who else there is...".

      Take a hint people, look for the guys not throwing shit at each other and you might find a

  • Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gogogoch ( 663730 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:02AM (#12059500)
    Like so many things, the issue here isn't black or white. No one in their right mind would regulate the Internet for political messages. On the other hand, its so easy to camouflage yourself on the net that crafty political agents can try to fool people into believing their message comes from someone more credible.

    As usual, its the sneaks and cheats who may spoil things for everyone. Isn't there an analogy with email and spam here?

    I have no idea what the solution might be, but I wonder about putting the onus on the politician or political party. How about regulating that they (politicians) can only use overt messages on the Internet. No sneaky business. Perhaps there could be stiff penalties if a hoax was discovered with clear evidence leading back to a politician.

    There are people who abuse children; the solution is not to regulate children.

  • feeling (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bmgoau ( 801508 )
    do you ever get the feeling that we should be the ones runing the country?
  • ... how many sites would go into password-protected status overnight with a password page that says, prominently, "the password is FUCKTHEFEC"; I wonder if RSS feeds qualify as "limited distribution" in the same way as email lists.

  • Interesting ediorial from WSJ (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cutie Pi ( 588366 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:13AM (#12059535)
    The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about this topic on Wednesday:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110006458 [opinionjournal.com]

    I'm surprised that /.ers are just now hearing about it.
    • I'm surprised that /.ers are just now hearing about it.

      Yeah... I would have thought it wouldn't be heard about until sometime late next week... twice.

    • That Wall Street Journal had an even better editorial [opinionjournal.com] on Monday.

      According to the article, the campaign finance "reform" movement to limit our first amendment rights did not have broad-based politcial support. Instead, McCain-Feingold was the product of a secret $123 million astroturfing conspiracy run by the Pew foundation and seven other foundations. Like the super villians in a James Bond spy novel, Sean Treglia of the Pew Foundation, could not stop himself from bragging about how brilliantly wa

  • Rule suggested. Rule shot down. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    According to the March 10 document, political Web sites would be regulated by default unless they were password-protected and read by fewer than 500 people in a 30-day period. Many of those Web sites would have been required to post government-mandated notices or risk violating campaign finance laws.

    The explanation for the dramatic changes during the last two weeks, according to one FEC official familiar with the events, is the unusual public outcry that followed a public alarm that Commissioner Bradley Sm

  • Unconstitutional anyway (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A rule was thought up, then within days reversed. Happens all the time. If it was actually enforced, a lawsuit would have resulted in it being ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is WHY we have a constitution. So when the government does stupid stuff, lawsuits can force them to back down.

    Preventing rich people from buying an election is good. Preventing free association and communication is bad and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Summary: this IS the system working like its supposed to. And people being selfish and/or stupid l

  • Watch 'em like a hawk. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Rick Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor who argued in court in favor of the BCRA, said that the "FEC's first stab at writing new rules raises as many questions as it seeks to answer, and we must remain wary of both intended and especially unintended consequences."

    The system only works to the extent citizens get involved. Don't believe those in power when they do anything to limit participation in the process.

  • You Wanted "Campaign Reform" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:50AM (#12059611) Homepage
    ...You're getting it.

  • We were all warned (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sanermind ( 512885 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @08:52AM (#12059620)
    When mccain-feingold was first proposed, I found the very notion of it a disgusting violation of the first amendment. My friends disagreed, but the writing was on the wall.

    Don't say [readjdm.com] that you weren't warned [msn.com]

  • Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by herwin ( 169154 ) <herwin&theworld,com> on Sunday March 27, 2005 @09:02AM (#12059638) Homepage Journal
    Political speech is the most sensitive, and the SCOTUS usually gives it the most protection. I suspect any attempt of this kind would rapidly result in their stepping in. I also expect many people would be willing to draw the line here.

    These are some comments of mine on the CDA from many years ago:

    "Recently my pastor quoted Nelson Mandela's inauguration address in the context of how we should challenge authority and give forgiveness in taking freedom. I was listening and weeping and thinking.

    "Nelson Mandela can say that; Ken Saro-Wiwa might have said that; even I have the right to say that; but I question whether he should have said that. He has never experienced the arbitrary power of immoral authority, and does not know what it is like to face the power of the state alone with no certainty of outcome. What it is like to have friends fall away and perhaps be jailed. To come out the other side wondering why you are there and others not. I know I can't ask others to go through that. I spoke this morning with one of the plaintiffs who has joined with the ACLU in challenging this legislation, and the only thing I could say was 'Thank you.'

    "One of my other postings discusses the academic 'vow' to speak the truth, not listening to pleas of convenience. Politics is not about truth; it is about power. The first rule of politics is 'punish your enemies' and that is what the CDA is about. Certainly many politicians are squeamish about the innocent blood that may be shed; but many more don't mind, and some even relish it. The First Amendment is the least of their concerns. For academics, it is the greatest of our concerns, because it protects us when we speak the truth. I cannot tell you this is the time, but I will suggest that if your fate is to go down challenging immoral authority, this is as good a place as any."
  • So how long untill Freeman turns up? He's the one who frees the human race from a police state isn't he? I think it's time we start making secret bases in sewers and finding a way to control Ant lions because we're officially fucked if stuff like this is seen as something which can get passed!
  • as soon as you draw a line between what can and can not be said on the internet, you will have people playing manipulation games and that where things get messy.

    But if the first admendment is adheard to, then everyone can pull the same shit and that makes it more fair (though dishonesty is not a supporter of fairness) than otherwise.

    Perhaps what laws need to change are those regarding dishonesty, libel, slander, etc,.

    For example, I'm sure the FOSS community would benefit if there were such laws and award
  • Look, I know that most Americans are incredibly parochial. That's fine, you have a big country after all. It is however only around 5% of the world's population, the other 95% are outwith your borders.

    The Internet is an international network making web sites international by their very nature, so when you say "Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech" what you really mean is "American Bloggers Avoid Federal Crackdown on Speech".

  • Erosion over time.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JoeMerchant ( 803320 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @10:38AM (#12059991)
    If you look at relative freedoms of cultures compared to the age of the culture, you'll find that the largest, oldest, in-tact cultures, such as China, have the most restrictions on free speech, free thought, etc.

    Revolution / invasion can reset the clock somewhat, such as in India.

    America is getting old - erosion of freedom will continue until the next big uprising (e.g. French Revolution).

    You don't get freedom in little pieces.

    • America is getting old - erosion of freedom will continue until the next big uprising (e.g. French Revolution).

      Perhaps there is a socio-political corollary to the Malthusian Catastrophe [wikipedia.org]? That those in power, will inevitably seek more power, until they get the ultimate beat-down. The tragedy is that none of these regimes ever realize that what has happened to other powers, can happen to them too.

      At the heart of it, is the grubby greedy primate instinct to grab as many peanuts out of the jar as is possib

  • WTF Does "limited distribution" mean on the web? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lseltzer ( 311306 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @11:13AM (#12060131)
    I never liked the speech regulation parts of McCain-Feingold, but what does this phrase mean in the context of a blog? How do they know how many people read my blog unless they demand my log files?

  • Use DownsizeDC.org to notify your representatives (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mike ( 1172 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @11:31AM (#12060196) Homepage


    Sign a petition and send a letter to your representatives easily using DownsizeDC.org [downsizedc.org].

  • Good Morning, Devil's Advocate here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @12:17PM (#12060421)
    OK, just what is the point of having Free Speech and a Free Society when it is taken over by specialized interest groups that mold our points of view on everything from abortion to defense spending?

    If we let the large specialized interest groups and the multinational corporations control the flow of information in our society, then we will think and speak whatever they want us to.

    It's already happened.

    Free Speech was great in the 1700s, before we had companies controlling all the speech that enters our homes. These days, I'd prefer to focus on Free Thought.

    Feel free to flame. Turn off the television and the computer first though.

  • It may be an elaborate troll on McCain-Feingold (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snol ( 175626 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @12:40PM (#12060547)
    I first heard about this issue on ArsTechnica of all places. This article [arstechnica.com] by Hannibal claims that Bradley Smith, a vocal opponent of campaign finance reform and the head of the FEC (go figure), is more or less trying to force the reversal of McCain-Feingold.

    Evidently his original tactic as head of the FEC was to implement policies to make campaign finance measures as ineffective and rarely-enforced as possible. Now since being successfully sued by representatives Shays and Meehan and ordered to shape up, he's taking the opposite tack and trying to enforce a too-broad view of the laws in order to make them look more onerous than they actually are.

  • Quit Quoting the Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tom's a-cold ( 253195 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @02:38PM (#12061087) Homepage
    The US government has always tried to subvert the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights, all the way back to the Sedition Act. Posting on /. saying "Waah, itz UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!" is all well and good, but the only thing that makes them stop is when we don't let the bastards get away with it. The idea that citing the Constitution will somehow magically make it all better is delusional. They will do as much as they can get away with. When they can't make us comply, and when we fight back, THEN they listen. The rest is just empty talk.

  • From my blog entry Virginia blogs barred from mentioning local candidates [underreported.com]:
    In response to the following question:
    Now that the Fairfax County Supervisor candidates are announced, if I provide an opinion on my blog that is negative or positive about what an incumbant Supervisor has done, would that require me to file a disclosure report pursuant to 24.2-910?
    I received the following response:
    If the total aggregate of the independent expenditure is in excess of $200 and the expenditure is made to influence the outcome of an election for public office and if any material is published to the public referring to a candidate by name, description, or other reference, advocating the election or defeat, setting forth his position on any public issue, voting record, or other official acts, or otherwise designed to influence individuals to cast their votes for or against a candidate.

    You must file a Statement of Organization and disclose the independent expenditure on a contributions and expenditures disclosure report.

    The "Paid for by" and "Authorized by or Not Authorized by" Statements would apply as well.

    Rise' Miller
    State Board of Elections
    Campaign Finance Division

  • Read my sig (Score:3, Insightful)

    by doc modulo ( 568776 ) on Sunday March 27, 2005 @04:16PM (#12061621)
    Read my sig

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Close