Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs 102
CNet is reporting that the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of internet regulations last Friday. From the article: "The rules [PDF] say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.
How nice of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.
Re:How nice of them. (Score:2)
Re:How nice of them. (Score:2)
Exactly. In an age when Constitutional rights amount to splitting hairs (e.g. who exactly has what rights under the first amendment? May I yell "fire" in a crowded location as a prank?), this is a good thing. It means the government is paying attention. While I am all for minimal to no regulation, the regulations we do have need to count: even if it is just to say "there is no regulation, go ahead, use your first amendment rights."
Re:How nice of them. (Score:2)
Because, you see, laws can be changed. Over time, the debate will be reframed, and it will be said that this new law is the *reason* that you have your rights... but the government can change the laws, and if the only reason you have this right is beacuse the government gave it to you... well, then they can simply take it away.
Re:How nice of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
But by "giving" us the right, they reserve their right to take it away in the future, if the right is "abused". So they have set a precident that may come in handy in the future, as long as those nasty courts don't interfere.
Fortunately for them, by the time a court interferes, the election would likely be over, rendering the point moot for that election season, and giving them the opportunity to create a differently worded "right of speach". Rinse, repeat.
I agree - "giving us the right" (Score:2)
It really flames me to hear stuff like that.
Rights are what you're born with, cuz God, FSM, or evolution made it a part of being human. If you're not alive, you're not human - you're worm food. If you have no liberty, you're not living as humans need to live.
And every human will, unless opressed, pursue happiness.
This is what's meant in the Declaration by "These tr
Read it again. (Score:2)
Bloggers CAN enjoy the FREEDOM.
If you aks anyone educated in english, they have AFFIRMED speech on the internet is PROTECTED by the first amendment, while COMMERCE is subject to regulation.
If they wanted to take it away, they would not have so unambigiously announced the freedom.
There is nothing "new" about this law, it's not totalitarian, and it only affects capaign spending. This idea that the government is EEEVUL for passing this law
Not quite free speech (Score:2)
So if its neither, such as a discussion about how bad your car is, or some technical discussion about evolution, then its not protected online.
Oh, and they always have a choice. They can restrict our rights as much as they want in law. Then its up to us to take them to court to prove they have overstepped their bounds and have the law tossed. On our dime.
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
In the USA at least, the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
Because of this, I never understood why it is that a politician can pass (or help to pass) an unconstitutional law and it can negatively affect the welfare and livelihood and personal freedoms of many people, and yet when t
checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCOTUS isn't there to punish unconstitutional policy, just block it. Accountability should come only through elections. If we equated getting overruled by the courts with treason, that would destroy the system of checks and balances by elevating the courts to a position similar to the Iranian "Council of Guardians." There's simply no way such a system wouldn't be abused: imagine what a court stuffed with Republican appointees would do to a Democrat president, or vice versa.
Ironic how your post about respecting the Constitution reveals a very basic incomprehension about how the system created by that Constitution actually works.
Re:checks and balances (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:3, Informative)
From the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War a
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:2)
No, no, NO. The Federal Elections Commission only regulates, you guessed it, ELECTIONS. They only have regulatory authority when it comes to campaign speech. Get a clue, go back to school. Fool.
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:2)
The Federal Elections Commission is granted the authority to regulate elections -- not speech.
Not even speech about elections. Just the processes of the elections themselves.
By trying to regulate speech, they're attempting to extend their authority beyond that granted to them.
Re:Not quite free speech (Score:1)
Re:How nice of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Constitutionally protected? If that is the case your freedom comes from the gracious allowance of that document. My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me. The only trouble is that I live under a government and in a society that will do things I do not desire if I say or do certain things; I modify my behavior accordingly.
We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.
In essence, our precious bill of rights has doomed us to totalitarianism. The Constitution may have slowed the process, but that's where we're headed anyway.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you. It's ridiculous for anyone to say they "allowed" anyone to say anything on the Internet. I could just as easily say that I allow the sun to rise.
Re:How nice of them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Jefferson w
Re:How nice of them. (Score:1)
Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't.
That is entirely not how the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are written.
Re:How nice of them. (Score:5, Informative)
This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."
Re:How nice of them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How nice of them. (Score:1)
If unenumerated rights are being pulled into play then why didn't they just rule on a "right to kill your baby"?
Seriously, why did they place this issue under the umbrella of privacy? Could it be that this was the only way that an activist court* could find a way to justify its agenda within the framework of the constitution and its precursors? Or was it just a convenient way to ram the issue down the throats of the American people?
*True and
Re:How nice of them. (Score:2)
Because there was already precedent for treating birth control as a privacy issue. Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a state's attempt to stop its citizens from using birth control.
Any divisive issue has two sides to it, and abortion is no exception. The privacy perspective is that it is the woman's body, and as long as the pregnancy has not reached a point of "viability" it is her private decision. The other perspective is that at s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Correction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How nice of them. (Score:2)
No, but in a civil society you need some sort of legal instrument to guarantee and protect it. The militia-types out there will be thinking right about now, "that's what guns are for!", but they're wrong. Without debating whether the use of guns (i.e., force) is ever appropriate, it's not appropriate for everyday violations of one's rights. If people responded to violations of their righ
Read the tenth amendment - the one gov't ignores (Score:2)
The bill of rights does very specifically, strictly exclude the Federal government from exercising other powers. Read the 10th amendment.
Bill Of Rights Transcript [archives.gov]
It says that any power not granted by this constitution to the Federal Gov't is reserved to the states or to the people. This was to prevent the Fed Gov from expanding and squeezing the s
Re:How nice of them. (Score:1)
Also, watch out for huge numbers of splogs put on every blog server by the candidates' campaign organizations.
so what? (Score:1)
This was the result of a court challenge (Score:1)
Their First Banner Ad (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Their First Banner Ad (Score:3, Insightful)
s/sponsored/decided/
Re: Their First Banner Ad (Score:2)
Re: Their First Banner Ad (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't the 'g' necessary only to replace multiple occurences?
$ echo "This election sponsored by Diebold" | sed -e "s/sponsored/decided/"
This election decided by Diebold
Re: Their First Banner Ad (Score:1)
Yes. Every election and race where Diebold is involved, not just any once instance. IE: "each time you see it". That was the idea, anyway.
Re: Their First Banner Ad (Score:2)
> s/sponsored/decided/
This election sponsored by the winning party. Or the other way around.
Re:Their First Banner Ad (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it was funny and the little bit of an edge added to the sarcasm. Some of the folks who get their mod points take themselves waaayyy too seriously. What's the point in modding someone down? They'll just get lost in the noise if nobody mods them up. And in the meantime, there's one less mod point for folks who say something really interesting or insightful who do get lost in the noise because some mod had to use their points to mod someone down th
Light touch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
Re:Light touch? (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, the biggest fear is that they HAD to clarify this. Publishing on the internet should be regarded exactly the same as publishing flyers, TV ads, books, etc. WITHOUT clarification. The job of determining this has traditionally been left to the courts anyway.
Anytime the government decides to regulate speach, you are entering very dangerous waters. This included McCain-Feing
Re:Light touch? (Score:1, Troll)
Those people are either idiots or megalomaniacs trying to buy what they could in no honest way control otherwise. Which are you?
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
giving 5 million to $candidate so he can spend it on campaigning = bad and should be regulated
spending 5 million selling people you think they should vote for $candidate = first amendment
Re:Light touch? (Score:2, Insightful)
spending 5 million selling people you think they should vote for $candidate = first amendment
So, what you're saying is: first amendment=bad and should be regulated. Don't sweat it. Lots of people believe that [winonadailynews.com].
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
Re:Light touch? (Score:1)
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
I don't mean to argue, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court sees donating to a campaign as Speech. It is a way of enabling someone else to speak for you in the government. They may allow regulating it but it is still speech.
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations where the greater good of the community outweights the individuals right to speak. Yelling FIRE is generally
Re:Light touch? (Score:1)
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
And the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, and too many other cases to list.
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations whe
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
I know not everyone thinks this way, but if ABC123, Inc. wants to get $5 million to Joe, they will, one way or another. If it is legal, at least everyone will KNOW it, and can decide to vote for Joe, who is already bought and paid for. Right now, Joe is already getting the $5 million, but its by ABC123, Inc. hirin
Re:Light touch? (Score:1)
Exactly. Anything less is an admission that we don't have a free will...that we're not capable of deciding for ourselves. It's the voter that is most influenced by money. They always vote for the guy who flashes the most of it. That's nobody's fault but our own. This thought also applies to speech. We must understand that in
Re:Light touch? (Score:2)
And no, I don't need a government official "protecting" me by limiting the money raised. I'm smart enough to decide
The only sane alternative (Score:2)
"Freedom of speech on the Internet" indeed. The point was freedom of money to buy political speech while keeping the money trail secret.
Re:The only sane alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow
Hey, if you don't want to listen to someone who may have been payed by "Big Politics", then perchance why don't you do something about it, like ask the journalists to affirm or deny they are being paid by politicians for their stories? You can challenge them to go on record. You could even get them to do this contractually, if you wanted to. (Via subscription, since
Oligopoly (Score:1)
why don't you ... ask the journalists to affirm or deny they are being paid by politicians for their stories? You can challenge them to go on record. You could even get them to do this contractually, if you wanted to. (Via subscription, since you're paying them money ... )
A contract needs both an offer and acceptance. No major print publication would accept such a contract at prices that the median residential customer can afford.
Re:The only sane alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
In contrast to the current situation where newspapers can spend whatever they want on slanted news and opinions, the bloggers are limited to $5000. Sorry, this is not an even playing field.
Since reading bloggers is a totally user driven experience, compared to adds on TV or even print, there is no reason for any limits.
The USA has a trad
Re:The only sane alternative (Score:2)
This is what the FEC decided. The new regs treat a blog like the blogger's own personal soapbox. He can say whatever he wants, and it is not regulated. He counts as media. But paid advertisements, or a paid-for blog entry, is regulated.
"anonymous political speech" (Score:2)
Political parties would *love* that the citizens NOT KNOW when they're being fed propaganda, so that the citizens are more likely to swallow it.
The FEC's decision does NOT apply to people honestly expressing their opinions, but to peo
Re:"anonymous political speech" (Score:1)
The comment on bandwidth was a counter to the current idea that money not only buys speech, but can out shout the competition. With user driven access, that doesn't happen with blogging.
As far as bloggers being bought, who cares. Reputat
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you will. I shoot back.
"Light" touch?? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about a lighter touch: the US Constitution is about 6 pages.
Or, gosh golly & gee wiz, how about an even lighter touch than that? The first amendment is 45 words
Or how about: HANDS OFF THE INTERNET YOU ASSHATS!
Yeah, I think that sounds better
Stepping stones (Score:1)
Re:*Moves server to europe* (Score:2)
Re:*Moves server to europe* (Score:2)
Public Forum (Score:1)
The Internet (American Netizens, in this case) should, therefore, be regulating the Federal Election Commission, not the other way around.
If we permit them to frame this as "allowing" us inherent rights, we are giving freedoms up, both locally (America), and globally, as in the whole Net, unnecessarily.
Full disclosure (Score:3, Insightful)
The cure for free speech is more speech.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:1)
The very ANTITHESIS of freedom of speech, as this would doom anonymity.
We can have free speech, or we can have unfree speech. I prefer the former, as the later means my ideas may be arbitrarily silenced.
Which do you prefer?
Re:Full disclosure (a thought experiment) (Score:3, Interesting)
An important point.
If the speech involves spending money and a single "speaker" can affect the outcome of the entire election, don't we need transparency? If government contractor Remora, Inc. pays $100 to each of 100,000 bloggers in the district of Senator Porkbringer who sits on the Appropriations Committee, isn't it best to have that fact on opensecrets.org? So we'll know what's going on when Senator Porkbringer tells us that nati
Re:Full disclosure (a thought experiment) (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if I, as an independent citizen, wish to publish a political blog under the name Publius, I should have that right as well. I shouldn't have to file forms or disclose my funding if I wish to exercise my right to free speech. Nor should the go
Bender, being God isn't easy... (Score:2)
You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket...
"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:3, Insightful)
These laws and these regulations are so counter-freedom that it amazes me that people don't READ THE LAWS and see how attrocious they are. McCain-Feingold should be renamed "The Incumbent Protection Act" -- read it carefully and you'll see that it was written to kill the Greens and the Libertarians and any other 3rd party by reducing their ability to gain financing from a few campaign donors.
The problem with elections is not money, not corporations, not anything that the politicians say it is. The problem with elections is that the seat one is trying to win has too much power. If you want to fix elections, fix the political seat -- reduce the power of government to where it should be under the Constitution. When the power is reduced, no amount of money will create protectionism, favoritism and cronyism.
I don't want to be able to enjoy the freedoms because government says I "can." I want to use my freedoms to never worry that government might tell me how narrow those freedoms are becoming.
Not the best analysis I've ever encountered. (Score:2)
Not necessarily your labor; EG, an inherited fortune. It's also philisophically debateable as to what extent a return on investment represents a store of your labor per se. It's also more accurate to say that money is an accumulation of the benefit, not the labor itself... a subtle point the early communist theorists failed to understand, to their peril and the world's detriment. (Even "benefit" is a
Re:Not the best analysis I've ever encountered. (Score:2)
The use of my money involves a crap diebold machine that blanks the screen when I ask for an account balance, so I take my card and hope the next crap diebold machine in the row works. I need to trust my money and your elections to a company with some very dodgy employees that have done serious jail time.
M
Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:2)
This is another piece of right wing bullshit. A lie often repeated, but a lie nonetheless. It shows up nearly as often as another lie: "A corporation's only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders."
Despite the propoganda you may have heard, money is not speech and the freedom to do whatever you want with your money is not unrestricted, nor should it be. If you think it is, see what attempting to b
Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:1, Interesting)
So, peeing on the flag = speech.
BUT
Buying poster board, tv spots and taking an ads out in the newspapers = not speech.
Yeah, I can understand that.... sure....
Besides, if you read the parent, he's not rightwing or leftwing; he's saying that there is a problem that "right" and "left" are your only choices and that one reason for that is that independant parties with few contributors have these caps.
"It shows up nearly
Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:2)
But what if they don't give a flying fuck about the message and are simply interested in making a buck. I think the difference you can't see is twofold, money and disclosure.
Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure you're uncorruptable. What happens when, at the next election, you can't get any campaign "contibutions" because you didn't do the bidding of your contributors. The answer is "you lose" because you can't be corrupted.
That's what the "money is speech" crowd doesn't se
Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:2)
Yeay (Score:2)
Competitive Advertising Rates (Score:1)
Re:When did AMD start writing slashdot stories? (Score:2)
Makes me want to go buy an Intel product.
Re:When did AMD start writing slashdot stories? (Score:2)