Comments on: The coming crackdown on blogging

Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith says the freewheeling days of political expression on the Internet may be about to end.

REGULATING INTERNET IS CENSORSHIP PURE AND SIMPLE!!!

I am currently setting up a blog on which I will be discussing political issues. I already have an e-mail list to which I send the same thing or same kind of thing. For the last two elections I have urged people to support the Libertarian ticket.

These are very politically incorrect and I won't change a thing unless it is genuinely for the better (in my case "better" probably means more radical).

I have no intentions of being censored.

Alice Lillie
(Anti-Bush Alice)

[caktus]

Law or not...

it's a load of cr@p. I've got a feelng that sooner or later Mccain, Finegold, and other polititions who supported it are going to loose their careers over this clamp-down on free speech regarding expression of political choice.

Bit off more than they can chew

I think this should be interesting to see it inforced. How many people do they plan on hiring to monitor the entire internet to see who has a link on their web site, and who is forwarding articles about canidates. They also will have fun tracing who is contributing money and how much. It will take an entire army to manage the program.

[tumbleweed05]

Loopholes

The loopholes in the proposed regs will set us free.

The regs are an attempt to separate money from the bloggers. Do journalists have to report to the FEC whether they accepted a cocktail or a sandwich from a candidate when they write about someone?

So if the "campaign money freaks" get their way, the First Amendment will still be alive and well, and the blogs will be alive and well, its just that paperwork might be necessary for some bloggers.

Let's remain true to ultra democracy by going with the loopholes. The regs might make bloggers into unpaid journalists (unpaid because they don't want to waste time reporting the blogging income) but I think the regs might cause us to do some cool things too---->

The blogs will probably always remain as a VERY UNCOMFORTABLE and VERY POWERFUL (even without money) force that stands between Political Parties /Candidates and Paid Media (the papers and TV stations that make millions every 2 years on ads).

Blogs could conceivable make Political Parties and Media obselete.

Candidates would hope to have BLOGS render a good opinion of them.

BLOGS are basically now, the WILD WEST of FREEDOM for truth in politics and truth in life!

The First Amendment is all about ULTRA DEMOCRACY.
The Secretaries of State doing "ethnic cleansing" or "address cleansing" of the voters rolls, the millions of spoiled ballots every 2 years, the inaccurate and unaccountable electronic voting systems---we can override that, somehow, some way, with the new 21st Century Ultra Democracy---

FREE BLOGS
Independent candidates, ad hoc Parties
501-c-4s
nonprofits that do things that legislatures don't

This is all in the First Amendment!

((See my blog on Ultra Democracy--

http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/105/udo/ ))

Bloggin

Isn't Blogging just diary entries that detail life, opinion, POV, etc?
If a person wants to talk about politics and either *****&Moan about something or praise it while backing up their statments with links and quotes then how can that be illegal?

Regulation of internet

This country, that was established to get away from the looney tunes that thought "government" had the answer to everything and the people were too uninformed and lacking in common sense to govern themselves.This country is established, and then the great thinkers start mending the Constitution and Bill of Rights.The forefathers could not have foreseen this in 2005 so we will have to fix it by the King's decree(I mean the elected and unelected in "government." We either stop this slide now or history will have another great civilization that lasted 200+ years or so.

Government, GET OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!!Let's pay them double time not to show up at work(congress and executive branches).Start cutting "Departments of Horse Manure" et cetera.We know what we need,the general defense,judges that interpet law and don't make it,and several other vital functions.

GOD SAVE US!!!

What if...?

What if one links to a political candidate's website for the purpose of ripping the candidate's message to shreds. Is that link credited to the political candidate or to his opponent?

What if you rip only the opponent?

What if you rip both the candidate and his opponent? Is it credited to both? the opponent? or neither?

There are real possibilities of creating a sticky mess of contradictions here. Trouble makers everywhere are going to love this!

The judge deserves the confusion this ruling generates.

[bonnierez]

a brave new world

this is really a very interesting step forward (or perhaps back) in our ever evolving world. what grabs the attention of the rule makers, and makes them want to cry 'foul!' is the potential for an opponent to gain exposure and possilby win a few votes--or more importantly, financial backing. in the great race for power and control, our planet is being ripped to shreds. the ideals on which this country was founded are being gradually eroded until we will reach the point where they will be nothing more than a curious historical note. okay, so maybe i'm getting a little out there, but it doesn't matter if the democrats OR the republicans are in control of things. all politicians i have given more than a cursory glance at are nothing more than prostitutes for the all mighty dollar bill. what was that saying...he who controls the airwaves controls- i don't remember exactly, but doesn't it also apply to who controls the internet? a bad example perhaps, but look at the history of film. in the earliest days of the industry the content of many movies was very adult. along came the conservative religous groups, and suddenly there is a ratings board sensoring--oops, i mean judging, well maybe perhaps offering "guidance" to the unsuspecting public to "protect us" from ourselves. from the unknown. from adult thoughts. from new ideas. making the world safe for the narrow minded. of course the rules of the game have changed some from those days. now, instead of being moved to action by adult content on the 'net, our folks in washington are being moved by the fear of truly democratic expression. of course this fear is disguised as a desire to protect us from unscurpulous marketing firms for political campaigns, but what do they really want to protect? their portfolios? their cronies? certainly not free speech. well, maybe some free speech is more free than others.

Repeal McCain-Feingold

Any legislation that restricts speech, no matter how well-intended, should be overturned. commonsensepoliticalthought.com

The Constitution is meaningless

Will we see individuals fined by the FEC for campaign finance law violations such as linking to political websites? Doubtful but not unthinkable. After all, for those in the Northeast, have you ever gotten an EZ Pass violation in the mail or received a traffic ticket generated by an automated program connected to a stoplight or some such? If individuals can be fined in this manner, why couldn't the FEC track link providers and send out fines? I mean... we're talking McCain-Feingold which the High Court has declared constitutional even though the average reader of the constitution itself knows it's not. This applies to much of constitutional law. Listen... the courts - especially the U.S. Supreme Court - are capable of pretty much anything and our elected officials have no interest in bucking them. Burning a flag is free speech and free speech itself... isn't. Hey, what can I tell you? That's America 2005.

Meaningless for sure

Unfortunately William Barker is correct. Ever since Thrugood Marshall said, "The constitution is whatever I say it is," it has become meaningless.
The inmates have now taken over the asylum - and they dress in gothic black.

[Earl]

Blogger's done now by the news media

If we are all bad, then what about the new media comming in after a campain & brakeing it up & putting thier interputation of what was being said. As a free nation we should have the right to help whom ever we wish, if that is what we want to do,( I don't think many whould).

[jlheckman]

FEC vs. Bloggers

Does anyone associated with the FEC understand the technology for which they're creating regulations? I think not. Lawyers and politicians should be given plastic toy telephones, crayons and paper and sent off to play where they won't disturb the grown-ups.

In Response

This was a very good article to read.

I think it would be best for us to pull together as citizens
and let everyone know about this possibility. And, it should
not occur.

I think we should remember this judge who is deliberating
over these circumstances and voice our concerns to it/her/
him.

The overwhelming response of something as referenced in
the article above, which I have noted here, as- "not making
sense", "rediculous", etc., is proof positive that we should
assure ourselves that this cannot happen.

We need to let these representatives know, now, that we
will not stand for this regulation.

We need to let these representatives know, now, that we
will not stand for this regulation.

We need to let these representatives know, now, that we
will not stand for this regulation.

Jesse King

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Perfect illustration

This whole issue is the perfect illustration of the absurdity of McCain-Feingold. Maybe now people will begin to understand that McCain-Feingold is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, despite the weak-kneed acceptance by the Supreme Court. Limiting free speech is one of the prime prohibitions in the Bill of Right (it was the FIRST Amendment), and this is about as clear a violation as you could find. Now maybe people will "get it".

[Prndll]

oh, I get it....

I'm saying that these types of people shouldn't be voted into office. The judges are appointed by the people that shouldn't be voted for. There is a large enough group of people that "want" censorship, these people keep getting voted in. It's not just sensorship either. There is a whole slew of other things.

Hey, If all the people care about is who makes it to the finish line of "American Idol", This kinda of garbage is what the result will be.

[mrobzo]

The only thing missing now is-

Cattle cars. Rows and rows of them. I watch cops every day. It horrifies me most of the time. The only amendment left is the second one designed to protect the other aspects of our now negligible Constitution. Maybe the time to resist tyranny has come and gone. I sure hope not. Check out GOA.com. I hope it is helpfull.

[arnetwork]

What about Canada?

I live in Canada. How could an American court or commission stop me from commenting or linking in any fashion that I choose. If my comments on a blog could be construed as open support for an American candidate what could anyone in America do except choose not to look at my blog? If I made partisan comments and then provided a link to the original campaign material so that people could form their own opinion what could anyone in America possibly do?

Would it be that only Americans were restricted in their comments on an American election but other citizens were free to jump in to their heart's content?

In Canada we have five time zones. As a consequence there has been considerable effort and thought given to how to restrict the publication of regional results in national elections until all the polls in the country have closed. Of course, the advent of the internet has made that impossible. Even if we could somehow construct sanctions against Canadians on the internet we certainly couldn't stop Americans on the net from publishing whatever they believed to be the results of Canadian elections.

The only way to enforce the restrictions on election commentary in America is to enforce them at the i.s.p. level. I.s.p.'s would have to identify and evaluate potentially offending political commentary as well as diclose it to authorities. Naturally, they would have to cooperate in determing the point of origin of the commentary and the author's identity.

Otherwise anonymous blogs would be unrestricted but only signed commentary would enter a legal/financial/administrative minefield that should be run past the lawyers to see if it was "too political".

Americans could see a new category in the terms of service boilerplate that all i.s.p.s employ, namely T.H.T.H. (Too Hot To Handle).

Unite or Perish

Who cares whether it is the dems or repubs. If anyone out there still thinks either party is interested in the citizens of this country, they haven't been paying any attention. Our rights have been trampled by both parties and the corporate sponsors. Why do you think newspapers, broadcasters, and magazines are exempt? It is time for the citizens of this country to get out from under the "left" and "right" boots of tyranny and get our rights back.

nomoreil.org

[Bill Dautrive]

Exactly right

The most brilliant thing the two parties have done is to make people believe that they are two seperate parties.

Left vs Right
Conservative vs Liberal
Pro-choice vs Right to life
Rich vs Poor

The US government manipulates people to keep them weak, and since most of the US population are morons they blindly stepping into those molds and allow themselves to be manipulated. The government keeps its power and continually grabs at more by employing the most basic battle strategy: divide and conquer.

[gary sayre]

Unite or Perish

You just dont know how right you are my friend. I worked in the state capitol of Oklahoma for seventeen years and witnessed more back door dealing and just plain political chicanery than the average citizen could dream of. We as a free society are in great peril!

BLOG laws- quit whining, do something!

Go see http://petitionforfreedom.blogspot.com and link to (or just go directly to) the e-sign petition at http://thiscause.org/p/menu.php if you want to stand up for yourselves!

[gary sayre]

YUP ITS TIME

I just now found this site! This is a great place to share and exchange the true frustration our people are living every day with. The government, at any level could give a rip about the people except at time to vote. Otherwise they could care less who we are and even less what we have to say!!! At least I revolt at the polls and never vote for an incumbant!

Blogging Laws

Glad to see CNET on top of it.

I don't believe anyone could be fined for sending someone a letter. Why should it be a crime to send an email, or better yet, why a crime for posting your thoughts online?

Does this mean the government is now beginning to understand the power of blogs as posted on the Telecommunications list-server and found archived on Google at http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=blogs+blogs+blogging&qt_s=Search+Groups

Reference:
http://www.iblogit.net/law/
http://www.iblogit.net/politics/
http://www.iblogit.net/technology/

Look at the bright side

If there ever was an eye opener, this one is it.

Now those in the muddled middle will begin to get the point, finally (those with a clue, anyway). "Ahhh, I thought McCain-Feingold was supposed to help us. How does internet censorship help me? Maybe government is not here to help us after all. Maybe government is here to help those in government."

Who would have guessed, 20 years ago, that the 2nd Amendment would outlive the 1st?

McCain-Feingold NEVER WAS ABOUT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, despite its appearance. Instead, the Internet was its true target. If there was ever a common characteristic of government, it is the need to control information. Government had gotten very cozy with their lapdog Old Media (whose fatcat owners enjoyed sharing power with the ruling class); but now here comes the Internet, where people could think and debate and draw their own conclusions, with nary an editor to channel content into safe directions. Government ABHORS free and open debate. By the way this story will never get much play in the Old Media. They are happy their competition is being knocked out.

First they tried the child porn ploy, but that went nowhere. Then it was "campaign finance reform", that lovely phrase appreciated by everyone who never tried to run a grassroots campaign (no such "reform" ever put a kink in the established power brokers, who always have bodies around to deal with the details, or who simply ignore the rules).

Another stinker: Republicans never REALLY did oppose McCain-Feingold. Notice, McCain is a Republican. Oh, they shed crocodile tears when they tell us, "Well, I went ahead and voted for it because I was sure the Supreme Court would knock out the unconstitutional parts." Bull! Republicans are part of government, and governments always seek to control information. This story was just cover for the R's. I don't see why anyone still believes any politician. It's like walking around with a "kick me" sign hanging on your back.

Will this be used to control every little mention of a candidate race? No. It will only be used against those who back non-establishment candidates who threaten to win. There will be no more pesky Ron Pauls elected to Congress; only the thoroughly bought-out will win. It's not necessary to get heavy-handed about it. This is not Germany after all. They need only select here and there, fine a few folks, throw some fear out there, and let people self-censor.

Offshore ISPs won't help anyone. All they have to do is intercept the communications. That's already a reality if stories about "Carnivore" etc. are to be believed.

It's nice that commissioner Bradley Smith made this interview, but why is this all we can expect from him? Why don't he and his fellow commissioners simply refuse to do the court's bidding? He can read the Constitution as well as they can. There is no call to take the Nuremberg defense, "I'm only doing my job." If I were on the FCC I'd tell that court that I absolutely refuse to go along, and that they need to worry about undermining the 1st Amendment before they concern themselves with "undermining" McCain-Feingold. Of course that might lose them their job, can't have that, can we?

This might be turned around, if everyone makes a big stink to the FCC and to their Congressthings. But we've already gone through a campaign cycle since McCain-Feingold passed, and did anyone get thrown out for voting for it? Can we throw the fear of God into them any more? We'd better try hard.

We've got some interesting times ahead.

[idealogue]

Other kinds of negitve blogs

One issue over-looked often is undesired blogs about-on "Unpopular" academic subjects. There are a number of research areas in basic science, and even in social science, that are blogged-often subtlely. Such research topics often include subjects panned-denied as "Real"-"Probably true-Real world" by such critics as the "Sceptical Enquirer."

We have found that a number of these areas-when indexed on main servers, exhibit "Real sites" that are preceded by two-four pages of same name-indexed role-playing-games-other blogs. Even grad students can be sometimes fooled about "Real-reality" here.

Testing this, we have also encountered some situations where writing on email about-[asking questions about] such subjects to some folks results in changing-enhancing these blogs and their numbers, within a few minutes of our email send. 6 subjects so far. We are concerned in these contexts about some web-hosters who offer automated-blogging services etc, making it easy to change-value drift etc. some students' especially beliefs about the reality of, and it being "Really ok" to have-test, find out about alternative views. Its about Academic Freedom also-some.