Comments on: Election commission takes light touch with Net regs

Bloggers may not have much to worry about, FEC indicates in proposed regulations. Vote is scheduled for Monday.

[vampares]

At Last Sock Puppets Are Vindicated!!!

A bipartsian message brought
To u V'ia 30x100m ls on ly $59.
yo by gra g pil

[vampares]

At Last Sock Puppets Are Vindicated!!!

A bipartsian message brought
To u V'ia 30x100m ls on ly $59.
yo by gra g pil

[nicmart]

Politicians responsible for plundering free speech

One of the great historical steps forward in political freedom was
the removal of the government's right to control political
speech. Now we have the FEC promulgating regulations over
such speech. The American people accept this attack on rights
like compliant sheep. It isn't about so-called homeland security
or obscenity, it is simply a muzzle on opposition by incumbent
politicians -- and those who hope to become incumbents. The
names of every politician who supported this historic plundering
of rights should be emblazened on the memory of all free
people, but none more so than John McCain, Russ Feingold, and
Thad Cochran, the main sponsors, Olympia Snowe and Jim
Jeffords, who contributed a key amendments, and George Bush,
the president who signed it.

When Americans valued freedom this power grab would have
inspired riots.

[DeusExMachina]

When?

Plundering of free speech? there has not been a single moment of
American history, either pre independence of post, where speech
has been unregulated, and the vast majority supported this.

"When Americans valued freedom this power grab would have
inspired riots."

Name one point in American history when this was so.

[nicmart]

Politicians responsible for plundering free speech

One of the great historical steps forward in political freedom was
the removal of the government's right to control political
speech. Now we have the FEC promulgating regulations over
such speech. The American people accept this attack on rights
like compliant sheep. It isn't about so-called homeland security
or obscenity, it is simply a muzzle on opposition by incumbent
politicians -- and those who hope to become incumbents. The
names of every politician who supported this historic plundering
of rights should be emblazened on the memory of all free
people, but none more so than John McCain, Russ Feingold, and
Thad Cochran, the main sponsors, Olympia Snowe and Jim
Jeffords, who contributed a key amendments, and George Bush,
the president who signed it.

When Americans valued freedom this power grab would have
inspired riots.

[DeusExMachina]

When?

Plundering of free speech? there has not been a single moment of
American history, either pre independence of post, where speech
has been unregulated, and the vast majority supported this.

"When Americans valued freedom this power grab would have
inspired riots."

Name one point in American history when this was so.

[nhandler]

Regulation, therefore corruption.

I think politicians have got it all backwards. Their regulation invites corruption for those who understand the ins-and-outs of the law (see: lobbyists and congressmen) while supressing disfavorable speech by those who actually have something to say, sans pernicious agenda.

The internet is our last vestige of truly free speech in this country. We need to work toward anonymized and decentralized communication if we are to have any hope of technologically preventing governmental incursion of human rights. The government will never stop hammering away, if it takes a hundred years, they will still be at it. This is clearly proven when one compares our liberties and ability to protest today as compared to the founding times of the American Republic.

First: this may come as a suprise to some of you, but people are not idiots. In a country with free speech, people make up their own minds. Advertisements is not the mind-control of a mindless population that many of you feel it is. When you look at an advertisement for Budweiser, are you commanded to buy Budweiser? Of course not. It may affect how you judge Budweiser in future purchases, but it does not grapple your mind like some sort of telekinesis machine. Political advertisements, be they false or not, fall into the same category. People have the ability to rationally judge political advertisements and if they choose to believe a commercial (when was the last time you met someone who based all their judgements on commercials?) then so be it. In a free society, that's their perogative! Capital Hill has NO RIGHT regulating speech, I don't care what medium, what it is about, or when it occurs. That is liberty for you! Regulation directed against the people is, in EVERY case, an infringement of our rights as human beings born under a Framers Constitution! Do not muddle the waters with errant laws directed towards the 'common good.' Have any of you ever stopped and considered exactly what the 'common good' means? If you think about it, the common good assumes knowledge of other people need. Do you suppose your know precisely what your co-workers need from their perspective? Of course not. So how can we allow our politicians to make regulatory decisions for 250,000,000 people in their name?

It should be no suprise to anyone, the government has an institutional-wide, self-serving interest in regulation and centralization biased in favor of those in the seat of power. Your votes mean nothing when faced with an system whereby all members agree that some regulation is necessary for the 'betterment of all'.

To paraphrase Breton, we must not take liberties with liberty itself. Interpretation of our liberties, as written, is a stepping stone to the abolition of said liberties.

[nhandler]

Regulation, therefore corruption.

I think politicians have got it all backwards. Their regulation invites corruption for those who understand the ins-and-outs of the law (see: lobbyists and congressmen) while supressing disfavorable speech by those who actually have something to say, sans pernicious agenda.

The internet is our last vestige of truly free speech in this country. We need to work toward anonymized and decentralized communication if we are to have any hope of technologically preventing governmental incursion of human rights. The government will never stop hammering away, if it takes a hundred years, they will still be at it. This is clearly proven when one compares our liberties and ability to protest today as compared to the founding times of the American Republic.

First: this may come as a suprise to some of you, but people are not idiots. In a country with free speech, people make up their own minds. Advertisements is not the mind-control of a mindless population that many of you feel it is. When you look at an advertisement for Budweiser, are you commanded to buy Budweiser? Of course not. It may affect how you judge Budweiser in future purchases, but it does not grapple your mind like some sort of telekinesis machine. Political advertisements, be they false or not, fall into the same category. People have the ability to rationally judge political advertisements and if they choose to believe a commercial (when was the last time you met someone who based all their judgements on commercials?) then so be it. In a free society, that's their perogative! Capital Hill has NO RIGHT regulating speech, I don't care what medium, what it is about, or when it occurs. That is liberty for you! Regulation directed against the people is, in EVERY case, an infringement of our rights as human beings born under a Framers Constitution! Do not muddle the waters with errant laws directed towards the 'common good.' Have any of you ever stopped and considered exactly what the 'common good' means? If you think about it, the common good assumes knowledge of other people need. Do you suppose your know precisely what your co-workers need from their perspective? Of course not. So how can we allow our politicians to make regulatory decisions for 250,000,000 people in their name?

It should be no suprise to anyone, the government has an institutional-wide, self-serving interest in regulation and centralization biased in favor of those in the seat of power. Your votes mean nothing when faced with an system whereby all members agree that some regulation is necessary for the 'betterment of all'.

To paraphrase Breton, we must not take liberties with liberty itself. Interpretation of our liberties, as written, is a stepping stone to the abolition of said liberties.

[heystoopid]

Alas

Alas, as Nelson would say Ha! Ha!

It's a pity that in the current term, if both the existing congressmen, and senators, when forced to take a test of comphrehension and understanding of the constitution and it's amendments, the failure rate would be in the high nineties!

Oh well, it is often said these days we are ruled over by idiots with hidden agenda's financed by payola, bribes and blackmail, to create the best laws that corrupt businessmen can buy!

[heystoopid]

Alas

Alas, as Nelson would say Ha! Ha!

It's a pity that in the current term, if both the existing congressmen, and senators, when forced to take a test of comphrehension and understanding of the constitution and it's amendments, the failure rate would be in the high nineties!

Oh well, it is often said these days we are ruled over by idiots with hidden agenda's financed by payola, bribes and blackmail, to create the best laws that corrupt businessmen can buy!

[whagerbaumer]

How I would program a diebold voting machine

If I knew that the software would never be looked at by any independent investigator, I would program in a specific pattern of votes that would open a back door in which an early voter could set the program to statistically alter the recording of votes during the day. Such backdoor entries are common in computer games and other software.

[whagerbaumer]

How I would program a diebold voting machine

If I knew that the software would never be looked at by any independent investigator, I would program in a specific pattern of votes that would open a back door in which an early voter could set the program to statistically alter the recording of votes during the day. Such backdoor entries are common in computer games and other software.

[steven.randolph]

Light Touch is Irrelevant

When it comes to speech, especially political speech, the fact that the government is regulating this with a purported "light touch" makes no difference. The only regulation of speech that our Constitution allows is NO regulation. It is written very plainly in the Constitution. How much more blunt could it be? Any politician or judge or Supreme Court justice who can't see this, is an imbecile who doesn't deserve his or her job.

[DeusExMachina]

Constitution

This is, of course not true. The Constitution is mute on the subject
of regulation.

[steven.randolph]

Light Touch is Irrelevant

When it comes to speech, especially political speech, the fact that the government is regulating this with a purported "light touch" makes no difference. The only regulation of speech that our Constitution allows is NO regulation. It is written very plainly in the Constitution. How much more blunt could it be? Any politician or judge or Supreme Court justice who can't see this, is an imbecile who doesn't deserve his or her job.

[DeusExMachina]

Constitution

This is, of course not true. The Constitution is mute on the subject
of regulation.

[Stephen Gordon]

on 500 E-mail Limit

As I'm reading though the new FEC rules, it seems that the disclaimer requirement for over 500 e-mails only applies to political committees, but not to individials or those in the newly defined corporate classification.

This would seem to mean that I could forward every e-mail sent out by my favorite federal campaigns to my private opt-in/opt-out list of over 20,000 people.

Am I understanding this correctly, or did I miss something here?

[Stephen Gordon]

on 500 E-mail Limit

As I'm reading though the new FEC rules, it seems that the disclaimer requirement for over 500 e-mails only applies to political committees, but not to individials or those in the newly defined corporate classification.

This would seem to mean that I could forward every e-mail sent out by my favorite federal campaigns to my private opt-in/opt-out list of over 20,000 people.

Am I understanding this correctly, or did I miss something here?

[Stephen Gordon]

What about Google ads?

In some cases, the disclaimer might have to be longer than the alloted advertising space. Clearly a disadvantage for candidates with really long names.

[Stephen Gordon]

What about Google ads?

In some cases, the disclaimer might have to be longer than the alloted advertising space. Clearly a disadvantage for candidates with really long names.