NationStates Jolt Archive

You know what, apparently those who argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern day firearms are right, because apparently the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet.

http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html?tag=st.prev

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory process now is under way.

CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion onto the Internet.

Fucking democrats.

http://www.donotremove.net/archives/003365.html

http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/single/not_going_to_happen/

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110994569376830722

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/03/i-knew-someone-would-say-it-perfectly.html

Oh yes, because properly applying the rest of a finance law is a breech of the right to freedom of speech.

When you start complaining about the censorship of games, movies, and tv, I will give a shit about your opinion on the matter, maybe

Heh, you don't quite get it, do you? They are going to try and regulate the INTERNET. Not just blogs. This means, among other things, email, livejournals, and any forum with servers in the US.

Oh, is that what they're trying to do (sarcasm, I hope you know)?

Some of you people... I just don't know.

Haha take this, suckers:

BUSH (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

KERRY (http://www.republicansforkerry.org/)

NADER (http://www.nader.org/)

Oh noes, please don't arrest me for linking to a politician's site, because that would be so awful - supporting a canditate in a democratic election without some form of authorization.

Eat my ass you nazi pigs, if you come for me I'll be hiding in the woods with a bandanna and an AK-47. Or a fedora and a tommy gun - "nya, you'll never get me, copper! I got ALL the politician's links in here with me, see?"

Man, that would kick exponential amounts of ass.

Well, Jolt is in the UK, so we have nothing to fear.

Man, the net just makes your balls 10x bigger, doesn't it?

They are applying the laws that are already in effect for the regular media. Bloggers want recognition as journalists, this is part of that. Legitimacy is a double edged sword.

Haha take this, suckers:

BUSH (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

KERRY (http://www.republicansforkerry.org/)

NADER (http://www.nader.org/)

Oh noes, please don't arrest me for linking to a politician's site, because that would be so awful - supporting a canditate in a democratic election without some form of authorization.

Eat my ass you nazi pigs, if you come for me I'll be hiding in the woods with a bandanna and an AK-47. Or a fedora and a tommy gun - "nya, you'll never get me, copper! I got ALL the politician's links in here with me, see?"

Man, that would kick exponential amounts of ass.
That was something maddox would say. The "kick exponential amounts of ass" part.

Bookworm, I don't like your "fucking democrats" comment. It really as big a deal as you're making it out to be, and its not regulation of free speech. Its regulation of donations that candidates recieve, and because they are getting more traffic due to the links, it is in their power to regulate it. Calm down.

Oh, what the fuck. More of this shit.
:headbang:

Bookworm, I don't like your "fucking democrats" comment. It really as big a deal as you're making it out to be, and its not regulation of free speech. Its regulation of donations that candidates recieve, and because they are getting more traffic due to the links, it is in their power to regulate it. Calm down.
The thing is, everyone will just move their servers overseas. It won't do anything, just make them spend some more money.
Besides, what if I wanted to link to Dubya's website to make fun of him. Would I have to pay a tax on that?
There's a lot of kinks to work out...

No no no, no harm would come to you. Just linking to the site wouldn't bring any legal issues. Let's say that it shouldn't.

They're still working things out in this system. It's not done yet, and that "fucking Democrats" bit was a bit out of hand.

Meh!

I don't see censorship of blogging at play. More of an attempt to regulate "donations" You can still say the shrub is druggy, Kerry is a glory seeking america hating traitor, etc.

Maybe this will make people think for themselves rather then regurgitating party retoric. Doubtful....

As to the democrat comment? Hmmmm maybe the repubs should have worked on tossing the hardliners rather then the moderates.

Congress will probably nip this one as it affects their ability to spew crap and more importantly raise money.

It's not done yet, and that "fucking Democrats" bit was a bit out of hand.

Yes, I agree. Not only that, but it completely screws him as far as his argument that the first amendment is dead goes. If the site lets you say "fuck", then you obviously still have some rights as far as free speech is concerned. Just because they're not letting you buy politicians online doesn't mean they're restricting your free speech, Armed Bookworms. People like you give legitimate causes like http://www.stopfcc.com a bad name by association. :mad:

I don't get how this will keep big money from influencing politics. Am I missing something here?

They're still working things out in this system. It's not done yet, and that "fucking Democrats" bit was a bit out of hand.
Well lets see, 3 repubs and 3 dems on the FEC board. The 3 repubs vote to keep the internet exempt, the 3 dems refuse to do so. Perfectly warranted, I'd think.

Heh, you don't quite get it, do you? They are going to try and regulate the INTERNET. Not just blogs. This means, among other things, email, livejournals, and any forum with servers in the US.
No, they ARN'T, they are trying to regulate websites whose whole business is discussing American politics, and hell all they are trying to do is apply the part of finance laws that should be applied.

Well lets see, 3 repubs and 3 dems on the FEC board. The 3 repubs vote to keep the internet exempt, the 3 dems refuse to do so. Perfectly warranted, I'd think.
Because the upper majority of bloggers and places this would even effect are republican or republican supporting and it would hurt the disemination of pro-republican propaganda

Well, Jolt is in the UK, so we have nothing to fear.

The superlative loophole of internet regulations.

It's been the bane of efforts to ban internet gambling for years.

People set up an online casino on a server in the Bahamas and then offer nothing to American's in exchange for fat lumps of money.

Finally the gov't got around it by prohibiting credit card companies from authorizing such online wagers.

I don't know about paypal though.

Well, Jolt is in the UK, so we have nothing to fear.

Ah, but the tentacles of the octopus are quite long. Let us keep the internet as it was intended, free open anarchy. Except for pop-up ads and spam. :D

Because the upper majority of bloggers and places this would even effect are republican or republican supporting and it would hurt the disemination of pro-republican propaganda
You have made me go to sites I wouldn't to prove a point. For this, I despise you.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_atrios_archive.html#110986260771200359

*shudders*

Not in any way, shape, or form a republican.


*shudders*

You know what, apparently those who argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern day firearms are right, because apparently the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet.

http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html?tag=st.prev



Fucking democrats.

http://www.donotremove.net/archives/003365.html

http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/single/not_going_to_happen/

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110994569376830722

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/03/i-knew-someone-would-say-it-perfectly.html
Hey do a little more research on what happened with the
RNC (got that? Fucking republicans)
regarding McCain-Feingold just a little while back before the election, back in the "Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth'" days, and what the RNC tried to regulate as a response to MoveOn.org. Here's a name to look up, Ellen Weintraub.
Then flap your ignorant mouth off about who is trying to censor what.

Well, Jolt is in the UK, so we have nothing to fear.Phew...feels good to be in a Country that respects civil liberties

You have made me go to sites I wouldn't to prove a point. For this, I despise you.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_atrios_archive.html#110986260771200359

*shudders*

Not in any way, shape, or form a republican.


*shudders*
Did you not understand the meaning of "upper majority"?

Oh yes, because properly applying the rest of a finance law is a breech of the right to freedom of speech.

When you start complaining about the censorship of games, movies, and tv, I will give a shit about your opinion on the matter, maybe

I wholehardedly agree, as long as they only modify sites owned by americans. Anything else should be illegal by international law.

Look, I don't really care about this either way, but I detest misinformation -- particularly when it comes to legal issues.

This is a classic case of misunderstanding of a narrow court ruling. I'm not suprised the bloggers are hysterical -- as that is often the nature what they do and they have an axe to grind here-- and FEC Commissioner Smith is deliberately stirring the pot.

Let me clarify some things:

1. The First Amendment was not even at issue in the case. I'll explain below what was actually at issue.

You know what, apparently those who argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern day firearms are right, because apparently the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet.

2. At issue was whether FEC regulations implementing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold Act) were (a) properly adopted and (b) consistent with the BCRA.

3. The court vacated 15 regulations and remanded for new regulations to be adopted. The court did not itself create any new.

4. The ruling is hardly attributable to democrats. The lawsuit against the Commission had been filed by Representatives Christopher Shays (R-Conn) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass), the Act's principal sponsors in the House, and was supported by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc).

The judge that made the ruling recieved her undergraduate and law degree from The Catholic University of America. She worked in the U.S. Department of Justice during the Nixon Administration. In 1984 President Ronald Reagan appointed her to the D.C. Superior Court. In 1997 President Bill Clinton appointed Kollar-Kotelly to the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. Chief Justice Rehnquist has appointer to several judicial positions, including Presiding Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

5. What the court really ruled. The portion of the the BCRA in question had to do with limitations on "public communications" that are "coordinated" with a candidate. The BCRA statute defined "public communications" to include enumerated types of communications but also "any other form of political advertising." The FEC rules, however, defined "public communications" to include a blanket exception for Internet communications. The Court merely held that this blanket exception was inconsistent with the statute. The court remanded for new regulations to be adopted by the FEC. Although the court was critical of the "blanket" exemption for internet communications, it did not rule out some more limited exemption for this class of communication.

Attached is a copy of the case. It is 157-pages long, however. So I'll give a quick TOC. Pages 3-6 give background facts. Pages 32-35 introduce some of the relevant portions of the BCRA. The relevant portion of the ruling is at pages 48-58. The conclusion/order is at pages 156-157. (Pages 27-32 provide some relevant legal standards.) The rest of the opinion relates to other issues.
Here is the case: http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/articles/Shays-Meehan.pdf

Well, I've got a toaster, an Etch-A-Sketch and a whole bunch of the little twistie things they pack transformers in to keep them in place, so I'm going to just make my own internet.