NationStates Jolt Archive

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_election-blog20050512

Interested in free speech or a free press? Well, if you're living in England, you'll have to register, at least if you have anything to say that looks like a political opinion. Does anyone else have a problem with free-speech being treated like a gun?

What does that have to do with England? :confused:

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_election-blog20050512

Interested in free speech or a free press? Well, if you're living in England, you'll have to register, at least if you have anything to say that looks like a political opinion. Does anyone else have a problem with free-speech being treated like a gun?

British Columbia is not in England. If I remember correctly, it's in Canada.

so they've moved vancouver to England now!?

LOL! I think you may just have mixed up British Columbia with Britain one is a country the other is a province in Canada. :eek:

British Columbia is not in England. If I remember correctly, it's in Canada.

Haha, yes, it's in Canada.

This thread is just a sad testament to the geographical ignorance of its starter.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_election-blog20050512

Interested in free speech or a free press? Well, if you're living in England, you'll have to register, at least if you have anything to say that looks like a political opinion. Does anyone else have a problem with free-speech being treated like a gun?
#1 - This is NOT England, it's in British Columba, Canada

#2 - Elections BC is NOT trying to curb free speech, but they want anyone who is coming out with a partisan message supporting one political party over another to register. It's standard practice.

They're supposed to register themselves as advertising sponsors if they post a partisan position on a candidate, party, or referendum question.

"Under the Election Act, it will fall within the definition of election advertising, and we would ask them to register," says Jennifer Miller, of Elections B.C.

#3 - Read and get your fact straight before jumping to conclusions!

And this is hardly curbing free speech. They aren't saying that these people can't do this; they are just asking that all bloggers who are posting partisan messages to register.

Oh, and in other news, London has been annexed by China, Russia has renamed themselves Greater Antarctica, Australia is now in the Northern Hemisphere, Europe is now a single country, and Japan is a continent.

Oh, and in other news, London has been annexed by China, Russia has renamed themselves Greater Antarctica, Australia is now in the Northern Hemisphere, Europe is now a single country, and Japan is a continent.

And the UK is currently holding an election, several months after the last one ended.

Oh, and in other news, London has been annexed by China, Russia has renamed themselves Greater Antarctica, Australia is now in the Northern Hemisphere, Europe is now a single country, and Japan is a continent.
It is? Nooooooooooooo!!! :D

anyway, i thought he was going to be talking about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4071968.stm)

And this is hardly curbing free speech. They aren't saying that these people can't do this; they are just asking that all bloggers who are posting partisan messages to register.

Here in the US, I can post all I like on my blog, and it's not considered partisan advertising.

Why is it considered such in British Columbia?

So anyway ignoring the geography, this appears merely to be an outdated law that they are going to change.

#2 - Elections BC is NOT trying to curb free speech, but they want anyone who is coming out with a partisan message supporting one political party over another to register. It's standard practice.
Why should people have to register if they simply want to post a partisan message in their blog?

Why should people have to register if they simply want to post a partisan message in their blog?

Does that mean that if you post a partisan message on the NS forums, you'll have to register?

You shouldn't have to register to speak your mind. That's why good gave everyone free will. We have the right to make our own choices and say what we want without the threat of the law or government saying that we cannot say what is on ours minds.

Why should people have to register if they simply want to post a partisan message in their blog?
The FEC is trying to do the same here in the US. They call someone's partisan opinion an "advertisement" for their party and is therefore covered under McCain-Feingold.

I wrote my own opinion/rant about this a while back: http://armageddonproject.com/?p=28

Why should people have to register if they simply want to post a partisan message in their blog?
I'm asking myself the same question. I spoke to lots of people about these particular elections, and I don't see how posting a personal preferance on a blog is different from verbally advocating some party. But I can guarantee that this is going to go pretty much annoticed here in BC....imagine trying to enforce it.


EDIT: the originator of this thread wins.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_election-blog20050512

Interested in free speech or a free press? Well, if you're living in England, you'll have to register, at least if you have anything to say that looks like a political opinion. Does anyone else have a problem with free-speech being treated like a gun?

Posts like this make wading through the usual run-of-the-mill foolishness of NS worthwhile.


Priceless.

The FEC is trying to do the same here in the US. They call someone's partisan opinion an "advertisement" for their party and is therefore covered under McCain-Feingold.

I wrote my own opinion/rant about this a while back: http://armageddonproject.com/?p=28
I wholeheartedly agree with your "opinion/rant" on this. Kudos!

And I'm going to personnaly friggin' punt anyone who tries to blame this on President Bush! This crap came straight out of McCain/Finegold! :headbang:

Posts like this make wading through the usual run-of-the-mill foolishness of NS worthwhile.


Priceless.

tempted to put it as my sig :D

*watches thread veer south of the 49th parrallel*

Does that mean that if you post a partisan message on the NS forums, you'll have to register?
For the first time in my life I'm glad that I don't live in Canada!

Why should people have to register if they simply want to post a partisan message in their blog?
Because the law sees it as political advertisement that can influence voters.

True, the law was written way before the blogs came to be a newssource, but it is still considered a political opinion distributed to influence the vote. As such it falls under the "political advertisement" category of the law.

Should the law be changed? Probably.

Are blogs so insignificant than to consider them harmless? Hell no! There have been major political scandals that broke out on the internet. As such, the blogs that are built to bear news and have editorials should fall under the same purview than printed newspaper and TV news.

Yes, you have a right to express your opinion. But your opinion is read by millions of people over the net. As such, it can and will influence the voters. This is why there are provision in the law to regulate this kind of free advertisement for your cause.

Can you imagine the awfull mess the internet can become if there are no regulation on spending and fact-checking on internet?

This is why Election Canada ask for blogs to register themselves. It is surely not to restrict free speach.

Because the law sees it as political advertisement that can influence voters.

True, the law was written way before the blogs came to be a newssource, but it is still considered a political opinion distributed to influence the vote. As such it falls under the "political advertisement" category of the law.

Should the law be changed? Probably.

Are blogs so insignificant than to consider them harmless? Hell no! There have been major political scandals that broke out on the internet. As such, the blogs that are built to bear news and have editorials should fall under the same purview than printed newspaper and TV news.

Yes, you have a right to express your opinion. But your opinion is read by millions of people over the net. As such, it can and will influence the voters. This is why there are provision in the law to regulate this kind of free advertisement for your cause.

Can you imagine the awfull mess the internet can become if there are no regulation on spending and fact-checking on internet?

This is why Election Canada ask for blogs to register themselves. It is surely not to restrict free speach.


I'm an American, and I've posted material that might be considered political in Canada. And I'm doing it on servers in the UK. And people in Canada read what I post.

So, do I need to register with Election Canada?

I'm an American, and I've posted material that might be considered political in Canada. And I'm doing it on servers in the UK. And people in Canada read what I post.

So, do I need to register with Election Canada?

Probably not. The Canadian government tends to steer clear of passing extra-national laws. ;)

I'm an American, and I've posted material that might be considered political in Canada. And I'm doing it on servers in the UK. And people in Canada read what I post.

So, do I need to register with Election Canada?No no no. This is trivial, and it won't be enforced. However, Elelctions Canada is a very good employer, so I shall heretofore sensor any further criticism on my part.

For the first time in my life I'm glad that I don't live in Canada! Getting payed $200 or so for one day's easy work should counterbablance any other concerns Elections Canada causes you. :)

Probably not. The Canadian government tends to steer clear of passing extra-national laws. ;)

The real question is, how would they know whose blog or post on a forum was from a Canadian?

Probably not. The Canadian government tends to steer clear of passing extra-national laws. ;)
Actually it is illegal for foreign persons to try to influence the vote.

So, if you design a blog for the purpose to push resolution 5440, and you are a US citizen, you are breaking the law and can be sued by Election Canada and arrested if you ever come to Canada.

The trick is that it must be made with the express purpose of influencing the election. As such, posting on a forum in a discussion is not illegal.

Besides, this provision has been used extremely rarely.

Although the US conservatives wanted Election Canada to sue Michael Moore under it last election. ;)

I'll just say that since I didn't post in both English and French, that my message was lost on Canadians in general.

Je dirai juste cela puisque je n'ai pas signalé dans l'anglais et le Français, ce mon message ai été perdu sur des Canadiens en général.

I'll just say that since I didn't post in both English and French, that my message was lost on Canadians in general.

You may want to avoid calling people from the UK English whoever starte this, a fair number of Scots and a few Welsh would give you a kicking for it.

Les Canadiens qui ne parlent pas français devraient considérer vider le Québec. De cette façon, ils peuvent cesser de mettre la langue française sur les signes.

Here in the US, I can post all I like on my blog, and it's not considered partisan advertising. Why is it considered such in British Columbia?
For now. Until the FEC gets its way (http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050531/ts_chicagotrib/fectreadsintostickywebofpoliticalblogs;_ylt=AlCXY8LGKSgCVud80NDdY2Xpbr8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYw MlJVRPUCUl).

Web loggers, who pride themselves on freewheeling political activism, might face new federal rules on candidate endorsements, online fundraising and political ads, though bloggers who don't take money from political groups would not be affected.

Draft rules from the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, would require that paid political advertisements on the Internet declare who funded the ad, as television spots do.

Similar disclaimers would be placed on political Web sites, as well as on e-mails sent to people on purchased lists containing more than 500 addresses. The FEC also is considering whether to require Web loggers, called bloggers, to disclose whether they get money from a campaign committee or a candidate and to reveal whether they are being paid to write about certain candidates or solicit contributions on their behalf.

These rules would not affect citizens who don't take money from political action committees or parties.

The FEC long has been reluctant to craft rules for the Internet, and it has exempted the online world from many regulations that apply to other media such as television and radio. But a court ruling last fall required the agency to include the Internet in its definition of public communications and to begin regulating activities there.

The FEC, which also is striving to clarify regulations about online volunteer campaign activity, is accepting public comments on the proposals until Friday. Hearings will be held June 28 and 29.

The final version of the rules is expected later this year, unless Congress intervenes to exempt the Internet from FEC regulation, as is wanted by lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Advocates for rules say they are necessary to prevent groups such as corporations and labor unions from exploiting loopholes.

"I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible," said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

But as Internet technology improves, she said, politicians, corporations and unions will "learn where to go to reach unconverted people. They will use Internet more and more. People like me who are worried about corporate and union abuse are less comfortable with that."

Opponents of the regulations, including many bloggers, worry that freedom of speech would suffer and that the rules would have a chilling effect on the lively political discussions that occur online. FEC regulation, they say, would unfairly punish individuals, adding that nothing happened in the 2004 elections to warrant intervention.

Adam Bonin, a lawyer in Philadelphia, is drafting comments to the FEC on behalf of two prominent bloggers, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos and Duncan Black of Eschaton.

Bonin said his clients "want to know they are protected in . . . terms of reporting, advocacy, fundraising for candidates and accepting advertising."

He added, "They want to make sure the regulations are clear enough so they and their users feel confident they can speak without worrying that the FEC will issue a subpoena for innocuous activities."

FEC commissioners say they are drafting rules cautiously and being careful to craft protections for individual speakers and online news publications.

"The fundamental presumption has changed from the Internet being unregulatable to now it will be regulated," said FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith.

Smith cautioned that the rules, if approved, could be more restrictive than many think, and he predicted that more rules likely would follow.

Smith, who favors less regulation, said he wouldn't commit to voting in favor of the rules.

He said he had wanted the FEC to appeal U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's decision in hopes of warding off any Internet regulation.

Oh, and you can blame McCain-Feingold & The Daily Kos for the trouble (http://www.slate.com/id/2112314/):

Blogging for Dollars
Hang Daily Kos, but not for taking money from Howard Dean.
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Jan. 14, 2005, at 6:52 PM PT

Journalists think blogging makes everyone one of them, but not everyone wants to be a journalist. That's the lesson from a long-running discussion among prominent political bloggers that spilled into the pages of the Friday Wall Street Journal. The Journal's lede: "Howard Dean's presidential campaign hired two Internet political 'bloggers' as consultants so that they would say positive things about the former governor's campaign in their online journals, according to a former high-profile Dean aide." The "high-profile aide" is Zephyr Teachout, the former head of Internet outreach for Dean. Teachout earlier this week blogged on the subject of "Financially Interested Blogging." She wrote, in part, "In this past election, at least a few prominent bloggers were paid as consultants by candidates and groups they regularly blogged about."

Teachout named two prominent bloggers in particular: Jerome Armstrong of myDD.com and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos. "On Dean's campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients," Teachout wrote. "While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment—but it was very clearly, internally, our goal." In the past, Teachout has also fingered Matthew Gross for writing about Erskine Bowles while Gross was on the candidate's payroll.

Armstrong and Moulitsas have complained vociferously on their blogs about Teachout's post and about the Journal's story, and they have a point: Armstrong quit blogging for the half-year that Armstrong Zuniga, the two men's political consulting firm, was on the Dean payroll, and Moulitsas posted a somewhat grumpy disclosure on his site's front page during the same period. If the two men were journalists, those disclosures would be woefully insufficient. But Armstrong and Moulitsas aren't journalists. Nor does having a blog make someone a journalist.

The word "blogger" connotes enthusiastic amateurism, but nowadays bloggers can be PR flacks, salesmen, and yes, party hacks. The New York Times Magazine's cover story on the liberal blogosphere discussed Moulitsas' awkward place in "the established machinery of the Democratic Party" and noted that the Dean campaign "in fact employed Moulitsas for several months." In April 2004, the Weekly Standard called him "a Democratic political consultant on the make." In December 2003, USA Today noted that "some candidates have hired him as their Web consultant." Despite all this, the Times Mag somehow convinced itself that Moulitsas was one of the "amateurs" on Dean's "thrill ride." NBA ballers get to play in the Olympics now, but calling Moulitsas an amateur shows how far the standards have fallen since the days of Jim Thorpe.

Still, my verdict is to let Armstrong free with a slap on the wrist. Joe Trippi's hiring of Armstrong because of MyDD.com was one of the most-reported anecdotes of the primary season. What's new is Teachout's revelation that the Dean campaign hired Armstrong because they wanted him to give them good blog, not because they wanted his sage political advice. But Armstrong didn't know that, so it's tough to be too hard on him for it.

Moulitsas is a different case. He's never pretended to be a journalist—this past October, he told National Journal, "I am part of the media. But a journalist? No. If I had put a label on it, I would say I am an activist."—but in the year since he stopped cashing Dean's checks, he's gained a reputation as "the liberal Instapundit" and the most popular left-wing blogger. And while it's true that his role as a Dean consultant was disclosed and reported in the press on multiple occasions, it came as a surprise this week to a whole lot of people, including a lot of prominent bloggers. Perhaps more important, the people who were aware of Moulitsas' consulting work aren't 100 percent comfortable with it. "Markos is infamous for these kinds of issues. That may be too strong a word. But it's come up with Markos before," Nicco Mele, the Dean campaign's Webmaster and director of Internet operations, told me. "I can find you threads on Markos's own site about it."

Moulitsas' crime isn't taking money from Howard Dean. He, too, can get away with a suspended sentence for insufficiently disclosing his role in the Dean campaign once he was off the payroll. The hanging offense is that Moulitsas took money from other, undisclosed, political clients. And while he may have disclosed—in 2003—that he wouldn't disclose them, that's not good enough. DailyKos raised money for a dozen congressional candidates this past election. Which, if any, of them paid Moulitsas for the honor of directing his grassroots minions to part with their wallets? If you gave one of Moulitsas' preferred candidates money, wouldn't you like to know if Moulitsas' endorsement was purchased?

Political campaigns and consultants are becoming increasingly skillful at manipulating the mainstream press by planting stories in the blogosphere. Despite this, the mainstream press remains credulous about blogging. During South Dakota's U.S. Senate race between Tom Daschle and John Thune, the Thune campaign put two local political bloggers on its payroll. One got $27,000, the other $8,000. Their anti-Daschle reports trickled up into South Dakota newspapers.

The lesson for a campaign is obvious: Got a story you can't convince a mainstream reporter to run? Leak it anonymously to a blog on your payroll. Then get a local reporter to write a story on the controversial, gossipy, local political blog. Soon everyone in town will be talking about the story you leaked to the blog. Voila! Eventually a mainstream news organization will run a story on the rumor that "everyone is talking about." Or they'll do a "what people are buzzing about on the Internet" piece. And no one will know that the blog post was a paid placement until after the election.

If Moulitsas takes money from political candidates in 2006 and 2008 without telling you who's paying him, stop giving his recommended candidates your dollars. Here's what Moulitsas wrote about payola pundit Armstrong Williams' assertion that "There are others" on the government dole: "Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House's payola rolls." That's questionable logic, but let's take Moulitsas up on his challenge: Until names are named, we can assume every Daily Kos candidate this past election wrote him a check for his consulting work.

Chris Suellentrop, now a freelance writer in Washington, D.C., was Slate's 2004 campaign correspondent.

La Commission d'élection fédérale peut m'embrasser où le soleil ne brille pas.

There was some issue brought up during the lead-up to the recent confidence vote where high-ranking political figures were being extremely vocal on their blogs, even though there was a party gag order. Basically it boiled down to the fact that if they said this stuff on TV or published it in a normal way it would fall under the Elections Act legislation that is common all over the western world, but the blogs were a loophole. This latest bit of legislation is a weak attempt to curb it, in typically Canadian fashion:

"Please, if it's all the same to you, would you mind terribly if we asked you to register? Thanks very much, no no, it's really no problem, just it would help us with this little problem we have."

No guns required, ask politely. If they don't register, I am quite sure not much will ever come of it, and in the meantime we can all say "well we've done what we can about this glaring evil that threatens to tear apart the fabric of our society".

La Commission d'élection fédérale peut m'embrasser où le soleil ne brille pas.

J'ai l'impression qu'ils aimeraient mieux vous y baiser.

I'm an American, and I've posted material that might be considered political in Canada. And I'm doing it on servers in the UK. And people in Canada read what I post.

So, do I need to register with Election Canada?
WL, telegram me the link to your blog. I want to check it out. :)

Here in the US, I can post all I like on my blog, and it's not considered partisan advertising.

Why is it considered such in British Columbia?
Watch out, the FCC is trying to make it so that you can't.

Edit - I see Syniks got to that fact before I did. Tg me a link to you blog please.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I realize that British Columbia isn't England and at readin/posting I was on the long end of 72 hours without sleep. I feel like an utter 'tard and I will now sit in the corner with my duncecap and drool cup.

You may want to avoid calling people from the UK English whoever starte this, a fair number of Scots and a few Welsh would give you a kicking for it.
Heck, the poster went beyond that. He (or she, let's say shum) called people from Canada English!

It would have been even funnier if shum had called them Colombian.

ADVERTISING SPONSOR DISCLOSURE REPORT REGULATION
Classes of advertising

4 An election advertising disclosure report must separately report the value of the following classes of advertising:

(a) brochures, pamphlets, flyers and similar forms of advertising;

(b) newspaper, magazine, journal and similar forms of advertising; (c)* radio;

(d) signs, such as lawn signs and billboards, and similar forms of advertising; (c)*television;

(f) any other forms of advertising.


Seems like Blogs are considered media, which is what they are and partisan articles are deemed advertising in regards to (f). As the law stands, bloggers who engage in such activity should register.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I realize that British Columbia isn't England and at readin/posting I was on the long end of 72 hours without sleep.

Sure you were.