NationStates Jolt Archive

I alerted you a couple of weeks ago to legislation -- introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul -- that will exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

The bill, H.R. 1606, was supposed to come to a vote on March 16, but it was inexplicably pulled from the House calendar. The good news is that bill is now back on the calendar, and it is scheduled for a vote as early as Wednesday.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is enacted, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary.. NSG COULD BE ONE OF THE ONES FORCED TO BE BLOCKED BY THE FEC BECAUSE OF OUR VARIOUS LEVELS OF CANDIDATE ADVOCACY

These regulations have resulted from two court opinions that followed the passage of the Incumbent Protection Act -- a law sponsored by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. One opinion upheld the McCain-Feingold law almost in its entirely [McConnell v. FEC]. In the other -- Shays v. Federal Election Commission -- judges ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet.

The FEC is still mightily fighting the court to minimize the regulation of the Internet. But who knows if they will prevail, or if a future administration will take a much different view. This is why H.R. 1606 is so important.

The danger, as it stands now, is that if Hensarling and Paul are unsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, many major blogs and web sites could one day be construed to be engaged in "electioneering communications" because they praise or criticize candidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60 days prior to an election -- or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" on what they are allowed to say.

Gotta Love that "Bipartisanship" :headbang:

If you live in the US, get on the phone - or use your email until they regulate that too.

Regulate Computers! Do it For The Children!

Perhaps it could be denied to US residents...but certainly not for the rest of us. Not legally.

But I'll tell you what...we'll trade a NS General blockage for enfranchisement ..let us vote in your elections, and we'll let you censor us! Sound good?;)

Nope it's a UK based server, so they have fuck all to say about it.

You make it sound like US people not being allowed to log on to General were a bad thing.

You make it sound like US people not being allowed to log on to General were a bad thing.
Oh beHAVE you naughty boy!

Nope it's a UK based server, so they have fuck all to say about it.
Actually, they can't stop the foreign server but when the data comes into an American router, they can effectively block it. It's possible, since any incoming data, until it reaches its destination, will be routed through different servers and ISP routers.

Actually, they can't stop the foreign server but when the data comes into an American router, they can effectively block it. It's possible, since any incoming data, until it reaches its destination, will be routed through different servers and ISP routers.
Which is my point.

But wouldn't all you "Global Political Activists" want to be able to continue your public Bush Bashing? ;)

NSG COULD BE ONE OF THE ONES FORCED TO BE BLOCKED BY THE FEC BECAUSE OF OUR VARIOUS LEVELS OF CANDIDATE ADVOCACY
No!!! This is unacceptable, unprecedented!!!

TOPPLE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!

Which is my point.

But wouldn't all you "Global Political Activists" want to be able to continue your public Bush Bashing? ;)
We can. After all, our data would comes through non-American routers if it's foreign information, so, we'd be able to freely bash the shrub all we want on the NS General forum.

Which is my point.

But wouldn't all you "Global Political Activists" want to be able to continue your public Bush Bashing? ;)
Yes well, we wouldn't be at the mercy of a US router.

But wouldn't all you "Global Political Activists" want to be able to continue your public Bush Bashing? ;)
Bush bashing would get boring with nobody to defend him.

Actually, they can't stop the foreign server but when the data comes into an American router, they can effectively block it. It's possible, since any incoming data, until it reaches its destination, will be routed through different servers and ISP routers.
You know how fuckin hard that is ... we have enough trouble running consulting for local Highschools much less something the size of the USA

Its like a frigging leaky sleave Ther are is no bottle neck areas for them to deploy

Bush bashing would get boring with nobody to defend him.
No, it really wouldn't:)

That kind of law is what makes me feel like I'm being treated as a retarded child. Of course we'll all be hearing electioneering and campaign messages and all sorts of candidate advocacy come election time. That doesn't mean I'm going to look at NSG and say "Wow, this guy like this candidate, I guess I should too!" They shouldn't try to legislate what we see on the Internet like that.

No, it really wouldn't:)
Well, with a steady supply of hilarious presidential acts and antics being reported from the USA, maybe not, but Bush bashing is already getting boring.

Well, with a steady supply of hilarious presidential acts and antics being reported from the USA, maybe not, but Bush bashing is already getting boring.
Really?
It's one of my hobbies.
I'm sure I won't grow tired of it any time soon.

Good thing I dont live in the US!

You know how fuckin hard that is ... we have enough trouble running consulting for local Highschools much less something the size of the USA

Its like a frigging leaky sleave Ther are is no bottle neck areas for them to deploy
I never said it would be accomplished. I merely stated that it is possible...

Of course it woule be a damn near headache to maintain and not to mention all the hackers having their little field days... ah, those poor innocent routers.

Well, with a steady supply of hilarious presidential acts and antics being reported from the USA, maybe not, but Bush bashing is already getting boring.

:) Bush bashing is becoming tiresome online, yeah, but his speechs are still good if I want to yell at my T.V.. then again, that's what C-Span's good for.

/Amecian
//Moving out of this country, quickly.

I never said it would be accomplished. I merely stated that it is possible...

Of course it woule be a damn near headache to maintain and not to mention all the hackers having their little field days... ah, those poor innocent routers.
Too many avenues of entrance

As long as the US allows private ownership of ISP's it cant reasonably happen
There are just too many non governmental controlled bodies with too many avenuses

Not to mention that at the "router" level they could do jack shit with TCP's Route Discovery protocall it would manage to find a path

The only thing they really could do is take down the DNS entries but that would take out the ENTIRE internets Name to Address mapting capability

You think the world is mad about the USA being dicks and holding on to Root just wait till you see droping servers around election time

Please excuse the lapse in comprehension - but what exactly is the motivation behind this? To protect us from information that might allow us to make an informed decision or understand multiple points of view?

And what exactly qualifies these various websites to be eligible for an election-day shutdown? Just because they talk about politics, and thus obviously about important political elections and the candidates thereof? Isn't that unconstitutional?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Read it, you fucking idiots! Any questions? No? GOOD.

I really thought better of both John McCain and Russ Feingold. Campaign reform is one thing; censorship is a whole 'nother ballgame.

You know how fuckin hard that is ... we have enough trouble running consulting for local Highschools much less something the size of the USA

Its like a frigging leaky sleave Ther are is no bottle neck areas for them to deploy

And Yet, if we were talking only about NS and not, say, DU, or Kos, or GOA, or NRA, or Brady, or Lew Rockwell, or Instapundit, or Indymedia...

If you have the power to lock down top level domains virtually at the source, why couldn't they succeed?

And Yet, if we were talking only about NS and not, say, DU, or Kos, or GOA, or NRA, or Brady, or Lew Rockwell, or Instapundit, or Indymedia...

If you have the power to lock down top level domains virtually at the source, why couldn't they succeed?
Filtering equipment on that scale is not depoyed at root avenues

Not every router has the capaciy to on the fly filter top level domains on the fly Not when they are dealing with the ammount of traffic they are

That could double or tripple the work load of each of the router IF they had that capacity

Feingold for president, guys!:rolleyes: Sounds like he's a real advocate of civil rights...unless they threaten him politically.

I hope they pass this law; otherwise, the freest forum of discussion in existence will be unfairly silenced.

Filtering equipment on that scale is not depoyed at root avenues

Not every router has the capaciy to on the fly filter top level domains on the fly Not when they are dealing with the ammount of traffic they are

That could double or tripple the work load of each of the router IF they had that capacity
And you think this would matter to RepubloCrats trying to save their little Duopoly?

If it looks like that's going to happen, we should definitely make our displeasure known. There's enough people on here, and enough with certain...computer skills....that we could make damn sure that McCain and Feingold know that the Internet is PISSED. Not just the people using it. The very Internet itself would rise against them. Hack their websites, DoS gov't servers, fill their realworld and email inboxes to the bursting point with letters of complaint.

I'm serious, though. You shouldn't be able to just shut down half of the largest, freest, most powerful medium of communication, interaction, and trade in existence without repercussions.

And you think this would matter to RepubloCrats trying to save their little Duopoly?
Lol it would when the entire Internet takes a dive when they are forced to deploy it lol

Lets see how their busniess intrests do with the compleat halt of all over-seas internet communication.

Cause right now there is no "extra" capacity to handle it. And as always the tel-coms are pushed to the limit of technology.

Its not like they have anywhere to upgrade to to handle the work

For those of you concerned, the FEC released their rules today, and they decided that if they were going to err, they would err on the side of free speech, odd as that sounds given the US government these days. (It was a truly bipartisan commission, and an unanimous decision.) In essence, the internet in the US will remain essentially unregulated as far as political seech is concerned.

Perhaps it could be denied to US residents...but certainly not for the rest of us. Not legally.
Seconded.

this denies free speech:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: it will never get past the suprem cort( i hope *prepares to flee america if it does*....anyone know of a good uni in the uk?)

For anyone interested, here's an update on this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034995/

For anyone interested, here's an update on this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034995/

Well that's a relief(except for people who like bashing the US)

For anyone interested, here's an update on this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034995/
Thanks. I said that last page, but I'm glad to see a link up.

No!!! This is unacceptable, unprecedented!!!

TOPPLE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!
Now now, the correct answer is just to shoot McCain and Feingold.

You make it sound like US people not being allowed to log on to General were a bad thing.

Quiet, you. :p

Bush bashing would get boring with nobody to defend him.
Wouldn't Corneliu and The UN abassadorship get temp travel visas to elsewhere so they could keep it up from a country not under the umbrella? ;)

I alerted you a couple of weeks ago to legislation -- introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul -- that will exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

The bill, H.R. 1606, was supposed to come to a vote on March 16, but it was inexplicably pulled from the House calendar. The good news is that bill is now back on the calendar, and it is scheduled for a vote as early as Wednesday.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is enacted, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary.. NSG COULD BE ONE OF THE ONES FORCED TO BE BLOCKED BY THE FEC BECAUSE OF OUR VARIOUS LEVELS OF CANDIDATE ADVOCACY

These regulations have resulted from two court opinions that followed the passage of the Incumbent Protection Act -- a law sponsored by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. One opinion upheld the McCain-Feingold law almost in its entirely [McConnell v. FEC]. In the other -- Shays v. Federal Election Commission -- judges ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet.

The FEC is still mightily fighting the court to minimize the regulation of the Internet. But who knows if they will prevail, or if a future administration will take a much different view. This is why H.R. 1606 is so important.

The danger, as it stands now, is that if Hensarling and Paul are unsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, many major blogs and web sites could one day be construed to be engaged in "electioneering communications" because they praise or criticize candidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60 days prior to an election -- or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" on what they are allowed to say.

Gotta Love that "Bipartisanship" :headbang:

If you live in the US, get on the phone - or use your email until they regulate that too.

Regulate Computers! Do it For The Children!

How DARE they!!!

I alerted you a couple of weeks ago to legislation -- introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul -- that will exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

The bill, H.R. 1606, was supposed to come to a vote on March 16, but it was inexplicably pulled from the House calendar. The good news is that bill is now back on the calendar, and it is scheduled for a vote as early as Wednesday.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is enacted, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary.. NSG COULD BE ONE OF THE ONES FORCED TO BE BLOCKED BY THE FEC BECAUSE OF OUR VARIOUS LEVELS OF CANDIDATE ADVOCACY

These regulations have resulted from two court opinions that followed the passage of the Incumbent Protection Act -- a law sponsored by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. One opinion upheld the McCain-Feingold law almost in its entirely [McConnell v. FEC]. In the other -- Shays v. Federal Election Commission -- judges ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet.

The FEC is still mightily fighting the court to minimize the regulation of the Internet. But who knows if they will prevail, or if a future administration will take a much different view. This is why H.R. 1606 is so important.

The danger, as it stands now, is that if Hensarling and Paul are unsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, many major blogs and web sites could one day be construed to be engaged in "electioneering communications" because they praise or criticize candidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60 days prior to an election -- or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" on what they are allowed to say.

Gotta Love that "Bipartisanship" :headbang:

If you live in the US, get on the phone - or use your email until they regulate that too.

Regulate Computers! Do it For The Children!

Slight problem. We are on a British Server with other forums and we are not a blog nor really a website AND we have other topics going on as well.

For anyone interested, here's an update on this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034995/

I guess the FEC realized the trouble it would be :D

Slight problem. We are on a British Server with other forums and we are not a blog nor really a website AND we have other topics going on as well.
They were talking about filtering out of country servers ... not shuting them down

That kind of law is what makes me feel like I'm being treated as a retarded child. Of course we'll all be hearing electioneering and campaign messages and all sorts of candidate advocacy come election time. That doesn't mean I'm going to look at NSG and say "Wow, this guy like this candidate, I guess I should too!" They shouldn't try to legislate what we see on the Internet like that.

It is perfectly healthy to hear other people's opinions about anything, especially in politics. Honestly I am sick and tired of being treated like I'm a stupid idiot. Because the legislators are doesn't mean I should be subjected to their idiocy.:eek:

this denies free speech:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: it will never get past the suprem cort( i hope *prepares to flee america if it does*....anyone know of a good uni in the uk?)

That's never stopped them before. You would be suprised what laws out there deny free speech as defined by someone out there. I don't blame you for wanting to leave but I don't think you need to go as far as the UK. Canada is usually the location of choice. I would consider it myself I didn't have a very nice college in the US that I will be going to.

So it is what US calls democracy? Heck just shut down the US Democrat and Republican web sites too!

So it is what US calls democracy? Heck just shut down the US Democrat and Republican web sites too!

I agree :)

This seems esoteric. Couldn't you make a thread relevant to the international community?

I agree :)

If the bill is badly written enough, some lawyer could get those sites to shutdown. Even maybe, the whitehouse web site! :)

Do you people read? There are at least four comments on this thread noting that the FEC has decided not to regulate political speech on the internet. I don't know when the OP was posted, but I didn't see it until after the FEC ruled, which leads me to believe that Syniks got twisted for absolutely no reason, and even if he posted before the FEC ruling, this discussion has been going on for about a year now, so at the very least, he was way the hell behind.

Do you people read? There are at least four comments on this thread noting that the FEC has decided not to regulate political speech on the internet. I don't know when the OP was posted, but I didn't see it until after the FEC ruled, which leads me to believe that Syniks got twisted for absolutely no reason, and even if he posted before the FEC ruling, this discussion has been going on for about a year now, so at the very least, he was way the hell behind.
The MSN report posted 2:46 p.m. ET March 27, 2006

I was pinged on this at 3:21 Monday the 27th.

I posted at 4:21 Monday the 27th.

My post mentiones the FEC trying to stop McCain Feingold's impact on the Internet.

The FEC is still mightily fighting the court to minimize the regulation of the Internet. But who knows if they will prevail, or if a future administration will take a much different view. This is why H.R. 1606 is so important.

but it also expresses concern that they may fail a court challange without the passage of H.R. 1606 - which was stalled.

Why was it stalled? If it was immaterial, why would they stall it?

So, yes, for now the FEC is standing firm. But with precedent against them and no force of law to support them, the only question is "when" they will buckle.

That's never stopped them before. You would be suprised what laws out there deny free speech as defined by someone out there. I don't blame you for wanting to leave but I don't think you need to go as far as the UK. Canada is usually the location of choice. I would consider it myself I didn't have a very nice college in the US that I will be going to.
Yes it has stopped them before. Laws get passed that limit free speech all the time and then they get tested by the court and struck down. Canada, the bastion of free speech, actually passed a law and it was upheld that banned Howard Stern from candian airwaves.

Please excuse the lapse in comprehension - but what exactly is the motivation behind this? To protect us from information that might allow us to make an informed decision or understand multiple points of view?

Read it, you fucking idiots! Any questions? No? GOOD.

I really thought better of both John McCain and ....John McCain is an Idiot.

John McCain is an Idiot.

You forgot Feingold, but 1 out of 2 is still better than you usually do. ;)

The MSN report posted 2:46 p.m. ET March 27, 2006

I was pinged on this at 3:21 Monday the 27th.

I posted at 4:21 Monday the 27th.

My post mentiones the FEC trying to stop McCain Feingold's impact on the Internet.



but it also expresses concern that they may fail a court challange without the passage of H.R. 1606 - which was stalled.

Why was it stalled? If it was immaterial, why would they stall it?

So, yes, for now the FEC is standing firm. But with precedent against them and no force of law to support them, the only question is "when" they will buckle.
Precedent isn't against them. The FEC was created by Congress to make rules just like this, and they've done that in the past and been upheld. The discussion over internet oversight was mandated by a court, and they've fulfilled that mandate, regulating one particular section involving ads and putting in statements that define what has to be considered "in kind" contributions. Everything I've read says that the bloggers, the group this was aimed at on both sides, are cool with the FEC rules and that they feel they're on safe legal ground. HR 1606 was always a backup plan in case the FEC punted on the issue, but they came up with a unanimous decision, so Congress doesn't need to get involved any further.

Precedent isn't against them. The FEC was created by Congress to make rules just like this, and they've done that in the past and been upheld. The discussion over internet oversight was mandated by a court, and they've fulfilled that mandate, regulating one particular section involving ads and putting in statements that define what has to be considered "in kind" contributions. Everything I've read says that the bloggers, the group this was aimed at on both sides, are cool with the FEC rules and that they feel they're on safe legal ground. HR 1606 was always a backup plan in case the FEC punted on the issue, but they came up with a unanimous decision, so Congress doesn't need to get involved any further.
Then why not make a law that absolutely prohibits it? You guys seem intent on doing that with all the various "anti-torture" legislation. In this case you are willing to trust the government to do the right thing? Why?

Then why not make a law that absolutely prohibits it? You guys seem intent on doing that with all the various "anti-torture" legislation. In this case you are willing to trust the government to do the right thing? Why?
You don't trust the government to do the right thing, yet you support giving the government the right to torture?

Then why not make a law that absolutely prohibits it? You guys seem intent on doing that with all the various "anti-torture" legislation. In this case you are willing to trust the government to do the right thing? Why?
The government has already done the right thing in this case. The FEC is charged with making regulations--it's part of their mandate given them by the Congress. What part of this don't you understand? At this point, HR 1606 is redundant given the FEC's rule-setting. What's more important at this point, HR 1606, as it stands, is good--but what chance does it have of making it through Congress unchanged? Not a chance in hell, and you know it. The rules are what bloggers and other free-speech advocates wanted--HR 1606 would likely be bastardized into an influence aiding machine, much like every other law that makes it through Congress is. Just leave it alone.

Yes it has stopped them before. Laws get passed that limit free speech all the time and then they get tested by the court and struck down. Canada, the bastion of free speech, actually passed a law and it was upheld that banned Howard Stern from candian airwaves.

I wish we could do the same here in the States. He's nuts.

I wish we could do the same here in the States. He's nuts.
And because you dont like him that justifies censoring him?

And because you dont like him that justifies censoring him?

Why do you think he's on satellite radio and not on any normal radio?

Why do you think he's on satellite radio and not on any normal radio?
Simple--the FCC can't fine him on satellite radio, not yet, anyway.

Why do you think he's on satellite radio and not on any normal radio?
Because the FCC is stupid ... Personaly I would rather they get out of moraly justifying language over the waves.

Simple--the FCC can't fine him on satellite radio, not yet, anyway.

I know but enough people complained about him so he moved..

I know but enough people complained about him so he moved..
Yep--he was targeted, and I believe fined unfairly, and he got a huge contract to move somewhere where he wouldn't have to sweat fines. But he wouldn't have moved without the big contract.

You don't trust the government to do the right thing, yet you support giving the government the right to torture?No and No. At least not to any reasonable definition of "torture".