-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Bloggers, chill out, says Democratic FEC
commissioner [fs]
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:59:33 -0600
From: Jim Davidson <davidson@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Dear Declan,
> By Ellen Weintraub
Ellen Weintraub should review recent events in Belgium, where
a million voters have just been told that their Vlaams Blok Party
is a criminal organization. Every member of that party and
everyone who has ever cooperated with it, even if he has not
committed any crimes himself, becomes a criminal by the mere
fact of membership in or cooperation with that party.
The Ghent verdict literally stated: "Rendering punishable every
person who belongs to or cooperates with a group or society [...]
serves as an efficient means to suppress such groups or societies,
as the lawmaker intended. Rendering punishable the members or
collaborators of the group or society inherently jeopardizes the
continued existence or functioning of the group or society."
Sure, this year, the Federal Election Commission isn't outlawing
the Libertarian Party or banishing private speech related to
campaigns. However, the fatuous supposition that the vicious
Federal Election Commission, Congress, the President, and the
Supreme Court who orchestrated this despicable restriction on
political speech have our best interests at stake or care about
our individual liberty is so puerile that it defies belief.
Of course these thugs plot to crack down on blogging. Of
course they hate private e-mail. Anyone vicious enough to make
it illegal for an advertiser to pay for a commercial expressing
a political opinion within sixty days of an election is vicious
enough to do any unconstitutional thing. The fact that the
President claimed he was signing the bill assuming it would be
struck down by the Supreme Court was, at best, an abdication of
his power to review the constitutionality of laws before approving
them.
However, it need not matter. The constitutionality of bad laws
is not something only for the Supreme Court to rule upon. As
Henry David Thoreau said, "why does every man have a conscience"
if we have to let nine old fools in bathrobes tell us what to
think? Of course it is time for civil disobedience. Of course
it is time for web loggers to accept paid advertising for
political speech within 60 days of the next election.
> The FEC regulates campaign finance. There's got to be some money
> involved, or it's out of our jurisdiction.
That's clearly not true. The FEC regulates campaign finance so
that incumbents get re-elected. As long as incumbents get
re-elected, it doesn't matter whether there's money involved or
not. The FEC is the same tool to keep Democrats and Republicans
in power that the so-called anti-discrimination law - which
reversed the burden of proof for Belgians - is in Belgian. Sure,
this year Ellen can pretend that the FEC is not about to shut
down private web logs expressing private opinions. Until there's
some reason to do so. If paid advertisements aren't accepted,
then the pretext will be that paid subscriptions are accepted - as
long as there's money around somewhere. Web loggers have to pay
for food, so that's enough of an excuse, right, Ellen?
> Congress, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,
By using the term "Bipartisan" Congress is clearly taking the
position that third parties are undesirable. Now that Belgium
has taken the step of making an entire minority party illegal,
how long until the members of the Green Party are rounded up
here in the USA? Time for death camps, again? Or will it be
kinder and gentler, this time, like it was for the Nisei?
> limited how one can pay for communications that are coordinated
> with political campaigns, including any form of "general public
> political advertising."
Why is general public political advertising a suitable activity
for Congress to make laws about, Ellen? Don't you read the
constitution? Congress shall make NO law abridging freedom of
speech or of the press. How can a law against general public
political advertising fail to be a law abridging free speech
or free press? Are we now to bow and pray before the nine old
codgers in dresses in the Supreme Court because they say that,
by magic, a law abridging free speech is not a law abridging
free speech?
In 1844, or thereabouts (you could look it up, when you have a
moment to read the constitution, Ellen) the Supreme Court made
Lysander Spooner's Republic Post unconstitutional. About 135
years later, they revisited the issue and made Freddie Smith's
Federal Express constitutional. It was about a decade later,
in the 1850s anyway, when the Supreme Court made Dred Scott
not an American, upheld the fugitive slave laws, and ratcheted
the country that much closer to secession, either of the north
or of the South. Even the Supremes make mistakes. Their Blanton
doctrine is a mistake. Their "separate but equal" was a mistake.
> The commission issued a regulation defining those communications
> to exempt anything transmitted over the Internet. A judge struck
> down that regulation as inconsistent with the law.
And any judge will do. As long as the FEC can pretend that it is
powerless to appeal, nobody can hold their feet to the fire. There
is, however, plenty of good reason why the president of Bolivia
lives in "The Burnt House."
Abolish political speech, abolish third parties, abolish privately
financed outsider candidates, and you move things that much closer
to violent rebellions and revolution.
> So now we're under a judicial mandate to consider whether anything
> short of a blanket exemption that will do.
The FEC seems to want to be under a judicial mandate. Otherwise,
the FEC would appeal. Crying crocodile tears about the judicial
mandate is not very plausible.
Freedom comes at a very high price. It calls for men and women
to stand up and declare themselves free. One need not tear down
the tyrants. Just stop holding them up.
Regards,
Jim
http://indomitus.net/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] FEC Commissioner warns of coming blogging
crackdown [fs]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:43:40 -0500
From: Jim DeLong <jdelong@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Declan --
I cited to you, and linked to Bainbridge, who already has a lot of
trackbacks).
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/03/campaigns_the_i_1.html
Also -- look at the afternoon's TechDaily.
And, as I said presciently four years ago in Reason
(http://reason.com/0008/fe.jd.free.shtml)
"What many "reformers" really fear is not the power of money but the
power of ideas, especially ideas skeptical of government. The true
agenda is to suppress these; the corrupting influence of money is simply
a convenient rationale.
"Exhibit A for this conclusion is the reformers' attitude toward the
Internet, which is becoming the newest "loophole." Instead of rejoicing
that the new medium reduces the costs of communication and thus creates
great opportunities to cut the tie between money and political speech,
the FEC has tried to use the fact that it costs some money as a
jurisdictional hook to limit it."
Best,
Jim
James V. DeLong
Senior Fellow & Director -- Center for the
Study of Digital Property
Progress & Freedom Foundation
1401 H St., NW -- Suite 1075
Washington, DC 20005
202-289-8928
jdelong@private
www.IPcentral.Info
www.pff.org
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] FEC Commissioner warns of coming blogging
crackdown [fs]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:15:46 -0500
From: James M. Ray <jray@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <42278CD5.7020309@private>
At 5:16 PM -0500 3/3/05, Declan McCullagh wrote:
.....
Wow, scary stuff, Declan.
I think this answer is the important part:
You asked...
DM Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?
DM
B
B Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's
B not clear the Internet is either of those.
(I think this will be the Supremes' way around the issue, with
nice language, perhaps by Scalia, saying that bloggers and
other online media are really "periodically broadcasting" their
views to the internet! I am worried about Bush appointees'
possible interpretations, though...)
B Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger,
B anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated
B Internet that the judge objected to.
B
There's no standard I know of (though there are various
credentials, issued to various people for various reasons,
as recent scandal indicates!) for being a journalist, either.
And some of what the judge objects-to about the internet
is what most people probably LIKE about it! She needs to
live and let-live.
B Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission
B would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.
I'm uncomfortable with the commission's very existence,
and I somehow survive it. Maybe this move will be SO
unpopular that the Bush administration will actually find
it politically advantageous to eliminate an agency?! Hey,
go for broke on the regulations, disregard my rantings. ;)
JMR
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Bloggers, chill out, says Democratic FEC
commissioner [fs]
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:44:44 -0800
From: Da'ud X Mohammed <webmaster@private>
Organization: Oregon Coast News Signal
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <422DCE0E.6080204@private>
Hullo Declan,
Forget "Chill out!" When they start counting "in-kind" as "some money",
then we're right back where we were. Be afraid, as usual
wa-salaam
dxm
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Mar 11 2005 - 09:39:04 PST