Every time I think the Republicans have gone too far and I can't vote for them anymore (and this happens a *lot* these days) the Democrats go and show why I can't vote for them either.
The stuck a provision onto a bill that would require Bloggers with more than 500 readers to register as lobbyists ><
(edit: incredibly bad spelling)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Every time I think the Republican's have gone to far and I can't vote for them anymore (and this happens a *lot* these days) the Democrats go and show why I can't vote for them either.
Wow, Pix, that sums up how I feel too.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Why wouldn't this make you not vote for the Democrat who inserted the provision, and/or the Democrats who voted for it, rather than "the Democrats" in general?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tp be fair, it was bloggers who received $25k or more a quarter from a client and whose blog was intended to convince 500 or more readers to contact Congress.
Doesn't change my mind about the bill - I still think it's horrible - but full context is better here.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Every time I think the Republican's have gone to far and I can't vote for them anymore (and this happens a *lot* these days) the Democrats go and show why I can't vote for them either.
Wow, Pix, that sums up how I feel too.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
From your links, it's unclear what party actually submitted the bill, but what is clear is that a lot of Dems voted against its repeal. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not sure that a blogger who is receiving 25 thousand a quarter (that'd be $100 thousand a year) to encourage grassroots lobbying shouldn't be subject to the same registration requirements as a lobbying firm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Direct contacts with Congress might need to be monitored to ensure that Congress members don't violate rules - this is the only basis for lobbyist registration that I think is constitutional.
Attempts to convince the public to exercise one of their enumerated first amendment rights in a particular manner? That's not lobbying, it's public advocacy. I don't want that much government involvement in free speech or freedom to petition the government.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
All part of the Dems flexing their uber muscle, their majority of one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here's a much better summary, with less fearmongering and axe-grinding than Pix's second link. Notably, "...the rules only apply to people who are paid by clients to encourage the public to contact Congress about specific legislation."
[And even then, as Dagonee notes, only if they're paid more than a certain amount.]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, thinking it over, I think I agree with you. Except -- are there any other requirements that would require people engaging in public advocacy to disclose whether or not they're being paid to do so?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Like, for example, Richard Viguerie, who might well have had to disclose who's paying him had S.1 passed with Section 220 included.
[Viguerie's statements on S.1 Section 220 are Pix's second link.]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks, Twinky.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who's they?
The dems proposed this bill, or some democratic senator floated the bill inadvisadly? Or it's altogether to do with some other group?
Even the articles are totally unclear as to how possible this bill actually is or was- it just says "congress is doing this... wow that's nuts." You only feed the flames by saying "the dems did this, so the republicans did this," while this is likely to be a very common occurrence of incompetence on all sides, not least of which was the person who drafted and edited the bill- not likely a member of the senate themselves.
Why go and point fingers and make a stir about a bill that congress as a whole was smart enough to notice and quash? It doesn't really matter to me who does that, it's a stupid bill and any smart person in congress would, if informed about it, work to stop it.
The bill didn't pass right? So who's "fault" is this? Is congress supposed to consider only smart and passable bills? I doubt it- not the way everything else in life seems to work!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Pix, have you ever considered joining the Shvestercrat party?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except -- are there any other requirements that would require people engaging in public advocacy to disclose whether or not they're being paid to do so?
I think there are potential conflict of interest issues that should require disclosure, but not for mere opinion-blogging.
For example, when licensed professionals advocate something using their professional expertise, conflicts should be disclosed. For example, if I said "this will-in-a-box is perfect for anyone who doesn't want to use a lawyer to make a will," I should have to disclose my financial interest in will-in-a-box.
On the advocacy front, the clearer example I can think of is pharmaceutical regulation. If a doctor is advocating a vaccine be made mandatory, financial interest in the vaccine maker should be disclosed. On the legal front, I can't think of a concrete example right now that doesn't violate client privilege. (Doctors shouldn't disclose paitent-related conflicts, of course.)
Outside licensed professionals, who accept many restrictions on speech in exchange for the benefits of the profession, I'm much more hesitant. I won't say there aren't such circumstances, but they'd more likely related to commercial advocacy, not political advocacy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In case people don't want to follow my link, there's one other thing about S.1 that needs to be made absolutely crystal clear:
quote:...the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate. What's more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year's S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
twinky, that doesn't tell us anything about this provision, because this provision was added in an amendment, not the original bill.
We need to know who offerred the amendment and who voted for it originally.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
S.2349 included exactly the same Section 220 -- the provision we're discussing -- as the new S.1.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I guess whether or not it should be legislated is iffy. But I'd sure like to know whether someone passionately advocating on an issue is passionate about the issue, or about the $100,000 s/he's being paid to advocate on it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pixiest's link actually speaks to who voted for and against the provision to remove the bit where bloggers would have to notify congress, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, thanks for the info.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess whether or not it should be legislated is iffy. But I'd sure like to know whether someone passionately advocating on an issue is passionate about the issue, or about the $100,000 s/he's being paid to advocate on it.
There ought to be a away to make a representation that one has no financial interest in a position that could lead to legal sanction were the representation wrong.
This would allow people to either be silent on the issue or to declare their interest in a way that someone could believe. If enough people ignored anyone who didn't make such a statement, we'd encourage people to make them (assuming they want to be an effective advocate).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties...was introduced by Senator David Vitter (Republican-LA)..." I also noticed that The Pixiest didn't link to the SlashDot article. But did link to the vote to strike Amendment 3, rather than to strike Amendment 7.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Huh. So, how about a link to the vote on Amendment 7?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
For reference, here is Section 220:
quote:SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.
(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by adding at the end of the following:
`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--
`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--
(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.
(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by--
(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and
(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.
(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:
`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.
`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.
(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.
Added: One more thing -- I don't see how being forced to disclose who pays your bills restricts your freedom of speech.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure it does - the same way being required to pay a poll tax and being required to pass a literacy exam restricts your freedom to vote. Setting roadblocks in the way of the exercise of a right is often curtailing it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Those analogies don't hold, because they actually prevented people from doing things. Having to list your backers doesn't impede your ability to speak or publish.
What you're calling a "roadblock" amounts to filling out a form.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Filling out that form requires the cultural literacy to know that you have to, where to get it, and possibly the funds to consult a lawyer. It is a burden, like the literacy tests.
After all, for those, all you have to do is take a simple test.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Added: One more thing -- I don't see how being forced to disclose who pays your bills restricts your freedom of speech.
Being required to register before speaking is a government-imposed impediment to speaking. Further, it requires you to pay a price - public disclosure of information others are allowed to keep private - as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.
Anonymous advocacy is well-founded in the free-speech traditions under which the first amendment is interpreted (see Publius, for example). For one SCOTUS take on it, see McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N (1995):
quote:Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. S. Mill, On Liberty, in On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation - and their ideas from suppression - at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its interest in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio's blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Filling out that form requires the cultural literacy to know that you have to, where to get it, and possibly the funds to consult a lawyer.
Here are the criteria, from Section 220:
quote:`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
People keep insinuating that Section 220 would force Joe Sixpack Blogger who writes politically activist op-ed on his personal website to disclose how he funds his his blogging activities, and then stating that this impinges on his freedom of speech. Leaving aside the second part, the first part isn't even true. We're talking about people who are willing to spend or be paid US$100,000 annually to astroturf. I simply don't see your cultural literacy concerns coming into play.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Being required to register before speaking is a government-imposed impediment to speaking. Further, it requires you to pay a price - public disclosure of information others are allowed to keep private - as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.
This argument I can at least understand. Your laws are very different from ours in this respect, and every time I encounter this difference I never fail to be astonished by how alien the American standard feels to me.
quote:Anonymous advocacy is well-founded in the free-speech traditions under which the first amendment is interpreted (see Publius, for example).
The astroturfer isn't anonymous, it's the financial backers who are anonymous. Legally, does financing someone else's advocacy count as advocacy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love the free speech laws in America. Did you read the case Dagonee linked to?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No. It would have taken considerably longer than the 20 minutes or so that I spent on my post. I might read it this weekend, though.
I love the restricted-speech laws here in Canada, so I guess that makes us even.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The astroturfer isn't anonymous, it's the financial backers who are anonymous. Legally, does financing someone else's advocacy count as advocacy?
There are numerous cases upholding the right to associate as part of free speech and upholding the right to keep the associates anonymous.
I have no clue if this would pass muster or not under those cases. The fact that the targeted speech is not aimed at lobbying but at encouraging others to lobby - i.e., is aimed at the public, not Congress - makes me think the greater protection would be afforded than is afforded lobbyists making contact with Congress.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, how would a "Truth in Advertising" law for political speech be seen in light of the "Freedom of Speech". I am not suggesting a law that says all opinions must be 100% fact checked, but one stating that all facts in a political endorsement must be fact checked and truthful as far as the speaker knows.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, how would a "Truth in Advertising" law for political speech be seen in light of the "Freedom of Speech". I am not suggesting a law that says all opinions must be 100% fact checked, but one stating that all facts in a political endorsement must be fact checked and truthful as far as the speaker knows.
I suspect it would be similar to the libel laws - reckless disregard for the truth would have to be shown to create liability.
That's a total guess, though. I have no idea if there's a standard already in place or not.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The astroturfer isn't anonymous, it's the financial backers who are anonymous. Legally, does financing someone else's advocacy count as advocacy?
There are numerous cases upholding the right to associate as part of free speech and upholding the right to keep the associates anonymous.
I have no clue if this would pass muster or not under those cases. The fact that the targeted speech is not aimed at lobbying but at encouraging others to lobby - i.e., is aimed at the public, not Congress - makes me think the greater protection would be afforded than is afforded lobbyists making contact with Congress.
Interesting. Thanks. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Twinky: You should go over to Ornery and read Pete's thread about the guy who was fined thousands of (canadian) dollars for bad mouthing gay people in canada.
(Insert lame monopoly money joke)
I have problems with the goverment curtailing free speech even if the person being insulted/belittled/dehumanized is Me.
Tante: Unfortunately the Shvestercrats rely far too heavily on big government for my taste. Though I do like some of their other issues.
aspecter: I linked to the links provided by slashdot. This was their second story on this issue.
[ January 19, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Would the sort of payments we're talking about here end up being disclosed in the blogger's tax returns, anyway? Assuming they'l filing their taxes honestly, of course.
Added: Also, I guess I don't know if tax returns are public record. You always hear about people checking politicians tax returns, but I don't know if only certain people are required to disclose them. And if the blogger doesn't give their real name anywhere, you couldn't find their return anyway, so it wouldn't matter.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Twinky: You should go over to Ornery and read Pete's thread about the guy who was fined thousands of (canadian) dollars for bad mouthing gay people in canada.
Specifically, Saskatchewan, in a civil action under their Provincial Human Rights Code. He was not prosecuted criminally at the federal level under the hate speech section of the Criminal Code of Canada, though he was investigated.
Added: By the way, Pete didn't link his source, but it was the Western Standard. Not exactly The Globe and Mail or the CBC.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Twinky: and you don't have a problem with that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would the sort of payments we're talking about here end up being disclosed in the blogger's tax returns, anyway? Assuming they'l filing their taxes honestly, of course.
Yes, but 1) that's not public info except when disclosed, 2) it's not necessarily identifiable to the blogger even if disclosed by name, and 3) it's not tied to specific expressions of speech.
There are financial disclosures that politicians must file, but not the tax returns.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pix:
The civil action, the fine, the investigation, the lack of criminal prosecution, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, or the Criminal Code of Canada?
I've been over my views on the [last] at some length on this forum.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
twinky: the fact you can sue someone for insulting your group. You're fine with THAT?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thanks, Dags. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: twinky: the fact you can sue someone for insulting your group. You're fine with THAT?
It wasn't a lawsuit, it was a human rights complaint (different kind of civil action). Added: Also, "insult" is a pretty loose descriptor. Did you read anything other than Pete's source?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
He basically equated all gay people to pedophiles and yadda yadda the kinda stuff we hear all the time from SSM debate newbies. IIRC, there were quotes from a better source down the list. Pete's source was the guy who got fined which was entirely biased, of course. "I added very little of my own comentary" BULL! His comentary was full of inflamatory and acusatory hate filled venom.
But he shouldn't have been fined/sued/whatever-you-canadians-do over it.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Interesting. I was under the impression that this law was a lot worse than it actually is. Some of the articles I've read have implied that all bloggers who comment on a political issue might be subject to penalties. How many bloggers actually get paid $25,000 per quarter to stimulate grassroots lobbying? Heck, how many make that much income at all (let alone that much income from their blog)? I'm hoping that the people who wrote those articles just didn't do their homework--the one Pix linked to explicitly states that "paid" isn't defined.
I'll have to think about this one now--I can see how it could be reasonable to ask people getting paid huge sums like that to disclose conflicts of interest. I'd certainly consider it borderline unethical to pretend that you were just spouting your own opinion while you were really getting paid to say it. Dagonee's solution of penalties for falsely claiming no conflict of interest would probably be much better than a registration system like this.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Eh, I have a bigger problem with Republicans who try to block ethics reform to give the President more power (line-item veto) when it is clear that he is going against the majority opinion by escalating the war in Iraq, considering going to war in Iran and Syria, and vetoing stem cell research when the first bill passed a Republican-controlled Congress. So much for checks and balances government.
And if I'm understanding, the bill was introduced by Republicans, not Democrats. Besides, frankly I don't see this as enough as a reason not to vote for Democrats. Individuals trying to get people to contact Congress to exert influence is the same thing as trying to exert influence, which is exactly what lobbyists do.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
7 Democrats voted to keep it legal; all others voted against the amendment.
Lordy, how close we get to losing the most basic rights.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: He basically equated all gay people to pedophiles and yadda yadda the kinda stuff we hear all the time from SSM debate newbies. IIRC, there were quotes from a better source down the list. Pete's source was the guy who got fined which was entirely biased, of course. "I added very little of my own comentary" BULL! His comentary was full of inflamatory and acusatory hate filled venom.
To clarify, Pete posted the entire Western Standard article, "Compassionate Stalinism," without actually linking it. He also posted and linked a snippet of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal decision. I doubt Pete is a registered reader of the Western Standard; I imagine he got the article from the only other place where the full text was freely available online before he posted it, which is here (specifically, here).
Looking at the tribunal decision, which enumerates the submitted evidence, the Western Standard doesn't describe Whatcott's flyers and actions very accurately. The Western Standard also doesn't jive with the CBC coverage I linked above -- though it's strange that Whatcott would want to disparage former Defence Minister and former Liberal Party Interim Leader Bill Graham in the course of his (ongoing) crusade against gays and lesbians. Perhaps it's because the definition of marriage was changed to eliminate gender under the auspices of the Liberals.
In any case:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But he shouldn't have been fined/sued/whatever-you-canadians-do over it.
One of the more important questions before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in this specific case was whether Section 14 of the provincial Human Rights Code violated Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (that is, freedom of expression), and, if so, whether it constituted a reasonable restriction, which is allowable under the Charter.
Not having personally seen the evidence, I'm not willing to say unequivocally that I agree with the tribunal's decision. However, I think you understate the case when you use the word "insult" to describe Whatcott's actions; he distributed thousands of flyers over a period of more than a year, and continues to distribute them now after having been fined.
There's a difference between Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (prohibited hate speech) and Section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code; the latter goes significantly further and is more broad in the what it prohibits. I mention 319(2) because it's the law I've spoken in defence of at some length on this forum in the past. Essentially, I think certain restrictions on freedom of expression are reasonable, and that S.319(2) is one of them.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Dagonee's solution of penalties for falsely claiming no conflict of interest would probably be much better than a registration system like this.
I agree. I meant to mention earlier that I thought that was a good idea.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Let me add: yes, the Democrats were the lion's share of supporting this monstrosity. But, fellow non-Democrats, let's not imagine that we can make Democrats give up their party allegiance on the basis of such a whopper (at least until we get John McCain out!).
Instead, I say to Democrats: these are your leaders. Straighten them out! Write them letters saying how displeased you are with their votes (with the exception of those 7 senators, of course). Make your party as responsible as it can be. Why wouldn't you? It's _your_ party.
I'll promise you this: if my senators voted for this bill, whatever the party, I'll do the same.
If not, well, consider how close the vote was. Next time it may go the other way.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Twinky: so long as he wasn't calling for violence who cares what poison he distributed, how long he distributed it or even if he's distributing it now?
Free speech is more important than hurt feelings.
And I say this as someone who is very *sensitive* to the very issues he's spiting his bile at. Heck, I get upset when people use "gay" as a swear word, much less compare us to pedophiles.
He can be homophobic. He can be a racist. He can be anti-semetic. He can be a mysogynist. He can hate anyone and everyone and he can put it on fliers and show everyone in the world what an obscene jackass he is.
You can throw the flyer away and ignore him and do your best not to let it bug you. You can console yourself that his loneliness and bitterness will be his punishment. But he has to have the right to be the festering pile of pig manure that he is.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm disappointed that the democratic senator from my state voted to keep this in the bill. I'm also disappointed by news sites that failed to mention that bit about the $25,000 per quarter. I saw the Slashdot article, and it was implied that bloggers in general would be subject to penalties. (Honest mistake? Free speech should be defended by any means, including misleading the public? Hiding something?)
It's kind of like the difference between going after all people who post anything about a product on a forum and going after those who were actually paid by a company to post and then slip in an ad once in awhile. I'm not saying it's okay to regulate either, but the first scenario is a lot worse. Also, the second scenario is just a slimy thing to do, even if it should remain legal.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Having honest bloggers is slimy?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
No. Taking money to post on a forum so you can pretend that your promotion of a product is your own honest opinion rather than something you were paid to say is slimy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pix, what's your point? You brought this diversion up apparently assuming I'd be horrified by this case and would immediately retract my statement that I'm quite happy with the extant federal restrictions on freedom of expression in my country. I don't remember you posting in the previous threads on that particular topic here, but I've already stated that I've been over it at length multiple times here, and that no, not everyone agrees that your take on freedom of expression is as self-evidently true as you seem to think it is.
Simply pointing to it more and stating that it's bad isn't going to convince me of anything, if that's even your goal. You're also attacking a specific position that I haven't even taken, since I've said I'm undecided on the case you're referring to. You've also pointedly refrained from acknowledging that you made at least one assertion in your OP that has since been shown to be at best incomplete, at worst outright false. Your condemnation of S.1 Section 220 doesn't seem to have much -- if anything -- to do with its actual content, but seems instead to be based on the over-the-top fearmongering of your second link... yet you haven't retracted that, or even elaborated on it.
Hell, even the title of this thread is misleading.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Let me add: yes, the Democrats were the lion's share of supporting this monstrosity. But, fellow non-Democrats, let's not imagine that we can make Democrats give up their party allegiance on the basis of such a whopper (at least until we get John McCain out!).
Instead, I say to Democrats: these are your leaders. Straighten them out! Write them letters saying how displeased you are with their votes (with the exception of those 7 senators, of course). Make your party as responsible as it can be. Why wouldn't you? It's _your_ party.
I'll promise you this: if my senators voted for this bill, whatever the party, I'll do the same.
If not, well, consider how close the vote was. Next time it may go the other way.
I haven't read this entire thread, but from what I've glossed over, this bill doesn't bother me that much. The aim seems to be, to stop candidates from paying bloggers to be "grass roots" support and to promote their agenda. Having them report whatever to the FEC or whoever, doesn't bother me.
Now if the bloggers raised their own cash, and promoted their own cause, independent of the candidates, then I'd have a problem with it, but it looks like they're trying to get candidates who pay bloggers to own up to them as employees, which seems fair.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:"...Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties...was introduced by Senator David Vitter (Republican-LA)..."
That's all I needed to know to back-up my feeling that this was a bad idea. Nothing good has ever from from Vitter.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't read this entire thread, but from what I've glossed over, this bill doesn't bother me that much. The aim seems to be, to stop candidates from paying bloggers to be "grass roots" support and to promote their agenda. Having them report whatever to the FEC or whoever, doesn't bother me.
Now if the bloggers raised their own cash, and promoted their own cause, independent of the candidates, then I'd have a problem with it, but it looks like they're trying to get candidates who pay bloggers to own up to them as employees, which seems fair.
That turns out not to be the case. The reporting requirements were applied to anyone (not bloggers in particular) who ask people to write their Congressman. There was no exception for people who aren't being paid by candidates.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then what's the deal with the $25,000 per quarter thing?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Will is incorrect, they would have had to be paid, but not necessarily by candidates.
If the makers of Ivory soap paid a blogger $25 thousand or more in any three month period to encourage people to write to their congressperson encouraging him/her to ban lavender scented bath soap that blogger would have had to register as a lobbyist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In fact, almost certainly not by candidates - this is about people attempting to influence elected officials, not getting people elected. Different rules cover that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If the makers of Ivory soap paid a blogger $25 thousand or more in any three month period to encourage people to write to their congressperson encouraging him/her to ban lavender scented bath soap that blogger would have had to register as a lobbyist.
Given that description, I'm in favor of the bill. You just described a lobbyist perfectly, why shouldn't they have to follow the same rules?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Will is incorrect, they would have had to be paid, but not necessarily by candidates.
If the makers of Ivory soap paid a blogger $25 thousand or more in any three month period to encourage people to write to their congressperson encouraging him/her to ban lavender scented bath soap that blogger would have had to register as a lobbyist.
Don't put it like that or it won't sound unreasonable!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You just described a lobbyist perfectly, why shouldn't they have to follow the same rules?
No, she didn't describe a lobbyist perfectly. She described someone attempting to get others to be a lobbyist.
quote:Don't put it like that or it won't sound unreasonable!
It still sounds plenty unreasonable to me. Convincing others to exhibit particular political behavior - whether that behavior be voting for a candidate or petitioning the government for redress - is the absolute heart of the first amendment. Government regulation of that in the face of our supposed commitment to the First Amendment is unreasonable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe we're using two different definitions of a lobbyist Dag.
When a corporation pays someone to LOBBY someone else, be it a private citizen or a member of Congress, then I think the person being paid is a lobbyist. Lobbyists really wear both hats anyway, they aren't just passing out campaign funds, a lot of the time they are also playing a PR war. Paying a private citizen to lobby for a corporation to other private citizens, regardless of the medium, is still a lobbyist.
How is the paid middle man somehow exempt in your scenario?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When a corporation pays someone to LOBBY someone else, be it a private citizen or a member of Congress, then I think the person being paid is a lobbyist.
Yes, but unless that someone else is a specific type of person - a government official of some kind, usually - there aren't any registration requirements.
In my scenario, the paid middleman is not lobbying the government. He's lobbying private citizens. And I want the government out of that entirely, except for enforcing fraud laws and such.
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
Free speech sucks!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Arrest Darth for saying that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:When a corporation pays someone to LOBBY someone else, be it a private citizen or a member of Congress, then I think the person being paid is a lobbyist.
Yes, but unless that someone else is a specific type of person - a government official of some kind, usually - there aren't any registration requirements.
In my scenario, the paid middleman is not lobbying the government. He's lobbying private citizens. And I want the government out of that entirely, except for enforcing fraud laws and such.
So you don't think the middle man isn't a lobbyist, you're just distunguishing between TYPES of lobbyists. I think it's just a matter of degrees, and in this case the degrees aren't necessarily enough to give them a free hand.
I suppose, that instead of registration, a compromise would be that the blogger, or lobbyists, or whatever medium the lobbyist going after private citizens chooses to use, must openly display where they get their funding from before they try and convince anyone of anything.
There's two scenarios here:
1. Lobbyist X, working for Corporation Z gives Candidate Y 100K for his campaign fund, then Candidate Y goes back to his district to tell his constituents all about the wonders of Lobbyist X's platform.
2. Lobbyist X, working for Corporation Z, is given 100K by Corporation Z to tell all the constituents about the wonders of Corporation Z's platform, and how they should tell Candidate Y all about it.
In scenario one, the corporation and the lobbyist have paid the candidate to more or less be their lobbyist, but in the end he's really just lobbying to private citizens. It's a means to an end. Lobbyist X hasn't changed. He's still a private citizen, being paid by Corporation Z, to sell the exact same agenda, and with the exact same endgame in mind (of Candidate Y voting to support it), he's only flip flopped the process a little bit. And that to me, doesn't seem like enough to dismiss the rules we have in place for lobbyists.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Let me add: yes, the Democrats were the lion's share of supporting this monstrosity. But, fellow non-Democrats, let's not imagine that we can make Democrats give up their party allegiance on the basis of such a whopper (at least until we get John McCain out!).
Instead, I say to Democrats: these are your leaders. Straighten them out! Write them letters saying how displeased you are with their votes (with the exception of those 7 senators, of course). Make your party as responsible as it can be. Why wouldn't you? It's _your_ party.
I'll promise you this: if my senators voted for this bill, whatever the party, I'll do the same.
If not, well, consider how close the vote was. Next time it may go the other way
I wish edit: more 'non-Democrats' felt as keenly about anti-obscenity/porn laws as they did about the money side of speech.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I do, actually.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*Puts gold star on Shigosei's forehead*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, I'm not actually sure it's cricket to speak badly of someone's argument where they can't respond. Someone might want to link this thread over to the one on Ornery and ask for his reply. I'm sure he'd be delighted to weigh in on the issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Persuading members of congress to enact something makes someone a lobbyist.
Persuading members of the public to write letters to members of congress does NOT. It is one step removed. Presumably the people writing letters to the congress members are not lobbyists? Or should we have everyone registers who writes a letter?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Eh, it's just because right now I'm better equipped to engage in obscenity-related free speech than money-related free speech. Though if I did the former, perhaps I would then be able to do the latter...
Maybe when I have money I'll want to protect that while banning porn. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So you don't think the middle man isn't a lobbyist, you're just distunguishing between TYPES of lobbyists.
So are essentially all the laws regarding lobbyists on the books, Lyrhawn. It's not like I decided that this is an important distinction - it is one. "Lobbying" for purposes of lobbying laws and regulations has always been related to getting a government official to act in a certain way.
You're broad definition of "lobbying" as lobbying anyone might be dictionary accurate, but it's a superset of the activities lobbying-related laws attempt to regulate.
quote:I think it's just a matter of degrees, and in this case the degrees aren't necessarily enough to give them a free hand.
As I stated earlier, I think that the direct contact with lawmakers is the only thing that might justify requiring registration - and I'm not convinced of that at all.
quote:I suppose, that instead of registration, a compromise would be that the blogger, or lobbyists, or whatever medium the lobbyist going after private citizens chooses to use, must openly display where they get their funding from before they try and convince anyone of anything.
Something that ignores almost all the concerns related to anonymity of speech - a protection I'm not willing to give up.
quote:In scenario one, the corporation and the lobbyist have paid the candidate to more or less be their lobbyist, but in the end he's really just lobbying to private citizens. It's a means to an end.
This transaction is covered by campaign finance laws already.
quote:Lobbyist X, working for Corporation Z, is given 100K by Corporation Z to tell all the constituents about the wonders of Corporation Z's platform, and how they should tell Candidate Y all about it. In scenario one, the corporation and the lobbyist have paid the candidate to more or less be their lobbyist, but in the end he's really just lobbying to private citizens. It's a means to an end. Lobbyist X hasn't changed. He's still a private citizen, being paid by Corporation Z, to sell the exact same agenda, and with the exact same endgame in mind (of Candidate Y voting to support it), he's only flip flopped the process a little bit. And that to me, doesn't seem like enough to dismiss the rules we have in place for lobbyists.
But in flip-flopping that process, he's no longer in contact with members of the government. "Selling an agenda" is not a bad thing - it's something at the heart of first amendment protections. The default position should be no government burdens on speech.
People don't like to hear slippery slope arguments, but I hate hate hate the way we make exceptions to a cherished principle and then use that exception as a beachhead to further assault the principle. Requiring registration of people exercising their first amendment right to petition the government is a huge concession to first amendment principles. We shouldn't be looking at new burdens based on how close they are to the existing burdens, but on how far they are from the constitutional default position of no burdens.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I want to point out, too, that just pointing out that person A gets money from organization B is relatively meaningless in terms of evaluating the truthfulness and veracity of an argument. If you look at how many corporations spend their money on organizations, they often give money to organizations that are on what people would often perceive as being on the opposite side of an issue. Thus, Exxon funds globalwarming.org and various environmental organizations. Various corporations give to both parties, if not equally, at least not inconsiderably.
Further, even if an organization gives its money only to one group, that doesn't mean that that group's message is wrong. It just means it's biased. But that is something that is usually clear to anyone with half a brain cell.
I don't have a problem with people funding speech that promotes ideology or candidate. What seems to me to be the real problem is giving money or position to candidates or political groups directly for favors.
Of course, how do you determine what is speech and what is just supporting a political party's platform for a favor? I think for me the line is where a politician actually profits from donations. That is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to contribute to a PAC or a party or a re-election campaign, and make the stipulation that a candidate can't directly profit from those donations.
I know this leaves windows of opportunity open, but it's the best compromise I can think of at the moment. In the end, money is part of politics, and you just have to look at who is paying for which politician.
On the other side of the issue, I want to point out that cronyism is absolutely a problem. Saying that one is for speech isn't the same as saying that one is for corruption or political favors. I hope those that decry the amendment to this bill realize that it *is* a legitimate issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Something that ignores almost all the concerns related to anonymity of speech - a protection I'm not willing to give up.
Explain that. Some blogger posting under a pseudonym gives up their anonymity by saying "oh yeah, and all my funding comes from Corporation X"?
Further on that note, and to address Sax, I don't believe that knowing where funding comes from, or that funding itself, has anything at all to do with the truthfulness or lack thereof, of a position. I think it has to do with how much scrutiny we pay them. People, I think, are willing to give independent organizations the benefit of the doubt, or for that matter are willing to trust people and organizations more if they are viewed as not being beholden to anyone. I don't necessarily think that says anything about how true or untrue the position is either, but I think that when we a blogger who supports "clean coal" and tells you to write your congressman about this great new source of practically free, environmentally friendly energy, but you see a nice bold sign underneath it that they are being paid by a coal conglomerate, you'll take everything they say with a grain of salt and you'll check your own facts before writing your congressman so your opinion is actually informed.
Ideally we'd always have an informed opinion on something before we write our congressmen, then again, ideally we actually write them at all.
I don't necessarily see the big distinction between lobbying in this case. The endgame of THIS lobbying is STILL to get a law made. I'm not talking about the difference between lobbying my grocery store to add Nutella to the shelves (which seriously, they should), or lobbying a local restaurant to use more local farm produce, I'm talking specifically about interest groups trying to get laws made via lobbyists, which is far more specific than just the general dictionary definition of lobbying.
The registration thing I don't really care about. I guess my specific problem is the money changing hands. If I tell a friend of mine to vote for whoever, or to write whoever, I don't see a problem with it, I'm acting in my own self interest. If Exxon pays me 100K to tell my friends to vote for their candidate, or to write candidates on behalf of their cause, then I'm their employee, for all intents and purposes, I'm representing them, and I think as a representative, I should have to tell them that I do in fact represent them, otherwise I think it's misleading and fraudulant not to.
I'd be satisfied with that. With just reporting who you work for. I don't care what your name is really, I don't care where you live or what you do, but when you're paid by someone to sell a specific message, I want to know who is bankrolling you. I don't see how that's a burden at all, and I don't see how that forces them to give up their anonymity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm curious about how these new regulations would compare to other media. Does someone writing a letter to the editor have to disclose whether or not they are being paid to write that letter? Might a newspaper check? How about someone making a commercial/ad for a cause. Don't those usually have "small print" in them? TV has some regulations due to it being "public airways", does the internet have a similar status as "public"? Should it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Some blogger posting under a pseudonym gives up their anonymity by saying "oh yeah, and all my funding comes from Corporation X"
Corporation X gives up their anonymity.
quote:Further on that note, and to address Sax, I don't believe that knowing where funding comes from, or that funding itself, has anything at all to do with the truthfulness or lack thereof, of a position. I think it has to do with how much scrutiny we pay them.
I have suggested a way to enable enforcement of honesty, but not forced disclosure, of communication. Make it illegal to say "I am not receiving money to say X" if one is, in fact, receiving money. Make it be resworn with each individual communication. But don't make it mandatory.
If people care, they can start ignoring communication without that certification.
quote:The endgame of THIS lobbying is STILL to get a law made.
I refuse to evaluate this from the "endgame." The essence of free speech is that we get to say what we want - with very few exceptions - without having to submitting our desired "endgame" to government scrutiny. Beyond that, I'm tired of the endgame of getting a particular law passed being treated with suspicion. That's a good thing.
quote:I'd be satisfied with that. With just reporting who you work for. I don't care what your name is really, I don't care where you live or what you do, but when you're paid by someone to sell a specific message, I want to know who is bankrolling you. I don't see how that's a burden at all, and I don't see how that forces them to give up their anonymity.
It forces the people paying to give up their anonymity. Suppose instead of being Exxon, the source of funding is a group of a couple thousand concerned citizens who have pooled their money to create a continuing presence in the blogsphere (by supporting one of their number to do it full time). The intent of this presence is to get people to lobby Congress to ratify Kyoto/dump Kyoto/legalize SSM/ban SSM/pick your issue. Or, more tellingly, to impeach Bush/ban wiretapping/do something that invokes security.
They should be allowed to be anonymous. So should any other association of individuals, whether that association be the NAACP or Exxon.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the reasons we regulate lobbying in the first place is to stop outright bribery of congresscritters. If you tell people to write their senators or representatives, and those people do so, there will generally be no money or other goods given to the politicians. That's why it matters that there's a middleman here. The politicians won't personally receive any of the money that's being passed around in this scenario.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dag -
I'm okay with them giving up their anonymity.
Shig -
Depends on how you define bribery. One way is to have them directly get money into their pockets. Donating money to their campaign fund is a form of bribery if you ask me.
I don't see what that at all has to do with lobbyists being registered or not though, that has to do with campaign finance laws.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm okay with them giving up their anonymity.
Which "them?"
And, more importantly, which "them" are you going to discriminate against by not giving them anonymity?
Because if you have the registration or disclosure requirement, someone isn't going to have it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Them" as in corporations or big groups of people.
Every single one of those people will still have anonymity, as individuals.
And I already said I don't really care about registration.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
More worrisome about many democrats is their desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, specifically to counter Talk Radio's conservative bent. Free speech, indeed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Them" as in corporations or big groups of people.
Every single one of those people will still have anonymity, as individuals.
You're ok with them giving up a right that every other speaker in the country has, just because the intent of their speech is to convince others to actually influence our government?
That scares the hell out of me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, because they are PAYING others to do so, and people have a right to know who is holding the purse strings behind a political movement.
I'm far more scared of people pretending to be up front and honest when there's really someone shadowy behind the scenes writing checks to get his agenda passed.
At the end of political ads on television, the people paying for the ad have to say "Paid for by __________." I'm asking for the same thing.
If a large group can convince someone to do all that without paying them, then I'm okay with them keeping their anonymity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, because they are PAYING others to do so, and people have a right to know who is holding the purse strings behind a political movement.
Why do they have that right?
You're also requiring the blogger to disclose things that you, for example, don't have to disclose - how you make your living - when you post a political post on Hatrack. Why do you get to speak without this burden, and not someone who has a different job than you?
quote:At the end of political ads on television, the people paying for the ad have to say "Paid for by __________." I'm asking for the same thing.
Great, I'm mostly against those, too. Further, these aren't political ads. They have nothing to do with a candidate for office.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Why do they have that right?
You're also requiring the blogger to disclose things that you, for example, don't have to disclose - how you make your living - when you post a political post on Hatrack. Why do you get to speak without this burden, and not someone who has a different job than you?
I think my right to know all the facts from a source override the right of a group to not tell me.
Again, I don't have to disclose my job on Hatrack because it isn't my JOB to post on Hatrack. I think the specifics matter here. I'm not a favor of taking away your right to free speech. When you switched to generalities about my wanting to take away rights of free speech, it might have scared the hell out of me too if the specifics weren't in play. Again, when you say "different job," I'm talking about one specific job: Paid lobbyist. Their entire job is to convince me to write my congressman. They can pretty much do whatever they want in that effort. And there's no accountability, because the corporation behind them is allowed to remain in the shadows. It's a lovely little shield that covers all manner of sins.
And I just plain disagree with you on disclosure. These ARE political ads. How aren't they? Are you narrowly defining political ads as ONLY ads pertaining to campaigns to get someone elected?
If politics is only about getting elected (which only happens every other year, at most, and even then only for the House), then what's all that stuff that happens in Washington between election years?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, because I'm not really sure what my own opinion is on the matter - I'm not "outraged" about this as an attack on free speech (though I would be if it affected all bloggers instead of just those getting paid $25k per quarter to blog) yet it doesn't really seem right for them to register as lobbyists when they aren't exactly lobbyists, either.
I just wanted to say that so far I like this solution best:
quote: I have suggested a way to enable enforcement of honesty, but not forced disclosure, of communication. Make it illegal to say "I am not receiving money to say X" if one is, in fact, receiving money. Make it be resworn with each individual communication. But don't make it mandatory.
If people care, they can start ignoring communication without that certification.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again, I don't have to disclose my job on Hatrack because it isn't my JOB to post on Hatrack. I think the specifics matter here. I'm not a favor of taking away your right to free speech. When you switched to generalities about my wanting to take away rights of free speech, it might have scared the hell out of me too if the specifics weren't in play. Again, when you say "different job," I'm talking about one specific job: Paid lobbyist. Their entire job is to convince me to write my congressman. They can pretty much do whatever they want in that effort. And there's no accountability, because the corporation behind them is allowed to remain in the shadows. It's a lovely little shield that covers all manner of sins.
Why does it being your job matter? What "sins" can be covered up by this. If the blogger commits fraud or a crime, the identity of the financial backers will be discoverable either civilly or criminally.
quote:And I just plain disagree with you on disclosure. These ARE political ads. How aren't they? Are you narrowly defining political ads as ONLY ads pertaining to campaigns to get someone elected? If politics is only about getting elected (which only happens every other year, at most, and even then only for the House), then what's all that stuff that happens in Washington between election years?
I'm not sure if you have the right impression of my views on this subject. The fact that I think this IS politics is why I strongly oppose government - the entity that is supposed to be controlled by politics - burdening this type of speech.
The political ads you described are covered by campaign finance laws. As I said, I'm against much of the disclosure law there, too. And the more I hear people try to justify this by comparing it to those, the more I believe a slippery slope kind of argument is valid in this regard. I don't want my free speech rights to be slowly boiled like a frog.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You'd have to convince me that anonymity is a guaranteed right, and should be one, of free speech, and how the lack thereof is an unnecessary burden on free speech, before I could come to agree with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's kind of a tricky go in that regard. The "Right to privacy" is more or less at the mercy of legislation, and the right to anonymity exists only where granted. It's not inherent to yon first amendment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You'd have to convince me that anonymity is a guaranteed right, and should be one, of free speech, and how the lack thereof is an unnecessary burden on free speech, before I could come to agree with you.
You haven't responded at all to my posts touching on why anonymity is important or how it has become ingrained in free speech/first amendment jurisprudence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, I've read through the thread. I did not however read your link to the SCOTUS case because frankly, I don't have the time (well that's not true, I DO have the time, I'm just not willing to spend it) to read a lengthy article on the subject, your quoted portion will have to suffice.
My mind is slightly changed, but I'm still not satisfied with your position. I'm definetely against "registration" as was previously discussed, and I can understand how being made to give up anonymity can be a foot in a door we really don't want opened, but I'm not satisfied with penalties for non-disclosure. There has to be something in the middle. Even if its just a mark or blurb somewhere that HAS to be displayed that either says "I'm being paid by a third party for my words on this site" or the ability to put "I'm acting of my own free will, with no strings attached" on the blog or what not. That still protects third party anonymity.
I think however, if a candidate for office is doing it, the blogger should have to display his affiliation with the campaign, the campaign of EITHER side. I realize that won't help at all, because the candidates will just get their PAC people to supply the funds and thus under their magic cloud of anonymity, the same ole same ole will happen, leaving readers unaware.
And I honestly wonder, because I really have no idea, if a blogger were to pretend he had no affiliation with someone who was in fact paying him, how would we know, if he denied it and it was true? What law enforcement agency deals with cyber crimes like that? the FBI? How much manpower do they have out there checking for blogger misrepresentative fraud?
[ January 23, 2007, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not only reprisal from the government. It's also reprisal from the public.
Check out the Supreme Court case on the first page, as well as the NAACP case that first established the right.
The tradition of anonymous speech goes back at least to the Federalist Papers. The burden is on those who want to yank this away to demonstrate why it's necessary. You've mentioned coverup of sins, yet haven't answered my question about what sins. You've mentioned lack of accountability, but haven't stated for what and to whom they should be accountable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry you must have read it before I got the chance to edit it again. I went back and read the whole thread over again (which I hadn't done to begin with) and I missed the conversation on the first page that dealt with anonymity.
Sins: Fraud. Accountability: Making sure there's no fraud. And making sure that when a blogger does break the law, the backlash can reach the corporation who funded them, which in this case it can't. It's a liability shield.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sins: Fraud.
How is fraud covered up? If the blogger commits fraud, then his financial dealings will be discoverable. How does the identity matter? Further, why do we require disclosure in this one situation that might have fraud and not the myriad others that exist?
quote:Accountability: Making sure there's no fraud. And making sure that when a blogger does break the law, the backlash can reach the corporation who funded them, which in this case it can't. It's a liability shield.
It doesn't shield from liability. That identity would certainly be discoverable. Why is disclosure needed in the vast majority of cases where no law is broken?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who discovers it? Who is punished for it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Assume it's civil: the blogger is sued. In discovery, the name of his employer is requested. It would almost certainly be discoverable.
Assume it's criminal: the prosecutor issues a subpoena requesting the name. If the defendant takes the fifth, his records can be siezed.
I'm still curious as to why these types of arrangements carry greater risk of fraud or whatever it is you're worried about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't like the idea of unnamed, masked groups with big pockets being able to fund leagues of bloggers who can and will probably do and say pretty much whatever they want.
They might lie left and right, and it is certainly against the law, and is actionable, but that assumes there's someone out there to actually catch all the laws they break when they do it. Not much point in making something against the law when you aren't willing to commit the manpower to enforce it. The government certainly won't be doing it, which leaves the responsibility to the average Joe to detect the fraud where it occurs, and to then pass it on to law enforcement, who with all their spare time, will act on it immediately.
The scenario sounds incredibly skewed in favor of the guy with all the money, and against the guy just trying to get some facts.
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
Lots of "Amateur" stuff is really professionally produced with an amateur look, guys like the voyeur girl next door thing and people like that just folks stuff, that is why I am afraid Hillary will lose, Bill was one of the good old boys whatever he did, but Hillary is all polished and sharpened, nobody is going to like her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They might lie left and right, and it is certainly against the law
What lying is against the law? Fraud is, certainly, but most lying isn't.
quote:Not much point in making something against the law when you aren't willing to commit the manpower to enforce it. The government certainly won't be doing it, which leaves the responsibility to the average Joe to detect the fraud where it occurs, and to then pass it on to law enforcement, who with all their spare time, will act on it immediately.
I still can't figure out what knowledge of the source of funding does here to help enforcement. If they're not going to catch the liars (and, again, not all lying is against the law), why will knowing Exxon is involved make a difference?
quote:The scenario sounds incredibly skewed in favor of the guy with all the money, and against the guy just trying to get some facts.
The same imbalance occurs in all the other possible blog-based fraud. Why is this special?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funny, when cigarette companies came out and said their product isn't bad for you, the hullaballoo wasn't about the ad agency they used, was it?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually it was. The fact that cigarette makers secretly funded professionals to pose as independent leaders of "pro-smoking clubs" which naysayed the adverse health effects of tobacco well after those same companies had agreed to print health warnings on packages was used to prove both legal malfeasance and legal malice in the civil lawsuits against "big tobacco" companies.
[ January 23, 2007, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Funny, when cigarette companies came out and said their product isn't bad for you, the hullaballoo wasn't about the ad agency they used, was it?
Yet you've exempted what they did because they're not lobbyists.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why Dag is wrong:
Dag's argument is that those who are doing the blogging are not lobbyists because they are one step removed from the lobbying process.
However, what blogger-boy is doing is providing something for the politician in order to influence his votes--eyeballs, votes, people. These are things of value to a politician. When blogger-boy goes up to Ms. Senator and says I have 4 million readers and we will vote for you if you support project A, that is in many ways similar to Mr. Z saying I have 4 million dollard and we will go to you if you support project A. The people want to know what company is supporting Blogger-boy and Mr. Z, to make sure there is no conflict of interest.
But that's not why Dag is wrong.
Dag is arguing that since the current definition of Lobbyist does not include third party motivators, they should not be regulated like lobbyists.
But the People, many of them anyway, as seen by the turnout on this thread, do not like it when some one con's them into a political opinion, and political action, based on hidden payments. These People have convinced enough legislators that the law, and the definition of Lobbyist, will be changed if the law passes.
So, the argument X is not Y so the Law is wrong will be shot down because the law trumps our definitions and will make x=y.
Why Dag is right:
And I don't mean conservative. The answer to that question is one only Dag could answer.
I mean why he is right about this amendment being wrong. It is to weak to do what we need, and to powerful a risk to do what we don't.
Blogger Boy is now getting $50K a year from Exxon. This law goes into effect. Blogger-boy will suddenly be getting $50K a year from "The Patriotic American Small Business Consortium" a new non-for-profit organization funded by Exxon.
Blogger-Boy puts down where he gets his money, and the PASBC doesn't. We, the readers, never discover Blogger-boys cash insentive that drives his agenda.
However, Peaceful Pam wants to protest the war and the current administration. She had to close it to go to work for a living. She was taking donation to keep her blog running, but the names of all the donators were public knowledge. Hawkish pro-war radicals started demonstrating in front of anybody who donated. Most of her money came from a big food coop, but a local conservative action committee, backed by a competitor through a secret donation front, started picketting and boycotting them.
In other words, the law closed down a true grass roots effort, while allowing a bogus one to afford to find the loopholes it needed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag is arguing that since the current definition of Lobbyist does not include third party motivators, they should not be regulated like lobbyists.
Well, no, Dag is arguing that the only thing that possibly justified requiring registration - direct contact with elected officials who have reporting requirements - is not present. It's not definitional, but justificational. (Yes, I totally made up a word. )
A law criminalizing yelling "Fire" in an empty forest is not made constitutional or good because there's only one difference between that and yelling fire in a crowded theater. The reason for the previous regulation must be examined. In the "Fire!" case, the reason is danger of stampede and associated injuries/death. In the lobbying case, the reason is the direct contact with the legislators.
The thing that I hate the most about both campaign finance regulation and the regulation at issue here is that it makes expression with intent to influence politics suspect.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)