FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Democrats: Enemies of free speech (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Democrats: Enemies of free speech
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ><

The Republicans managed to get it removed.


As reported by SlashDot.
The Vote:
http://tinyurl.com/272qcv

A story on the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/2h3ljz

(edit: incredibly bad spelling)

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Frown]
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Phanto
Member
Member # 5897

 - posted      Profile for Phanto           Edit/Delete Post 
All part of the Dems flexing their uber muscle, their majority of one.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Twinky.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tante Shvester
Member
Member # 8202

 - posted      Profile for Tante Shvester   Email Tante Shvester         Edit/Delete Post 
Pix, have you ever considered joining the Shvestercrat party?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
S.2349 included exactly the same Section 220 -- the provision we're discussing -- as the new S.1.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, thanks for the info.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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).

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"...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.

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Huh. So, how about a link to the vote on Amendment 7?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.'.

(Thomas link.)

Added: One more thing -- I don't see how being forced to disclose who pays your bills restricts your freedom of speech.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I love the free speech laws in America. Did you read the case Dagonee linked to?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Twinky: and you don't have a problem with that?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Or what your edit said, basically. [Smile] Tax returns are private, even for politicians.

There are financial disclosures that politicians must file, but not the tax returns.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
twinky: the fact you can sue someone for insulting your group. You're fine with THAT?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Dags. [Smile]
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jh
Member
Member # 7727

 - posted      Profile for jh   Email jh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
Whew!

The bill has been amended. Free speech won.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=400

7 Democrats voted to keep it legal; all others voted against the amendment.

Lordy, how close we get to losing the most basic rights.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2