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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, almost certainly not by candidates - this is about people attempting to influence elected officials, not getting people elected. Different rules cover that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
