The coming crackdown on blogging (ugly blatant censorship)

[Mari333]

http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html?tag=st.prev






Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

[Zenlitened]

1. Republicans hate America for our freedom.

[kypper]

2. Of course

God forbid we should be able to share our own opinions.
Only the corporation-controlled news media is allowed to link to actual evidence... we have to just speculate, leaving us with nothing to back it up, thus making us even more of a fringe group and less worthy of attention.

If you can't beat em, fine em.

[sniffa]

3. bring it on

say i.

[rabid_nerd]

4. Interesting Comment left, though

http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=5154&messageID=31155&start=-1

Are the Democrat Commissioners Voting to crackdown against GOPUSA?

[Warpy]

5. It sounds like bloggers will just have to tap dance a bit

and say things like "you can read the original press release at the candidate's own website" without a link. They can still discuss the whole thing as a matter of personal opinion. They just can't advertise the candidate in any way, with either a link or, especially, banners. The masters of MLM also want to cut down on political spam. Imagine that.

It's pretty stupid, and it'll cut their own throats more than it will cut ours. After all, most Freepers are too damn dumb to find websites without links.

They seem to be trying to cut down on free advertising through blog sites and attendant links. If they try to crack down on the opinions expressed within those blogs, that's another matter, entirely, and is unconstitutional.

[MojoXN]

9. Absolutely...

The Republican base consists primarily of less educated religious zealots. While there do exist extremely intelligent people on the right, they are definitely in the minority of that party's constituency. Conversely, the majority of Democrats are better educated than the national average, and less inclined to religious extremism. What does this all boil down to?

Well, as Warpy says, it will cut their throats worse then ours. First, most Freeper-tyes ARE too damn dumb to abide by an arcane campaign finance regulation. It will be easy pickings to catch them in their own noose. Second, let's think about the proportion of Repubs vs. Dems that are caught violating the EXISITING campaign finance laws. Personally, taking that into consideration calms me right down.

MojoXN

[starwolf]

20. Or go offshore

Take the site offshore and US laws can not touch it. Over simplified, but there are a number of technical means to go around this.

[Betsy Ross]

6. Blogs ARE my daily news source.

If the sponsorship of NPR by Wal-Mart and off-shoring companies wasn't enough, yesterday I heard them wasting time on the Jackson trial. (I don't turn it on, my husband does because he isn't on the web.) I consider DUers, Kos, and others to be my news filters providing only the stories I want to know about. Perhaps this could be a basis for an objection to the commission proposals. Don't tell me I have to listen to or read media sponsored by the fascists. But that's IS what this is about, isn't it?

[kypper]

7. My wife's comment

Paraphrased, but she reads the news through blogs online because she's tired of watching CNN and hearing about Lacy Peterson and Michael Jackson.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Where were they when Drudge was playing crier for the right-wing

conspiracy? Don't tell me America is land of the free, because we just went Saigon.

[plasticsundance]

10. Uh-oh, some people are beginning to feel the pinch

First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win.

- Ghandi

I think Gannongate was the straw that broke the camel's back. It really made the US-State-controlled-corporate-media look bad on simple fact checking. It also exposed the blatant hypocrisy and pathology of many Repugs. They're afraid of the coming storm, since they cannot hide from themselves.

If blogs concern Smith so much with finance campaign reform, he then should apply the same principle to clergy and religious figures using the pulpit as a political stump. Hear, hear.

[nostamj]

11. when republicans can't take the heat....

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?

How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.

It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?

absurd is right! uh, I mean CORRECT! this is NUTS.

when republicans can't take the heat, they try to close the kitchen!

[Mari333]

25. Its their modus operandi

Same principle exists when it comes to student clubs in schools..gay students want to form an after school club, and go to court , despite the protests of evangelicals in the community, and win. Schools then shut down ALL the student after school clubs just to keep the gay students from meeting. The Republicans dont like the rules applying to them at all, so they just chuck everything to keep from being exposed.

[toymachines]

12. SLIPPERY SLOPE

we cannot let this happen.

[Betsy Ross]

13. Thinking more about the implications of this:

If you have ever tried to deduct a computer or other equipment as a business expense, you know that the item must be used ONLY for business. They pull the same thing with home space; the portion taken as a deduction cannot be used for anything other than business. Don't sit at your desk and pay a doctor bill, that would take away the tax exemption.

So the notion of what percent of the cost of a web page must be counted as a political donation might stir up the question of business deductions by percent of usage. At least it might pose a good basis for an argument against said regulation.

[LizMoonstar]

14. holy crap

This guy spoke at my graduation. He was a dick then too, talking all about how he was put on the campaign finance committee to regulate it and doesn't believe in regulating campaign finance. What an ass.

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. WE NEED A FORUM ON PRESERVING INTERNET FREEDOM NOW

A Group would be too invisible (no threads on Latest Page) and too exclusive (only donating members can post).

THE IDEA OF FORMING A GROUP (BUT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE A FORUM) ON PRESERVING INTERNET FREEDOM IS SET OUT AND DISCUSSED INTHIS THREAD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=18717
Title: Internet freedom is threatened, and we MUST be prepared to defend it!!!

This needs immediate action and coordination with Raw Story and with other sites supporting internet freedom -- see the links in the thread I've linked to.

Hello, Skinner? THIS REALLY IS NEEDED!!! If we don't organize and fight hard, we are going to lose the last bastion of a free press in this country AND possibly the single most important way of organizing political support and communication. There are obvious reasons why the Rethugs want this -- they want only their own controlled media and are threatened by freedom. Just like Hitler controlled the press in Germany.

[Liberty Belle]

41. kick

[MellowOne]

55. This was my thought when I was reading the piece

Something has to be done before we lose this freedom.

[bemildred]

16. This is not a bad thing, IMHO.

This is about the use of political money on the internet,
which is being equated to using political money on broadcast
media.

People that don't take or raise political money will be fine,
people that raise money honestly will be fine, the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth will be in deep shit.

[IceOwl]

17. Fortunately...

The tools for freedom of speech, anonymity and privacy on the internet already exist. They come in the form of strong public key encryption, Freenet, and the Onion Router, among other tools.

[bemildred]

19. Leave us not forget anonymous proxy services. nt

[paineinthearse]

18. This calls for immediate action by DU

I feel it best to immediately form a INTERNET FREEDOM FORUM (not a group).

We all are too familiar with "hot" posts that receive attenetion for a few days, then fade away. A FORUM would help focus our efforts onto this issue.

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. I'm trying to arrange to add a new Forum on free press/internet

I'm discussing it with Skinner and am hoping it can be called something like

Free Internet/ Free Press / First Amendment Issues

Since he wanted to be broader than just the internet. I had originally wanted "Preserving Internet Freedom" and just a Group, but there are excellent reasons for going for a Forum. It's urgently needed.

I'll post again on this point in this thread as a response to the original message. Trying to drum up support and stimulate discussion.

If you can come up with a better name or want to reinforce my plea to Skinner, both would be very welcome.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. I think that the Bloggers and other computer info people are much like

viruses. We will mutate to survive. If they put pressure on us to make it difficult for us to communicate via blogs, some other form of computer communication will be formed, just as blogs arose.
They can try to stop us, but they will never succeed.

That is NOT to say we shouldn't fight this stupidity!!!

Remember the Phoenix!!! Up from the ashes..

[NNguyenMD]

22. did I read that right, or did it say that the Democratic members of the

FEC refused to go along with the Republicans in appealing the Judge's overturning of the internet exemption.

[Fuming Esq]

26. Federal regs could not survive judicial review

I think any efforts by the federal government that touched upon these two delicate issues (political speech and deep linking) would have little chance of surviving any judicial review. For two reasons:

1) This is the kind of core political speech that even a strict constructionist like Scalia would find to be content-based. Any such legislation, when challenged in the courts, must be subjected to the strictest form of scrutiny, which would require a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means of enforcement. Laws that prevented politically-oriented weblogs from linking to the websites of public officials would likely be struck down after the first few attempts at enforcement.

2) To counter the free speech argument against these laws, the neo-cons might argue that deep-linking to politicians' websites is copyright infringement. This argument probably wouldn't hold much weight either. The sparse precedent in this area is ambiguous at best, and I don't believe there's much of an argument to be made anymore that deep linking violates copyright infringement, particularly given the internet's prevasive presence in modern news and media.

Just some thoughts from a frazzled law student.

[ClarkUSA]

33. Welcome to DU, Fuming Esq

:toast:

[Fuming Esq]

48. thanks

thanks ClarkUSA, glad to be here.

:headbang:

[newyawker99]

56. Hi Fuming Esq!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Igel]

51. Yes, you read that right. You're one of the few.

The law student is probably right, as well, but it doesn't send a good message that it was the repubs that wanted to try to uphold the rules that allowed blogs to engage in political speech, and the dems that decided to roll over and play dead.

[CHIMO]

23. Confusing

To say the least.
What happens to blogs coming from China, Russia or...

Will this have the unintended result of isolating communications to little islands?

[nashville_brook]

24. don't see how this amounts to a crack down. i've never needed to link

to a campaign website, nor forwarded a press release.

i guess this will shut down people who can't write. more power to em.

[Old and In the Way]

27. So Mr. Smith is against an informed citizenry?

Don't want to shine any lights on political corruption or statements made by a politician that might influence the people's perspective of the candidate/Party? Will they also ban ads from newspapers and TV? Will the MSM be able to report news stories about politicians or their agenda?

Let them try to push censorship on the American people. They are in the end game phase now and they are desperate to stop Americans from becoming educated on their agenda. This won't change one opinion on our side of the equation, it will just validate what we already know...they are a bunch of totalitarian criminals in business suits. But it will erode even more support from the true conservatives and moderate Republicans that will find this heavy handed government intrusion on free speech unacceptable.

[Igel]

52. Mr. Smith wanted to uphold the old rules allowing political

speech in blogs. So did the other two repubs.

It's worded in a way that most here found confusing. The rules allowing blogs freedom were struck down by a judge; Smith and two repubs voted to challenge that ruling.

The three dems rolled on the issue, preventing the committee from pursuing the challenge. The old rules probably would have been squelched under McCain/Feingold anyway.

[Mari333]

28. Just checked Freerepublic

libertarians over there also disgusted by this.
Sometimes we all agree on something.

[intheflow]

29. NBC Nightly News started framing this yesterday.

While DU posted "White Supremest Groups Draw Scrutiny" in LBN, NBC Nightly News (the non-cable version of NBC News) framed the story as "Hate Groups Multiply Online".

I think this is a way for the MSM to vilify people who use the Internet for news gathering and dissemination, discrediting us for anything we find about Gannon (for instance), and also as a last dying gasp before they become entirely obsolete.

[LdyGuique]

30. I think that this law is unenforcable except for egregious examples

such as SwiftBoat, Talon, the Christian Right, etc. Have some faith that there is a reason that the 3 Demos on the Commission are blocking the Repugs.

A point to consider is thia: How much time do most politically inclined bloggers take in writing in support versus against? I know that out of all of the political writing that I do, I've yet to "support" a Demo's position, I've focused on trashing Bushco. Perhaps, as a political campaign actually emerges, it would change.

The "press exemption" appears to be aimed more at GOPUSA or Talon type of organizations who claim to be the press. It's also aimed at bloggers who were paid by a campaign and blogged extensively and failed to disclose their ties (again a Repug thing).

[zipplewrath]

32. Who is responsible?

  Very few folks actually have their own servers.  An awful
lot of blogs are at blog sites.  Many are free.  So if I have
a blog going that points all over creation and says
"Don't vote for Nixon" who is the FEC going to fine?
 I didn't pay a dime.  There is no contribution.  Now, if I'm
the "swift boat vets with an axe to grind" with a
budget and collecting contributions etc. then I am making a
contribution, but based upon my organization, not my web site.
 The info ON the website might be a contribution.  MoveOn of
course is gonna be affected.  But joe.blogspot.com spouting
off isn't gonna be enforceable.

[BigBearJohn]

31. I warned about this much earlier. We HAVE to pay attention to this!!!!!

[ClarkUSA]

34. "Brad Smith. Liar."

"Brad Smith. Liar.

Bush-appointed FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith is not a big fan of
McCain-Feingold. He would love to have everyone believe that free
speech equals the right of any anonymous donor to funnel millions
into any campaign they want.

But the left loves McCain-Feingold. So how to get them to hate
McCain-Feingold? Imply that you are going to start to try to shut
down free speech and bloggers on the Internet because you are being
forced to do so by those hateful Democrats on the Federal Election
Commission. The best way to do that? How about an interview at
CNET entitled "The Coming Crackdown On Blogging." And people ranging
from Atrios at Eschaton, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, and
Armando at Daily Kos seem to be falling all over themselves trying
to make alliances with right-wing bloggers to try and stop the "new
law."

People, this is a transparent power play. There is no new law. Its
just a few off-hand comments one Commissioner made to a reporter at
CNET. Just because Bradley Smith implies the Commission is going to
go that way doesn't make it so. Even the smallest drop of knowledge
about First Amendment law would tell you that such an interpretation
has probably one of the steepest climbs in all of jurisprudence.
Smith wants to make an end-run around the other members of the
committee by undercutting their support. But they don't need
support. They don't take orders from anyone. Why would Brad Smith
think this? Because he does.

So before you go and submit a torrent of E-mails to the Democratic
members of the FEC, stop and think. Am I really doing the right
thing by reflexively doing the will of the Republican chair of the
FEC?

RW"

http://ironmouth.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=4ff483b4-df61-4463-9952-e1be620e0b88

[Mist]

35. Thanks for that level-headed summary! But it sounds like

bloggers have been given a heads-up. After all, it's only when progressive bloggers uncovered Guckert that any rw's were worried!

[LdyGuique]

37. I agree with your take on this

Repugs only trash that which they fear -- and use language deliberately that wraps them in the flag and constitution. Luntz has REALLY brought that home.

[Igel]

53. You're right; there's no new law.

But the judge threw out the old rules as too lenient and undermining the intent of the law. It's not the law, it's the interpretation. The FEC had its; the judge a different intepretation ... but will just say 'no' until the FEC gets it "right".

That means there are going to be new regulations, that will have to pass muster with her.

I liked the old ones.

[BigBearJohn]

36. I think ALL of this is in preparation for the upcoming elections in 2006

They want to immobolize the bloggers before we take over the
Senate and House of Representatives

[lonestarnot]

38. Not stopping me, I'll blog the sidewalk! we'll blog freeways in mass! n/t

[sarcasmo]

39. What of bloggers from other Countries?

[farmbo]

40. Brad Smith: "Free Speech is for millionaires only"

This man has never supported any restrictions on Big Money in campaigns...but when a lot of little voices start speaking in unison...its time to send out the FBI.


:crazy:

[Blower]

42. "Bring em on"

www.libertywhistle.us

[izzie]

43. I do not believe this yet.

I will need to see a lot more before it goes into my brain as true. I do think the GOP nut cases may like to do this but hardly have the power to do such a thing yet.

[PowerToThePeople]

44. Puts Google out of Business

They actually cache the pages and supply links...

[PowerToThePeople]

45. Don't we have to link, per copyright law?

I thought that it was violation of copyright law to use someone elses work without giving proper credit, so we MUST link the page..

http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222

[Igel]

54. But you can give credit without a link. n/t

[CanOfWhoopAss]

46. OK so how do they meter the value of ....

campaign volunteers, bumperstickers, sidewalk preachers, yard signs and just plain old word of mouth?

How do you enforce stupidity when the internet is a global community? What if a blog is set up on a server in another country? The idiots can't stop spam, trojans, mail worms or viruses on computers or cell phones so how are they going to stop bloggers?

I agree... Bring it on!

[dsc]

47. Smith is a liar who hates CFR

He is saying this to try to get liberals to turn against CFR.

[cyclezealot]

49. Why is sharing press releases a campaign contribution.

Smith and Scalia will surely be together in protecting free speec by millionaires ,yet attacking the right of the little guy to blog information...This is as much sharing information as campaigning.
This and Bushie's repeated attempts to control 507's will drastically limit our ability for individuals to compete electorally with the millionaire funded pacs..This crackdown is a reaction to Move On's ability to put up damaging ads to the Repugs..As if most Commercial networks will give us equal access anyway...!
What if we a disgusted with the political parties on certain issues...Without group action with 507's we are politically castrated...That is what they want...Going through national parties to express your views is another form of castration.
We must lobby Feingold big time to demand he protect our rights to free speech..No 507's or no blogging...We might as well all just get our lobotomies right now, be happy, and be a Repug. clone.

[dubyaD40web]

57. Bloggers are WAY smarter than the FEC - we'll just get around the law

It will take the blogging community a half hour to find enough loopholes in whatever laws they make that the law will be irrelevant before it even takes effect. They're wasting their time and our tax dollars playing this stupid game that they cannot win.
I'm just sitting back watching the show, waiting for the day when we can all verbally abuse them for their boundless stupidity.