We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A positive development The powers-that-be in the USA who are trying to pass various incumbency protection measures, have uncharacteristically decided that it is unwise for the Federal Election Commission to try and regulate private political speech on the internet.
Is this because they are good guys after all? Of course not, it is because they know it is completely unenforceable.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m not sure that blog censorship regards political campaigns is all that unenforceable. All the FEC, etc. would have to do is decide a candidate benefitted from ‘unfare’ internet comments and discussion and declare them disqualified for the office they are running for.
Really?
If such a ruling was made, sabotage sites ‘supporting’ various candidates would spring up en masse.
Do you think ‘gohillary2008.nu’ is taken? 😉
rosignol,
I never said it would be just. All that matters is that the FEC gets to decide. If they think it is sabotage, then the candidate is okay, if they think it was by supporters, then the candidate is dead. One more way for the government to choose its masters.
Hopefully, in this case at least, the courts would intervene. But then again, they might not.
Nice sentiment, and quite correct too. But what a lot of your readers may not know is that there was considerable pressure put on the Congressweasels to pre-empt this nonsense. Pressure, incidentally, applied by bloggers and their readers, who told Congress in no uncertain terms that they would simply ignore the law.
In fact, Ehlers’ statement looks as though it was taken almost verbatim from a form letter circulated earlier, and sent in by many thousands of people.
Faced with the prospect of massive civil disobedience and horrendous publicity on the issue, Congress decided to act.
Occasionally, the system works.
Now, the bill hasn’t yet become law — but its prospects are good. Even turdballs like McCain in the Senate are worried by the popular resistance.
I have heard rumours there were atttempts to poison the bill by amendments. Anything on that?
At the end of the day, I am one of those who believe it is not within Congress’ power to tell me what I can or can not say. I, like thousands of others, would not obey the law even if it passed… and that would have bewhere things got really ugly… if they did try to enforce it.
Sometimes remaining free requires you to tell the lawgivers to go get screwed.
I guess we’d have to infiltrate and suborn the mainstream parties from within.
Less said the better.
I could forgive the 9-11 murderers if all they’d done was take out the cast of ‘Friends’.
If the FEC is allowed to claim jurisdiction I see a situation where, since censoring the internet effectively during a political campaign is patently impossible, the FEC sits in judgement of the winner or the courts choose the winner based on interpretation of intent of the bloggers.
I would hope the courts would throw out speech censorship of the internet based on the first amendment. But there isn’t much certainty of this.
The FEC has jurisdiction. They tried to give the Internet an exemption on McCain/Feingold but a federal judge ruled that they were not allowed to take such liberties with the law. The Congress intervened because they were faced with a bipartisan rebellion among both their respective bases, all of which are tremendously addicted to the things.
That a policy is broadly unenforcable is no impediment to its passage. One can be assured, however, that enforcement will be quite selective.
Oh? Over blogs on servers in other countries? Juristiction means nothing if you cannot enforce it.
Snide, kinda slow on the uptake hey? Nobody thinks they can successfully enforce it. What will happen is the FEC will select the winners. Or the courts if the FEC can’t.
it is because they know it is completely unenforceable.
Since when has that ever stopped a state?
IP laws?
Drugs laws?
The unwinnability of a prohibition campaign of any kind is a feature, not a bug, if you’re a politician. It guarantees permanent employment of a newly-created bureaucracy.
For myself, I plan on posting campaign updates right here on Samizdata if I have to — and sending the link to all via email. However, I don’t really expect to have to.
Besides, several congresscitters have been told this is where we draw the line. If this crap gets enforced, Jefferson’s admonition goes into effect IMMEDIATELY.
The tree of liberty is getting PRETTY DAMN THIRSTY anyway…
My understanding of this bill, it was to cut out sites like MoveOn. But here is how the house voted on it.
Failed House (82% of Republicans supporting, 76% of Democrats opposing.)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1606