The Coming End of Free Speech on the Internet: FEC Censorship

[g5000]

Here is a press release by the FEC chairperson which provides more insight into her desire to expand FEC powers: http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf

 

[g5000]

Before being appointed to chair the FEC, Ann Ravel was the chair of California's version of the FEC.

While in that job, Ravel tried to force bloggers to reveal their funding sources.

FPPC chair backs away from mandatory disclosure of blogger payments

Following widespread criticism from online pundits and free speech advocates, California’s political watchdog is backing away from a plan to require news websites and bloggers to disclose payments received from campaigns and political committees.

An old dog up to the same tricks.

 

[g5000]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

 

[Kosh]

Before being appointed to chair the FEC, Ann Ravel was the chair of California's version of the FEC.

While in that job, Ravel tried to force bloggers to reveal their funding sources.

FPPC chair backs away from mandatory disclosure of blogger payments

Following widespread criticism from online pundits and free speech advocates, California’s political watchdog is backing away from a plan to require news websites and bloggers to disclose payments received from campaigns and political committees.

An old dog up to the same tricks.

Yes another reason not to vote far left, so when you learn that lesson let us know..

 

[Kosh]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

Says the far left drone that voted for Obama..

 

[g5000]

"In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices."

Tocqueville Book 1 Chapter 11

 

[g5000]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

Says the far left drone that voted for Obama..

Look at you. Eating your own manufactured bullshit.

You are the kind of retard that Ann Ravel believes needs to be protected from themselves. Lucky for you, people like me will stop her.

You're welcome.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is a press release by the FEC chairperson which provides more insight into her desire to expand FEC powers: http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf

Thank you for providing that link. I just read it.

"Political advertising has become commonplace on the Internet, and that trend only stands to increase as citizens turn more frequently to the Internet and mobile devices for information and entertainment. But while the world changes, the Commission has not adapted with it and has failed to acknowledge the importance of providing transparency to the public no matter what the medium of political communication. A re-examination of the Commission's approach to the Internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue.

Today, the Commission publically released the file in The Commission here deadlocked on whether there should be any reporting for particular political advertisements disseminated only online.

Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed on the Intemet alone. As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense. In the past, the Commission has specifically exempted certain types of Intemet communications from campaign finance regulations. In doing so, the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet's growing force in the political arena."

The Commission's paramount concern may have been not to inhibit a technology that was well-suited for mass-communication by individual citizens. But the Commission failed to take into account clear indicators that the Internet would become a major source of political advertising — dominated by the same political organizations that dominate traditional media. Since its inception, this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV.

Additionally, in 2014, the distinctions between the Internet and other modes of communication are not what an earlier group of Commissioners may have anticipated. In fact, as nearly everyone now knows, you can watch TV on the Internet. Cable companies even advertise the ability to access the same content—including ads — on your smartphone, tablet, laptop, d desktop, or TV. So why hasn't the Commission reevaluated its approach to keep up with the changing times?

Unfortunately, in its earlier efforts at dealing with the Internet's impact on campaign finance, the Commission received only limited feedback from those most knowledgeable with the relevant issues — Internet developers and technology entrepreneurs. When devising policies with far reaching impact, it is incumbent on the Commission to consult the relevant community of professionals, and the public, to inform our decisions. As a Commission, we need to consider the changing role of technology in our elections and recognize how technology is changing our politics. For that reason, next year, I will bring together technologists, social entrepreneurs, policy wonks, politicos, and activists — from across the spectrum — to discuss new and emerging technologies and how the Commission's current approach may or may not fit with future irmovationsi Such a dialogue will permit the Comission to develop a firmer understanding of emerging technologies and help us as policymakers to make better decisions. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort."



So, where in this document does it say that she is planning to go after specific bloggers?

 

[g5000]

So, where in this document does it say that she is planning to go after specific bloggers?

See post 82.

 

[HenryBHough]

Equality of traffic as implied by "net neutrality" is a good thing.

New taxes and micromanagement might be welcomed by liberals, especially the limousine variety who LOVE to see you pay more tax. But by ordinary folks?

Not so much.

But, the regime seems to believe that if you want basic net neutrality you need to pay more taxes and allow they-who-know-best more control of what can be said and who can say it.

Separate the concepts!

 

[Kosh]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

Says the far left drone that voted for Obama..

Look at you. Eating your own manufactured bullshit.

You are the kind of retard that Ann Ravel believes needs to be protected from themselves. Lucky for you, people like me will stop her.

You're welcome.

Says the irony impaired far left drone that voted for Obama and thus voted for this.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, where in this document does it say that she is planning to go after specific bloggers?

See post 82.

I read the posting. Thank you. The link at posting 82 does not contain the information that you claim, but knowing your integrity here in USMB, I am pretty sure that what you say is what happened.

That being said, I do think we need to wait and see the SPECIFIC proposals.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

Says the far left drone that voted for Obama..

Look at you. Eating your own manufactured bullshit.

You are the kind of retard that Ann Ravel believes needs to be protected from themselves. Lucky for you, people like me will stop her.

You're welcome.

Says the irony impaired far left drone that voted for Obama and thus voted for this.

Drone drone drone drone drone drone.... is that all you can write? Are you that limited?

 

[Kosh]

No one is more frustrated than I am about the rubes who drink the piss of their hack partisan media masters. But there is nothing the government will ever be able to do about that.

Nor should it.

Says the far left drone that voted for Obama..

Look at you. Eating your own manufactured bullshit.

You are the kind of retard that Ann Ravel believes needs to be protected from themselves. Lucky for you, people like me will stop her.

You're welcome.

Says the irony impaired far left drone that voted for Obama and thus voted for this.

Drone drone drone drone drone drone.... is that all you can write? Are you that limited?

Says the far left drone!

Yes you have shown that you are a far left drone, it is something you need to own instead of fighting against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The far right drones are dutifully following their marching orders and/or their kneejerk reflexes to once again mindlessly take sides on an issue most of them know nothing about.

 

[martybegan]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

It's no surprise the fucking lib/commies like you would support government censorship of the internet. All you leftwing scumwads claim to believe in freedom of speech, but the first thing you do when given a chance is anything you can to stifle it. Liberalism just can survive when it's subjected to the light of day.

Nothing is getting censored moron. Just because O'Reilly rants it at you doesn't mean its true. Go look up what net neutrality actually is.

Kind of like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period."?

 

[bripat9643]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

Of course they don't hint that suppression of opinion is the goal, but what happened with the IRS and 501 (C) organizations? When you give the government power to regulate speech, you're giving it the power to censor. That's the bottom line.

Uhuh. So, your thoughts are not based on facts, but rather, on paranoia.

No, it's based on knowledge of the nature of government, especially a knowledge of the snivelling toadies that work for government.

 

[Kosh]

The far right drones are dutifully following their marching orders and/or their kneejerk reflexes to once again mindlessly take sides on an issue most of them know nothing about.

And the far left drones show they will follow their marching orders no matter what including supporting Obama's illegal wars.

 

[bripat9643]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

It's no surprise the fucking lib/commies like you would support government censorship of the internet. All you leftwing scumwads claim to believe in freedom of speech, but the first thing you do when given a chance is anything you can to stifle it. Liberalism just can survive when it's subjected to the light of day.

Nothing is getting censored moron. Just because O'Reilly rants it at you doesn't mean its true. Go look up what net neutrality actually is.

Kind of like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period."?

Whenever the libs are saying "you can trust us," it's time to run for the hills.