Two Net Victories!

[Annie]

Google News is going to watch for hate speech, (Not google search, that is a 1st amendment deal):

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3492361

March 23, 2005
Google Axes Hate News
By Susan Kuchinskas


Google has to draw the line somewhere in its mission to make all the world's information available online. It's starting with hate speech.

Internetnews.com has learned that Google (Quote, Chart) is in the process of removing National Vanguard content from its Google News service. National Vanguard is a publication of the National Alliance, which describes itself as an "organization for people of European descent."

Earlier today, Germany.internet.com reported that Google Germany would remove National Zeitung, a neo-Fascist newspaper, from its own news index.

"Google News does not allow hate content," said Google spokesman Steve Langdon. "If we are made aware of articles that contain hate content, we will remove them."

Langdon said news media must apply to be included in Google News and that they are evaluated by editors before inclusion. He wouldn't provide a list of news media that Google News indexes, nor would he give details of the evaluation process or criteria for inclusion.

First Amendment issues don't come into play in the issue, according to Richard T. Kaplar, vice president of The Media Institute, a non-profit media research organization.

"Google is making an editorial decision on who it carries and who it doesn't," Kaplar said. "News organizations have editorial discretion over what they run and don't run. No one can force them to run something if they don't feel like it."

While some might criticize Google for banning National Vanguard even though that publication's writings are protected speech under the First Amendment, Kaplar said, "All news organizations tailor their product to their audiences to one degree or another. One could argue that Google is merely being responsive to its audience (or at least a vocal part of its audience)..."

This last comment is probably due to outrage from the blogosphere!

The second has to do with FEC trying to use McCain Feingold to control blogs and their ability to add to political coffers. Seems the reaction has had an effect:

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/001396.html

Update: The full text of the FEC document is available via the link at the bottom of this post.

Democracy Project has obtained a copy of the Federal Election Commission's request for comment (a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) on a draft rule for proposed changes to the FEC's definition of "public communication" as it pertains to the Internet. It will consider the rule change tomorrow. The document is a draft and a solicitation of commentary, and not a final ruling.

A preliminary reading of the document indicates that communication about candidates via blogs or emails will not be considered a "public communication," and so will not be considered an in-kind contribution to that candidate.

In short, follow the money. If there is no compensation involved, the FEC will not consider Internet activity to be an expenditure for a candidate. This will be true, the draft proposes, in this and other circumstances: [...]

 

[musicman]

Re point #2 - I'll be watching these developments with great interest. I have always thought that this particular incarnation of the Conservative Revolution has been successful primarily because its movers and shakers have recognized the true enemy, and engaged him effectively. Is it liberalism, or the Democrat Party? Absolutely not. Their insanity has been - and continues to be - resoundingly rejected by the American people. When the people are permitted to witness - unfiltered and unadorned - the hateful, dishonest, America-hating lunacy gushing from the hearts of these buffoons, the country draws ever-nearer to sanity.

The only time liberals are able to succeed in the public arena is when they're able to fool America as to who actually lurks behind the benign rhetoric. This used to be a fairly easy proposition - back when the only sources of information were controlled by these selfsame liberals. Talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere have smashed that monopoly, and the slow death of liberal tyranny has begun.

But, as I have warned numerous times in the past, tyrants do not go gently into that good night. In the absence of some control over the dissemination of information, liberal tyranny is a dead man walking. He is, therefore, a desperate, dangerous man.

If tyranny cannot withstand the light of day, its only option for survival is to abolish daylight. Keep your eyes PEELED, my friends - they're coming for the internet!

 

[Annie]

Many links, many problems...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17487

Pewgate: The Battle of the Blogosphere
By Richard Poe
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 25, 2005

The blogosphere is under attack. For three weeks, bloggers have battled the Federal Election Commission, seeking exemption from campaign finance laws that would effectively regulate political speech on the Web. How did it come to this?

The answer lies in a burgeoning scandal which we might call Pewgate. Ryan Sager of the New York Post broke this extraordinary story on March 17. He learned that the McCain-Feingold Act – the law which empowers the FEC to muzzle bloggers – was pushed through Congress by fraud.

For those netizens whose modems and wireless cards went dead three weeks ago, here’s some of the background you missed.

The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 gave federal judges and FEC officials the right to determine who can buy political ads on TV or radio during election season, and what they may say in those ads.

On September 18, 2004, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the FEC to extend McCain-Feingold’s censorship power over the Internet.

Dissident FEC commissioner Bradley Smith blew the whistle in a March 3 interview with CNETnews.com, warning that "grassroots Internet activity is in danger."

Smith warned that the FEC might regulate virtually "any decision by an individual to put a link on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet."

An explosion of blogger outrage ensued.

"I will continue to link to campaign websites whenever I want. … If they put me into jail for it, so be it," stated blogger Roger L. Simon.

Blogger Tom Smith at Right Coast declared, "[T]hey can stop us from blogging … when they pry our keyboards from our cold, dead fingers."

This week, the FEC seemingly compromised, releasing guidelines that appear to exempt most bloggers from regulation. However, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh warns that the guidelines are complex and ambiguous. Moreover, future court decisions may overturn them.

How did such a crazy law get through Congress in the first place? That’s where Pewgate comes in.

Beginning in 1994, a group of non-profit foundations began bankrolling "experts" and front groups whose purpose was to bamboozle Congress into thinking that millions of Americans were clamoring for "campaign finance reform" – even though they were not.

Sean P. Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, claims that he masterminded the scheme. Treglia boasted of his achievement at a March, 2004 conference at USC's Annenberg School for Communication. New York Post reporter Ryan Sager obtained a videotape of Treglia’s remarks.

"I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter," said Treglia. "Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story."

Campaign finance reform "didn't have a constituency," admitted Treglia. So he set out to create one.

Says Treglia, "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot - that everywhere they [politicians] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

To this end, Pew and its allies dispensed $140 million between 1994 and 2004, 88 percent of which – a cool $123 million – came from just eight foundations: Pew Charitable Trusts; Schumann Center; Carnegie Corporation; Joyce Foundation; George Soros’s Open Society Institute; Jerome Kohlberg Trust; Ford Foundation; and MacArthur Foundation.

Respected "good government" groups such as the Center for Public Integrity and Democracy 21 took Pewgate money. Soros and the Carnegie Corporation lavished contributions on John McCain’s Reform Institute.

Some Pewgate funds bought favorable media coverage. Sager reports that the Carnegie Corporation paid the American Prospect magazine $132,000 to publish a special issue pushing campaign finance reform. National Public Radio has spent at least $860,000 of Pewgate funds on programs spotlighting the role of money in politics.

Pewgate’s tentacles reach even to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many of the legal arguments upon which the court based its December 10, 2003 decision to uphold McCain-Feingold derived from data now deemed to have been fraudulent – data cooked up by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a Soros-funded operation which received millions in Pewgate lucre.

"[A]lmost half the footnotes relied on by the Supreme Court in upholding [McCain-Feingold] are research funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts," Treglia crowed.

Sean Treglia currently sits on the board of the Pew-funded Institute for Policy, Democracy & the Internet, which seeks to foster regulation of political speech on the Web.

The battle of the blogosphere has only just begun.

 

[musicman]

That it has. Liberal tyranny, too, has identified its true enemy - the unfettered, unfiltered exchange of information. The task of abolishing daylight is underway. It is liberalism's only chance.

It figures that Soros would be up to his eyeballs in this attack on freedom.

 

[dilloduck]

That it has. Liberal tyranny, too, has identified its true enemy - the unfettered, unfiltered exchange of information. The task of abolishing daylight is underway. It is liberalism's only chance.

It figures that Soros would be up to his eyeballs in this attack on freedom.

I imagine he will be-----guess we'll see how powerful his money is !

 

[Annie]

That it has. Liberal tyranny, too, has identified its true enemy - the unfettered, unfiltered exchange of information. The task of abolishing daylight is underway. It is liberalism's only chance.

It figures that Soros would be up to his eyeballs in this attack on freedom.

No joke, same with PEW.

 

[musicman]

I imagine he will be-----guess we'll see how powerful his money is !

My guess is, pretty damned powerful.

It saddens and frightens me that, "who controls the flow of information controls the reins of power". It points up the truth of a statement like, "If you tell Americans - enough times a day, and without any bothersome interference by words to the contrary - that the sky is plaid, a significant number of them will wind up rooting through their closets, looking for a matching belt". We are a lethargic, easily-led people.

 

[dilloduck]

My guess is, pretty damned powerful.

It saddens and frightens me that, "who controls the flow of information controls the reins of power". It points up the truth of a statement like, "If you tell Americans - enough times a day, and without any bothersome interference by words to the contrary - that the sky is plaid, a significant number of them will wind up rooting through their closets, looking for a matching belt". We are a lethargic, easily-led people.

Agreed---and money can influence the flow of information---price we pay I guess, but it still pisses me off.

 

[musicman]

Agreed---and money can influence the flow of information---price we pay I guess, but it still pisses me off.

Absolutely - and money that seeks to advance tyranny is the most dangerous of all. These bastards KNOW that they must halt the free flow of information, or die.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here's some more concerns about this topic.

The Coming War on Blogs
By James D. Miller for Tech Central Station
March 25, 2005

It's a universal law of capitalism: when an industry faces a new and significant threat to its profits and powers it turns to the government for protection. Well, bloggers who write on current events are challenging the mainstream media (MSM), the most politically well-connected industry in America. Watch for the MSM to start using their political influence to burden bloggers.

But won't the First Amendment protect blogs? Unfortunately, courts already hold that many governmental restrictions on speech don't violate the First Amendment, and I can think of three areas in which the MSM might successfully change laws and regulations to hinder their blogger competitors:

1. Campaign Finance Reform -- Blog entries in support of a candidate could be considered political contributions to that candidate. The danger for most bloggers would lie not in contributing more than the legally permissible amount to a candidate, but rather in having to fill out the paperwork necessary to report their "political contributions".

The MSM, of course, would never permit their editorials in favor of a candidate to be considered political contributions. So to use campaign finance reform against bloggers, courts would have to distinguish between bloggers and the "legitimate" media. Any definition of bloggers will be imprecise, but this won't stop courts because most legal categories already have fuzzy boundaries. To define a blogger, courts could simply use the "I know it when I see it" approach famously employed by Justice Potter Stewart to determine whether something constituted hard-core pornography.

2. Libel Law -- The MSM used to fight aggressively against any expansion of libel law, but I predict this soon will change. The MSM can handle the burden of defending itself from libel suits much more easily than bloggers can. By increasing the scope of libel law the MSM would impose costs on all journalists which they, but not bloggers, could absorb.

3. Copyright Law -- Blogs often use information from other sources and, from what I have observed, sometimes flagrantly violate copyright laws. Imagine if Congress increased the complexity and penalties of copyright laws. Non-lawyer bloggers could never be sure what constituted legal fair use of MSM stories and information. Enhanced copyright laws could have a chilling effect on blogging.

In a fight against the MSM, blogs have two significant weaknesses: lack of monetary and legal resources. Most bloggers already lose money on their blogs. A small paperwork, monetary or legal burden imposed on bloggers would drive many of them to extinction. Expect the MSM to exploit this weakness.

The Democratic Party will likely assist the MSM in their attack on blogs, not because most blogs are pro-Republican but because blogs are not as consistently liberal as the MSM. John Kerry, for example, is calling for the government to do something to protect the MSM. As he said in a recent speech:

"The mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

The Republicans will, I hope, realize that on average their interests are served by protecting blogs. But the Democrats and the MSM will still use the courts and regulatory agencies to attack bloggers, and if the Democrats ever retake the Presidency and Congress expect "media reform" to become a top priority.

The founders of our great country expected that different interest groups would seek to use the political process for their personal gain. So in seeking to get the government to hinder bloggers, the MSM will be acting exactly as men such as Alexander Hamilton would have predicted. And Hamilton would not have expected the courts to save bloggers. Rather, he would have hoped that bloggers themselves would politically organize to fight back against the MSM.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032505B.html

 

[musicman]

Excellent find, Adam's Apple! Ah, yes - a statement by John Kerry. The man who uttered the words, "global test" has MORE to say!

"The mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning".

Richard Clarke, the 9/11 hearings, ignoring the Swift Boat Vets, viciously and baselessly attacking the Swift Boat Vets when ignoring them didn't shut them up, Rathergate, the MSM ignoring Rathergate, Easongate, the MSM ignoring Easongate, and now the "Republican talking points on Terri Schiavo", and the MSM ignoring THAT stinking-to-high-heaven memo. Yeah - I'd say the MSM did a "pretty good job of discerning" - discerning which news piece would be advantageous to Democrats, and which would make good hatchet pieces against Republicans. In other words, in the context of the MSM's behavior in the last three decades, I'd say it was just another year at the office.

"But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes...".

There it is - the beating heart of liberalism: its unceasing arrogance! Since the "sub-media" has not garnered the ideological Imprimatur (read: it hasn't been schooled in the finer points of agenda-driven LYING), it is necessarily comprised of drooling, pajama-clad cretins who are just "entertaining" each other. Of course, I have to admit that hearing the pure, unadulterated truth CAN be entertaining - especially when it's accompanied by the outraged squeals of the LMM.

More to come.

 

[Annie]

Great posts both Adam's Apple and MM.

The bloggers are uniting against the FEC trying to control them. While it's not the MSM per se, one would have to be naive to think they aren't wielding their clout.

 

[musicman]

Cont'd.

"And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media...".

Horror of horrors - a heroic little voice of truth, undermining the endless ocean of lies!

"And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly affected...".

Hey - this guy's not as dumb as he looks! The American electorate finally has an alternative to round-the-clock shilling for liberalism. As a direct consequence, the left's bankrupt, hateful policies are being regularly and roundly rejected, and liberalism is facing extinction.

"The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

That is the question indeed. In an atmospherre of the free and open exchange of ideas, liberalism CANNOT SURVIVE. They can't have all this awkward TRUTH spilling out all over the place; it exposes them for the tyrants they are.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if tyranny cannot survive the light of day, its only chance for survival is to somehow abolish daylight. Everything you see in the coming months and years, coming from the Democrat and MSM camp, is going to be striving for that very end.

 

[musicman]

Great posts both Adam's Apple and MM.

The bloggers are uniting against the FEC trying to control them. While it's not the MSM per se, one would have to be naive to think they aren't wielding their clout.

And digging in their (and Soros') deep pockets! The enemies of free speech are united in their resolve; the blogosphere faces a daunting task. I think little folks like us are going to have to start getting up and getting after it. This is, after all , about US!

 

[Annie]

And digging in their (and Soros') deep pockets! The enemies of free speech are united in their resolve; the blogosphere faces a daunting task. I think little folks like us are going to have to start getting up and getting after it. This is, after all , about US!

I agree, everyone should write their congressional representatives.

 

[freeandfun1]

Google News is going to watch for hate speech, (Not google search, that is a 1st amendment deal)

Since when is ANY speech (other than yelling fire in a theatre, etc.) not protected? Remember the revelation a while back about Google being a BIG DNC supporter? I wonder if there is any linkage between that and this? I am sure there is. Surpressing ANY news or opinion is against the 1st Amendment. I wonder if that means they will now no longer carry Al Jazeera stories.... I doub it. They are TOO anti-American. Google has to keep them up top.

 

[Annie]

Since when is ANY speech (other than yelling fire in a theatre, etc.) not protected? Remember the revelation a while back about Google being a BIG DNC supporter? I wonder if there is any linkage between that and this? I am sure there is. Surpressing ANY news or opinion is against the 1st Amendment. I wonder if that means they will now no longer carry Al Jazeera stories.... I doub it. They are TOO anti-American. Google has to keep them up top.

Google News has been at the center of quite a few controversies. They will not define the terms of a 'news organization.' They list quite a few leftwing bloggers, but refuse others from the right with similar style blogs.

A few weeks ago, the included the Neo-nazi Vangaard from Germany, which is a hate site, not news. Why one might ask? They are very big on anti-Bush and conspiracy stories. That is the one that sparked this broohaha.

 

[Annie]

I agree, everyone should write their congressional representatives.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52411

Regulating bloggers:
Tell FEC you support free speech online

IN A SET of new regulations proposed on Wednesday, the Federal Election Commission indicated that it would not attempt to restrict political speech made by individuals on the Internet — if that speech is not coordinated with a political party or campaign. But that is easier said than done under the rules set forth in existing campaign finance law.

Until now, the FEC refused to apply campaign finance laws to the Internet. But last year supporters of government restrictions on free speech (otherwise known as backers of federal campaign finance “reform”) sued the FEC, saying the commission’s regulations were too lax. The judge agreed, and Wednesday’s proposed rules were designed to comply with that ruling.

In short, the six-member FEC shows no burning zeal for regulating Internet-based political speech made by private citizens who are not part of a political campaign. Its new rules are not intended to apply to independent bloggers. But there are two important catches.

The first is that the campaign finance laws compel the FEC to regulate speech that is made in coordination with a candidate or party. The question is, what might the FEC, Congress or the courts consider coordination when it comes to blogging?

Would a campaign volunteer or staffer have to report any blogging in support of his boss as an in-kind contribution? If a blogger works as a consultant on a campaign, as happened last year, would the blog be subject to FEC regulation?

The second catch is this: Now that campaign finance laws have infiltrated the Internet, what might Congress do to see that existing or new laws be made to silence criticism of candidates? The McCain-Feingold law was written explicitly to muzzle critics of Congress. There is every reason to expect that Congress would love to muzzle bloggers if at all possible.

The FEC is accepting comment on the proposed rules, which be read at www.fec.gov. A letter opposing the expansion of campaign regulations to bloggers could help prevent that frightening scenario from ever happening.