It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good News: Political Blogs May Be Regulated By The FEC

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Good News: Political Blogs May Be Regulated By The FEC


www.blogherald.com

It look like American bloggers could face a new threat that may make people think twice before criticizing their political leaders online.

Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government (in this case the Federal Election Commission).
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

This law would probably extend to Twitter as well, not to mention Facebook too (the latter who is embroiled in another censorship case via Pakistan).


So I'm guessing this type of law would extend to ATS aswell.
Well, there goes freedom of speech. All you Americans are now being censored.
I guess America is now apologizing to China for allowing people freedom of speech as well (since they did that for the "discriminatory" Arizona law) and moving into their type of system.


Kind of falls in line with this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



www.blogherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I knew this was coming. It's just a matter of when.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


I suppose I should not be surprised that some one wants to do this. I do however think it would exceed that amount of regulation the government can make for self expression.
I do think the real question to ask is how would it be regulated? I fear they just might be able to find a way to tax it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I doubt it'll happen as it be the first shot in a full scale backlash at the government that could turn ugly. I really don't think the government would be that stupid. Especially since the internet is such an effective way to curb dissent. People go online and rant about politics and then feel they don't need to do anything else.

And the government never apologized for the Arizona law. That was from a Fox News propaganda piece that is now successfully being parroted by people with an axe to grind who don't have the good sense to find it out for themselves.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Well maybe they'd be able to tax internet use and censor anything that's written on known blogs. I'm just wondering about content produced outside the US (such as this post) and how the US would be able to moderate something produced outside its jurisdiction. Block it from US residents only?

If they really want to, they'd figure out a way. And then how are you going to complain about it? You won't be able to post something on Facebook or Twitter about it.
Classic oppression.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
So...,

The basic premise here is this....

People talk.

People share information....

sometimes that information is threatening to the establishment because it's:


  1. Wrong.
  2. Biased.
  3. Lies.
  4. An inconvenient truth.
  5. Prosecutable.
  6. Embarrassing.


THEREFOR the political machinery has ventured... "into the weeds."

Now, the fear of information is interesting.

If it is fact, one should be able to find at least some vetted source of data that isn't in contention (like the public record.) So, one would think that the solution to the dissemination of "dangerous" information could be easily effected.

If it concerns matters of a private or sealed nature, it cannot be said to be fact - only conjecture or supposition - rendering the information legally 'harmless.'

Sources become the problem here. Since all MSM news is classified legally as "entertainment" (it is true in America) it cannot be said to have legal weight.

Since (other than word of mouth) no information presented can be verified first hand as an 'accusation' - there is no force that can be brought to bear upon the 'reporter' of said information.... until now.

In other words, this effort serves only to protect political expedience.

Bad move people.... not the "Good News" I was hoping to read.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
They already know what we think, and as if I havnt already been told by some well connected source what FBI computer jobs are often enough.


If they watching, give themselves to get the heevie jeevie's over, lay it on thick.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Bad move people.... not the "Good News" I was hoping to read.


I think the "Good News" was sarcasm


Sorry.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
There is no censorship involved in this...only the requirement (if asked) to DISCLOSE (hence the name DISCLOSE Act) who is funding your blog IF you are giving out infomration about a candidate running for office

Open Congres - DISCLOSE Act


Under the bill, the F.E.C. would have the authority to require disclosures regarding the funding of “coordinated communications,” defined in the bill as “a publicly distributed or disseminated communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is publicly distributed or disseminated within four months prior to an election. In other words, political ads. And this bill would specifically target those paid for by someone or some entity other than the candidates.




I don't see this as a bad thing...because currently I think both parties are using "bloggers" as a supplemental political ad force. Both positive and negative use.

There has always been suspicion if certain bloggers were being paid by a party or even by a corporation to put out disinformation, misinformation, or just dirt found on a candidate. And they could do this without fearing that any tie could be made back to them. Now with this in place, they will think twice about it because it would now be able to be tied back to them.

Remember...this only applies to communications about a person running for Federal office during their election (within four months of the election).


Not that scary IMO.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Good luck on them trying to enforce the regulations. I am not a regular on the politics threads though I can promise one thing: I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED!!! If I feel the need to scruntinize those in power I will do it. My freedom of speech will not be infringed.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Thanks for the interpretation. I want to know if this bill would have prevented the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry back in '04?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
If that interpretation is correct I stille see some problems with the bill itself, namely:

1) Opens the door to censorship laws being passed for any other time (not just within four months...)

2) It still is censoring freedom of speech- If I come onto ATS in 2012 and say Obama is a socialist,yada,yada,yada, will my views be seen as too harsh and subject to investigation?

...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
There is no censorship involved in this...only the requirement (if asked) to DISCLOSE (hence the name DISCLOSE Act) who is funding your blog IF you are giving out infomration about a candidate running for office

Open Congres - DISCLOSE Act


Under the bill, the F.E.C. would have the authority to require disclosures regarding the funding of “coordinated communications,” defined in the bill as “a publicly distributed or disseminated communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is publicly distributed or disseminated within four months prior to an election. In other words, political ads. And this bill would specifically target those paid for by someone or some entity other than the candidates.


Remember...this only applies to communications about a person running for Federal office during their election (within four months of the election).


Not that scary IMO.


Key points that nevertheless raise my hackles....


... the F.E.C. would have the authority to require disclosures regarding the funding of “coordinated communications,”


Authority of law is being granted to the F.E.C., a committee of politically appointed employees. As the foundation of the use of legal force, the idea of a committee as executor, represents an unsettling display of trust. Ultimately, if a thing can be legally required upon demand, it is akin to presenting proof of legitimacy. So why will certain information require the 'reporter' to present his associations, with refusal bring force of law to bear?

Blogs, generally speaking are free; are these people paying a fee to blog their particular 'information'? Assuming that they do pay, are they not protected by rules of commerce?

"Coordinated communications" is a term which invites analysis. Does coordination mean if more than a few people say something which is nominally similar - they are in an 'effort' of some kind? Who chooses to determine what is and isn't "coordinated?" Is it timing? Is it content? Is it based on the ability to affect public perception regarding a political careerist or celebrity? This is not cut and dry unless you assume good will and honorable execution.... do we really anticipate that this law will be anything other than a political tool?


.... that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is publicly distributed or disseminated within four months prior to an election.


OK, so if you want focused protection against insults or injuries, all you have to do is get a political party to endorse your run for Federal office.... I'm sure there are people out there who would pay for that.... and who knows? may already have.

Otherwise such personages will become 'privileged' for at least 4 months of their lives. This is not a good beginning.... such privileges only grow.... never decrease.


...In other words, political ads. And this bill would specifically target those paid for by someone or some entity other than the candidates.


Ultimately, a campaign, by definition is an "ad"... the whole thing. And if you are a blogger with a following, an outspoken activist or simply a partisan of the reputed 'opposition' you are by definition unable to exercise your right of free speech unless you are willing to trade your right of privacy. Another point which makes me wonder where Federal power is headed and more importantly, given that access to it appears socially restricted I would like to know why we should allow it.

Remember, if a blogger is a paid agent of the campaign, records are already required to note and report the relationship. Where is the disconnect... the political party itself.

I don't care for the doors this 'law' is opening....



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The whole wording is subject to interpretation and, therefore, abuse. You're right. A campaign is supposed to publicize candidates. Therefore, an entire campaign is an ad.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join