Feds May Regulate Political Blogs & Other Political Content

[SlantedFacts]

According to a news report (01/18/2006)

The Federal Election Commission is considering regulating and restricting online entities and activities which run to the political, including political blogs and other political content providers and sources. http://channels.lockergnome.com/poli...roviders.phtml

Is the American political circus about to reduce the ability for Americans to talk about what they perceive as political problems in the United States?

It Did say in the article:

...six commissioners who sit on the Federal Election Commission, fully four of them have come out publicly against overreaching regulation, at least, of independent bloggers. Said Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, “I really see no appetite at the agency for regulating bloggers. I would be very, very surprised if that was the result.”

[tinybear]

Geez, why is America becoming like China?

[Osborn F Enready]

Gee Tiny, I can't imagine......

We will see how long it is before people are in here defending the idea, because they are tired of being insulted, or not agreed with by bloggers.

[Osborn F Enready]

By the way, I read the title of this thread about 12 times today while scanning the thread-list.

It has angered me to the point of wanting to tell the Feds to piss up the proverbial rope!

I see this is yet more news anxiously waiting to be swept under the rug of those not wanting to address the fact that this is becoming the police state, on a global scale.

[Jack]

They wouldn't stand a chance of enforcing it. Interception is one thing, censorship another altogether.

To fully regulate even an obvious group like political bloggers, the Feds would have to alter the behavior of the Web and disrupt so many established protocols everyone would be affected and complain. They would most likely do such a crappy job of it that they'd open numerous doors to spammers and rogue programmers. Google or Mr. Gates might even object to this.

If anything does come of this, it may be in pissing off every liberal and moderate blogger and pounding another nail in the coffin of the religious-right's influence in government. At least, one can hope.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready By the way, I read the title of this thread about 12 times today while scanning the thread-list. It has angered me to the point of wanting to tell the Feds to piss up the proverbial rope! I see this is yet more news anxiously waiting to be swept under the rug of those not wanting to address the fact that this is becoming the police state, on a global scale.

You Said:

I see this is yet more news anxiously waiting to be swept under the rug

That is WHY I posted it here - damn socialism is creeping around EVERY corner!

The point here is NOT That It Won't Happen but that It Was ACTUALLY PROPOSED AND Considered By ANY American Politicians

THOSE OF YOU who are not worried that this was even thought of by a politician.

YOU scare Me!!!

I am NOT ready to dump our freedom of speech at NO COST!

I would Bare Arms to protect THIS!

Is that why so many politicians are trying to get anti-gun lobbyists in their pockets?

Just So GOOD AMERICANS won't be able to defend our FREEDOMS?

This reminds me of a line in a song that says:

"IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING - YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING!"

[lili462]

Quote by: SlantedFacts You Said: That is WHY I posted it here - damn socialism is creeping around EVERY corner! The point here is NOT That It Won't Happen but that It Was ACTUALLY PROPOSED AND Considered By ANY American Politicians THOSE OF YOU who are not worried that this was even thought of by a politician. YOU scare Me!!! I am NOT ready to dump our freedom of speech at NO COST! I would Bare Arms to protect THIS! Is that why so many politicians are trying to get anti-gun lobbyists in their pockets? Just So GOOD AMERICANS won't be able to defend our FREEDOMS? This reminds me of a line in a song that says: "IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING - YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING!"

I'm sure there are alot of people that feel like this. But if i may be honest if the politicians took it far enough, to lenghts of even destroying the constitution or most of its rights...america wouldn't stand for it. do you think that millions of angry americans would care if the government took away the right to bare arms...no, they'd all probably run to the black market or get the guns they already own.lets face it, they cant arrrest us all. This all sort of goes hand in hand with my "American Dictatorship" thread. I dont think we're in a full dictatorship yet, we wouldnt have freedoms at all, but i dont think we're in a democracy anymore either...

[Osborn F Enready]

lili said:
.lets face it, they cant arrrest us all.

I say:
That is why Hitler created gas chambers, and work camps.

You do know those that were shipped to these camps often were not aware, nor told where they were going, right? This is the same state this nation is in. The general populace is so brainwashed by local and national media, they would buy just about anything the government has to sell as far as officials stories go, and by the time it "actually" happened, it would be too late to do anything except die in protest, or escape attempts.

Is it happening "yet", no, it is not. That does not mean it couldn't start tomorrow, if the power structure feels threatened enough.

The political naivete' of this nation is best summed up I think, by Farrah.

“Americans are now certifiably insane. They are crazy. They are suffering a mass psychosis. They have lost their own ability to discern right from wrong.”
-Joseph Farah. editor of WorldNetDaily, 1999-Apr-12

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready lili said: .lets face it, they cant arrrest us all. I say: That is why Hitler created gas chambers, and work camps. You do know those that were shipped to these camps often were not aware, nor told where they were going, right? This is the same state this nation is in. The general populace is so brainwashed by local and national media, they would buy just about anything the government has to sell as far as officials stories go, and by the time it "actually" happened, it would be too late to do anything except die in protest, or escape attempts. Is it happening "yet", no, it is not. That does not mean it couldn't start tomorrow, if the power structure feels threatened enough. The political naivete' of this nation is best summed up I think, by Farrah. “Americans are now certifiably insane. They are crazy. They are suffering a mass psychosis. They have lost their own ability to discern right from wrong.” -Joseph Farah. editor of WorldNetDaily, 1999-Apr-12

Let me put another little fact that most American's did not know about Hitler's government

He Also sent families of Blonde hair Germans who were married to dark haired Italians - my father was born in Germany before the war and my whole family (both grandparents, aunt, uncle, and father) was literally put on a train that was heading to a camp because my grandmother was aryan and grandfather was Italian.

German military was also running down their own citizens with military vehicles.

I have heard enough of those stories to never loose touch with what FREEDOM can mean to people!

[thatoneguy00]

So we are in trouble to get silenced. This will never ever go through but the thought they would even think of it is retarded. We, the people, vote ya know and who ever goess along with this, I can guarentee you they won't be around long.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Yup, they are going after the blogs.
Google owns BlogSpot,
a very popular free blog generator. Big Brother wants to get his wretched fingers tangled into the code. Google also has access to peoples computer desktops (those gullible enough to use that feature)

Mercury News Feds After Google Data By Howard Mintz The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases. The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches. In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period. The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents. Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.'' ``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said. The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users. ``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.'' Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy. ``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.'' The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.