Um, I hate to burst your bubble there, King Daevid, but the U.S. will always remain "a leader in the Internet" as long as straight me want to look at titties, gay men want to look at cocks, and bi's want to look at titties with a cock sliding between them.
Issues like blogging being considered a campaign contribution might seem like the most important thing in your world, but in mine it really couldn't be a more minor concern. Now, back to the titties... --- King Daevid MacKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This could be a real impetus to disempowering the > US > as a leader in the Internet. Like those who create > the worms and viruses, we would have to house our > blogs and email on computers situated in other > countries. Canada comes to mind. What a great boon > to our neighbors to the North! > > If I can write letters to my friends detailing what > an > evil force the Bush adinistration has been, do I > have > to count that in my contributions to the Democrats? > > Further, if you are going to have to pro rate the > computer use to come up with a cost, then we could > all > hook our 386 computers to the SETI site when we > weren't using it or, if we have powerful computers, > while we are using them. We could set up wireless > hubs in our areas and share the cost of the wireless > (hmmm...my Internet ISP is about $39 per month > spread > among 400 people or more. I could be a very cheap > political activist! Much cheaper than railing > against > the Republicans in long hand with 37 cent stamps.) > > Controlling the Internet could work in the favor of > true grassroots efforts as opposed to the mock > antics > of the Republicans...that is if they could actually > control the Internet. > > One theory of the fall of communism in the Soviet > Union was that it was due to the inceasing flow of > information over computers that those in power could > not control. > > I can see why the Republicans would want to control > the Internet, but what I think they fail to realize > (although the on-going evolution of peer-to-peer > should have given them a hint) is that the creative > evolution of Internet technologies are an avenue for > revolt among the young. Try to stamp out the > Internet > as we know it and it will transmorgify into > something > else and grow stronger. > > The Internet is about free speech and freedom of > ideas > which our mainline press has abandoned. > > If the Congress thought they had an uproar over the > Urban Legend that the US Postal Serice was going to > charge for emails, they have not seen anything yet. > Maybe this will be the straw that breaks corporate > America's hold on our elected officials! Maybe, > like > the Soviet Union, this will cause the overthrow of > the > Republicans! > > > The coming crackdown on blogging > March 3, 2005, 4:00 AM PT > By Declan McCullagh > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > > > > Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of > political blogging and online punditry are over. > In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news > organizations could risk the wrath of the federal > government if they improperly link to a campaign's > Web > site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press > release to a mailing list, depending on the details, > could be punished by fines. > Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners > at the Federal Election Commission, which is > beginning > the perilous process of extending a controversial > 2002 > campaign finance law to the Internet. > In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 > vote, > but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last > fall overturned that decision. "The commission's > exclusion of Internet communications from the > coordinated communications regulation severely > undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, > Kollar-Kotelly wrote. > Smith and the other two Republican commissioners > wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But > because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go > along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" > regulatory process now is under way. > CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan > Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the > McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion > onto the Internet. > Q: What rules will apply to the Internet that did > not > before? > A: The commission has generally been hands-off on > the > Internet. We've said, "If you advertise on the > Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like > if > you were advertising on television or the > newspaper." > The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's > page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page > and > links to their favorite politician, is that a > contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has > already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're > at the disclosure threshold and additional > expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law. > Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. > Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't > give bloggers the press exemption, we have the > question of, do we extend this to online-only > journals > like CNET? > How can the government place a value on a blog that > praises some politician? > How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of > thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late > 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think > we'd > hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, > you'd have to calculate what percentage of the > computer cost and electricity went to political > advocacy. > It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. > And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would > have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an > inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be > pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but > not that person? > How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a > dollar, to a campaign? > I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the > commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, > is > how to value assistance to a campaign. > Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. > Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a > secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out > letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign > raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the > amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe > $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission > has usually taken the view that we value it by the > amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to > value the link, but the value of the link will go up > very quickly. > Then what's the real impact of the judge's decision? > The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. > She > says that any coordinated activity over the Internet > would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The > problem > with coordinated activity over the Internet is that > it > will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting > services. > They're exempt from regulation only because of the > press exemption. But people have been arguing that > the > Internet doesn't fit under the press exemption. It > becomes a really complex issue that would strike > deep > into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who > are writing out there today. (Editor's note: federal > law limits the press exemption to a "broadcasting > station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical > publication." ) > How do you see this playing out? > There's sensitivity in the commission on this. But > remember the commission's decision to exempt the > Internet only passed by a 4-2 vote. > This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal > the judge's decision. We appealed parts of her > decision, but there were only three votes to appeal > the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem > to > be at least three commissioners who like this. > Then this is a partisan issue? > Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that > partisan splits tend to reflect ideology rather than > party. I don't think the Democratic commissioners > are > sitting around saying that the Internet is working > to > the advantage of the Republicans. > One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) > now > is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the > Democrats > and Republicans used the Internet very effectively > in > the last campaign. > What would you like to see happen? > I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over > the > Internet is not an expenditure or contribution, or > at > least activity done by regular Internet journals, to > cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, > it's very likely that the Internet is going to be > regulated, and the FEC and Congress will be > inundated > with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!" > What happens next? > It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress > is willing to stand up and say, "Keep your hands off > of this, and we'll change the statute to make it > clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is > in danger. The impact would affect e-mail lists, > especially if there's any sense that they're done in > coordination with the campaign. If I forward > something > from the campaign to my personal list of several > hundred people, which is a great grassroots > activity, > that's what we're talking about having to look at. > Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we > have > to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate > e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they > won. > If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of > activities will the FEC have to target? > We're talking about any decision by an individual to > put a link (to a political candidate) on their home > page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind > of activity that can be done on the Internet. > Again, blogging could also get us into issues about > online journals and non-online journals. Why should > CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why > should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should > Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption > but not online sites, just because the newspapers > have > a print edition as well? > Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and > online media? > Because the statute refers to periodicals or > broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either > of those. Second, because there's no standard for > being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and > we're > back to the deregulated Internet that the judge > objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on > the > commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of > blanket exemption. > So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, > and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding > it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble? > Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that > reproducing a campaign's material is a reproduction > for purpose of triggering the law. That'll count as > an > expenditure that counts against campaign finance > law. > This is an incredible thicket. If someone else > doesn't > take action, for instance in Congress, we're running > a > real possibility of serious Internet regulation. > It's > going to be bizarre. > > -- > King Daevid MacKenzie, WLSU-FM 88.9 La Crosse, > Wisconsin, USA > http://wpr.org/music/ http://ultimajock.blogspot.com > "Why do people take drugs anymore, when reality has > become a hallucination?" LEWIS BLACK > > __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Dying to be thin? Anorexia. Narrated by Julianne Moore . http://us.click.yahoo.com/Dtf6vA/gsnJAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Apply for Commercial Real Estate loans online and submit your deal to dozens of hungry lenders in just minutes. Loan programs for all types of business and commercial real estate. Apply anytime at http://realestatezoo.com b i s e x u a l =============== a bifem.net publication Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bisexual Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bisexual/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
