-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:34:12 -0700
From: Kurt English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Civil disobedience should be the answer here. Let's be as
uncooperative and difficult to govern as the liberals were in the
late 1960s. They can't afford to investigate fine or imprison a
million people for this.
>World Net Daily-October 21, 1999
>
>Outlawing personal political speech
>
>By Joseph Farah
>
>Have you ever thought about using your website to campaign for your
>favorite candidate? Or, perhaps, to urge the defeat of that
>congressional representative who has been ignoring your letters?
>
>Better think again.
>
>Leo Smith of Connecticut decided he would use his business website to do
>just that -- urge the defeat of his congressional representative,
>Republican Nancy L. Johnson. He decided to add a new section to an
>already existing Internet site to advance the cause of her challenger,
>Charlotte Koskoff.
>
>Just a few days later, Smith was contacted by Koskoff's campaign
>manager. No, it wasn't a call to thank him for his efforts. It was a
>warning of legal problems he might encounter because of campaign finance
>regulations.
>
>Smith was told by the Federal Elections Commission that he was in
>violation of federal law because he had spent more than $250 in
>expressing his political views without disclosing his identity and
>filing the required reports.
>
>Never mind that Smith didn't spend anything (except time) creating the
>new page. The FEC, however, insisted in an advisory opinion that the
>value of the computer hardware and software is factored into its
>calculations. If a computer used to express political viewpoints cost
>more than $250, the FEC said, its owner would have to meet the filing
>requirements.
>
>Do you believe this? For those who argue that campaign finance
>restrictions do not abrogate free-speech rights, I hope this is an
>eye-opener.
>
>Now, I don't particularly like Leo Smith's opinions. What motivated him
>to get politically involved was his irritation with a congresswoman who
>voted to impeach the president -- a president, I believe, who is guilty
>of high crimes and misdemeanors and deserves to be removed from office
>for a hundred different reasons. But, as they say, I support Leo Smith's
>right to express his viewpoints. And I'll defend that right to the
>death.
>
>"Forget about free speech," Smith told the American Civil Liberties
>Union, which has come to his aid. "If you can't advocate what you want
>for an election, that strikes at the heart of our democracy."
>
>No kidding. And Smith's plight has caught the eye of some members of
>Congress. Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, Slade Gordon, R-Wash., and Mitch
>McConnell, R-Ky., offered an amendment to the bill sponsored by Jon
>McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would exempt from
>regulation by the federal government political speech on the Internet by
>individual citizens.
>
>But that is too little, too late. What the Smith story illustrates is
>that there are fundamental flaws in the whole notion of regulating the
>ideas exchanged during election campaigns. No matter how you slice it,
>that's what federal campaign spending laws do.
>
>This time, the ACLU is right. Well, not exactly right. The national
>office put out a statement saying that Smith's encounter with the FEC
>"and its Orwellian mindset goes to the core of what is at stake as
>Congress and the courts struggle with revising the nation's election
>laws." But the ACLU contends the answer is more taxpayer financing of
>elections.
>
>Rather, the answer to those who say we need stricter limits on campaign
>spending is that we need NO limits. Any limits are limits on speech. You
>cannot divide money and speech. Money buys speech. Effective
>communications requires money. It's an illusion to pretend otherwise.
>
>The Internet is a great equalizer. It levels the playing field in so
>many ways. It allows anyone with a phone line to become a town crier
>with a voice that can resonate around the world. But it's not just the
>new technology that we must consider when debating campaign spending
>restrictions. If it is inherently wrong to gag speech on the Internet,
>it is inherently wrong to gag it anywhere -- especially political
>speech.
>
>We don't need more government control -- whether it is through
>taxpayer-financed elections or limits on political speech. Either
>solution spells less freedom.
>
>What we need to do, as much as possible, is to get government's nose out
>of the election process -- and, for that matter, the rest of our public
>and private affairs.
>
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
