Thursday, March 03, 2005

Outside the Normal Subject Matter (the 1st not the 2nd)

I generally try to keep this blog about guns, technical matters about guns, and politics about guns.

Tonight, I must deviate. Read the whole article and it will scare the crap out of you.

I generally side with SCOTUS that free speech is not an absolute right. Kiddy porn and the "yelling fire in a theatre" scenario seem to me to be reasonable checks on this right. However, this, in no means, voids the substance of the amendment. And while the Founding Fathers didn't even know what the hell a movie-theatre was, it was a bit difficult to anticipate; but they did.

If one reads background material, like the Federalist Papers, one understands that this right's intention was not muckraking or porn, but was deliberately geared towards political speech.

Two hundred years+, we don't know what the fuck we're talking about.

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."
Do we give bloggers the press exemption?
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?

I figure that monitoring everything on line will increase the FCC staff 4-fold, at a minimum. That's a lot of jobs that need doing. Conclusion: Tax the internet.

The only reason the Fed has prevented states from taxing it is because they have yet to figured out a good way to do it. After all, If some lowly governor can't collect the green, how can the Fed?

Easy. Just regulate access, tax any imput (including pictures of my nekkid sister [check the archives]), MAKE DAMN SURE THERE IS NO POLITICAL SPEECH, and just kick back and watch some SCOTUS-approved porn that doesn't include the discharge of a rifle.

Shut up, give up your guns, and walk the line.


While a lot of bloggers got pretty riled ( see here, here, and here for example), some people are taking a milder tone. Huffman has pointed out that a lot of blogs have unnecessarily gotten their panties bunched up about something that is, for all intents and purposes, unenforcable. The ability to enforce a law is central to its effectiveness and the governments control of the subject being regulated.

Given Joe's areas of expertise, my inclination is to defer to his opinion on this one. Maybe I got a bit lathered up about a rumor about a regulation that enacts a law that is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Americandrumslinger acknowledgdes my anger while focusing on the more important things in life, like guns and women.

I won't shut up (not like I link to any politicians websites anyway but that is not the point).

As you pointed out the Federalist papers say a lot about free speech and a tyrannical government. As far as I am concerned the government can get fucked... And as far as giving up my guns, they can come get them, bullets first...

Joe Huffman writes: "I can register a domain with a fake name and address in a foreign country, host the domain in still another country, then post anonymously to that website with an IP address from a third country, all without leaving my little town in Idaho."Perhaps he can, but I don't know how to do all of that. I still post on Blogsnot. For free.

Joe is wrong to say that the restrictions are "unenforceable" - they're not universally enforceable. All the .gov has to do is go to the service providers HERE and put pressure on them to throttle the bloggers expressing political opinions. They can't get everybody, or possibly even most of us, but a few select high-profile prosecutions will serve to silence a LOT of bloggers, I think.

Which is why I'm a member of the M-F Insurrection. Molon labe!
Perhaps he can, but I don't know how to do all of that.10 minutes after I get it up and running I would have provided info on how to do it for everyone else. And I probably would be a week behind the main pack. And the blog providers, like won't be far behind. If there is a market, it will be filled.

Joe Huffman
I find offense in the entire idea of McCain-Feingold. It pisses me off even more that they are trying to apply it to me.

Nonetheless, I don't think there is any reason to get irrational about the thing. Primarily, I don't think the FCC is that stupid. Secondly, Libs value their blogs more than the right does. They have absolutely no motivation to shut down Kos and MoveOn.

Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I really don't think it will come crashing down in the near future.

When I think it is imminent, I will hoist the flag as well.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?