• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Keep free speech alive on the Internet

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
The FEC, as we've discussed here before, may be about to apply the restrictions on free speech and free press that the campaign "reform" laws comprise onto the Internet, the last bastion of free speech in our society.

A bill, S.678, is currently going through the Senate. This bill, an absolute rarity, is only one sentence long:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."
Click to expand...

So the Internet would still enjoy the freedom it does now. Otherwise, political speech on the Internet, including this very forum, might be heavily restricted and even shut down entirely. This isn't paranoia; the JREF, being a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and not a 527 political action committee, could be forced to close down the politics section of this forum entirely and may even be subject to hefty fines. This, of course, is despicable and unacceptable.

I urge all Americans on this forum to write their Senators and urge them to vote for S.678. You can do so very easily here:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22
 
Could someone tell shanek that the Internet is not solely an American thingie....?
 
What's the original bill? Who sponsored it? And, isn't speech restriction unconstitutional?
 
CFLarsen said:
Could someone tell shanek that the Internet is not solely an American thingie....?
Click to expand...

Could you get off his cock?
 
Ahhh....

If the Internet is not solely the property of one nation, then is Claus saying that the Chinese have no internet censorship?

Or is he just being his usual contrarian self?
:dl:
 
shanek said:
The FEC, as we've discussed here before, may be about to apply the restrictions on free speech and free press that the campaign "reform" laws comprise onto the Internet, the last bastion of free speech in our society.

A bill, S.678, is currently going through the Senate. This bill, an absolute rarity, is only one sentence long:



So the Internet would still enjoy the freedom it does now. Otherwise, political speech on the Internet, including this very forum, might be heavily restricted and even shut down entirely. This isn't paranoia; the JREF, being a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and not a 527 political action committee, could be forced to close down the politics section of this forum entirely and may even be subject to hefty fines. This, of course, is despicable and unacceptable.

I urge all Americans on this forum to write their Senators and urge them to vote for S.678. You can do so very easily here:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22
Click to expand...

So far I'm with you on this one, though I love a debate before forming an opinion. Is there a case for what the FEC is trying to do?
 
crimresearch said:
If the Internet is not solely the property of one nation, then is Claus saying that the Chinese have no internet censorship?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Any country can impose whatever censorship it wants, but that doesn't make freedom of speech disappear from the rest of the Internet, like shanek claims:

shanek said:
Otherwise, political speech on the Internet
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this piece of legislation will shut down political speech on Danish sites. Perhaps you could explain it?
 
Re: Re: Keep free speech alive on the Internet

gnome said:
So far I'm with you on this one, though I love a debate before forming an opinion. Is there a case for what the FEC is trying to do?
Click to expand...

My question too. It seems that they are trying to get language added to a bill that already exists, and has since 1971. So what evidence is ther that the bill, as it stands now, has been or even can be, interpreted in such a way as to block political speech on the internet? Any of the lawyer types out there want to weigh in on this?
 
CFLarsen said:
Of course not. Any country can impose whatever censorship it wants, but that doesn't make freedom of speech disappear from the rest of the Internet, like shanek claims:

I fail to see how this piece of legislation will shut down political speech on Danish sites. Perhaps you could explain it?
Click to expand...

Someone who stalks shanek as much as you do would know he is speaking in the context of Internet in USA and sites and organizations on the Internet based in USA, and he gave JREF as an example. But please, don't let facts stop you from flaming shanek.
 
Grammatron said:
he is speaking in the context of Internet in USA and sites and organizations on the Internet based in USA, and he gave JREF as an example.
Click to expand...

If he means what you telepathically have decided, then he is very wrong. Precisely as Danes can buy server space in the US, Americans can do the same in Denmark.
 
Ahhh..now I see...

Claus thinks that when an American poster references US laws and points out that JREF is a US site, and then says "Internet, the last bastion of free speech in our society." he is clearly talking about the thousands of *Danish* posters here at JREF.

:rolleyes:
 
crimresearch said:
Ahhh..now I see...

Claus thinks that when an American poster references US laws and points out that JREF is a US site, and then says "Internet, the last bastion of free speech in our society." he is clearly talking about the thousands of *Danish* posters here at JREF.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You might want to read my posts, if you don't want to be the fool...
 
CFLarsen said:
If he means what you telepathically have decided, then he is very wrong. Precisely as Danes can buy server space in the US, Americans can do the same in Denmark.
Click to expand...

Not telepathically, it's a simple matter of deduction. You know, if you let go of the ball nine times and it falls down instead of hovering or going up, then it's highly probable on the tenth time it will fall down as well. Similarly, shanek always posts on Politics forum about US law, US constitution, US politics or rights from the US perspective as he sees the. For you to deny it would be highly dishonest.
 
Grammatron said:
Not telepathically, it's a simple matter of deduction. You know, if you let go of the ball nine times and it falls down instead of hovering or going up, then it's highly probable on the tenth time it will fall down as well. Similarly, shanek always posts on Politics forum about US law, US constitution, US politics or rights from the US perspective as he sees the. For you to deny it would be highly dishonest.
Click to expand...

I am not denying it. However, he has also posted about Danish law, the Danish constitution and Danish rights.

For you to deny it would be highly dishonest.

Now, is he wrong? Or are you only posting to criticize me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom