Keep free speech alive on the Internet

CFLarsen said:
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?
Click to expand...

He also posted Photoshoped images for humor purposes but the vast majority of his threads deal with US laws and his views on it. Your post on this thread is nothing but a flame directed at shanek, I'm only posting to point it out in the hopes you will stop unless you want people to start ignoring you.
 
Grammatron said:
He also posted Photoshoped images for humor purposes but the vast majority of his threads deal with US laws and his views on it. Your post on this thread is nothing but a flame directed at shanek, I'm only posting to point it out in the hopes you will stop unless you want people to start ignoring you.
Click to expand...

The latter, then. Buh-bye.
 
Grammatron said:
He also posted Photoshoped images for humor purposes but the vast majority of his threads deal with US laws and his views on it. Your post on this thread is nothing but a flame directed at shanek, I'm only posting to point it out in the hopes you will stop unless you want people to start ignoring you.
Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you that ignoring Claus only works, if *everybody* ignores him, and doesn't fill up threads with quotes of his lies and woo-woo superstition.

As far as the current thread, Shanek made it crystal clear that he was talking about US law, JREF, as a US website, and US citizens being punished for their interenet statements, no matter where those statements end up being read, or what servers they go onto.

So Claus is again dissembling, in order to suit his agenda of being an utter embarrassment to the skeptic movement.
 
I think it's safe to say that even if you don't agree with Shanek on other political issues, it's hard to fault his good intentions on this matter.
Any notion that free speech might be restricted on the internet is indeed despicable and unacceptable.
 
crimresearch said:
Well, I can tell you that ignoring Claus only works, if *everybody* ignores him, and doesn't fill up threads with quotes of his lies and woo-woo superstition.
Click to expand...

Feel free to present your evidence that I lie and that I am superstitious.

crimresearch said:
So Claus is again dissembling, in order to suit his agenda of being an utter embarrassment to the skeptic movement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah.... Show your evidence of this.
 
KelvinG said:
I think it's safe to say that even if you don't agree with Shanek on other political issues, it's hard to fault his good intentions on this matter.
Click to expand...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - ever heard that one? It's not a question of intentions. It's a matter of whether he is right or not.

KelvinG said:
Any notion that free speech might be restricted on the internet is indeed despicable and unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Naturally. But we need to start with facts and not false generalizations.
 
CFLarsen said:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - ever heard that one? It's not a question of intentions. It's a matter of whether he is right or not.

Naturally. But we need to start with facts and not false generalizations.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to quote like this so you see how little sense you are making when you post.
 
Naturally. But we need to start with facts and not false generalizations.

Like the generalization from a factual reference to a specific US bill and it's specific effect on a specific US company (JREF) under specific US 501k rules, and the specifically American society members that would be affected...

To a comment about the entire Internet?
 
Re: Re: Re: Keep free speech alive on the Internet

Nyarlathotep said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think you've got it backwards. The FEC is moving to regulate internet content under campaign finance laws, and this bill would block that.

What I'm wondering is why the FEC wants to do the regulating.
 
My guess is that some politicians see the FEC as the newest way around the Constitution, much like past over-reaching with the ICC and the current 'national security' smokescreen.
 
I wonder why Claus avoided shanek at the last TAM?

One can only guess...
 
CFLarsen said:
Could someone tell shanek that the Internet is not solely an American thingie....?
Click to expand...
Claus, is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 a solely American thingie, or do you have it in your country as well?

Back on topic: I'm concerned about how this effects the board specifically. Politically, we're a diverse and fairly evenly mixed group here, I think. If the "political message" of the board isn't really one side or the other, does it still count?

I guess my legalese-to-English translator must be down.
 
Call me crazy, claus-minded, but I doubt people from outside the USA would have much affect on the US Senate and the US Code.

Just a crazy notion, though.
 
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...

Yes. Originally, in 2002, after the BCRA passed, the FEC decided that the Internet was exempt from the restrictions. Recently, that decision was overturned by a US District Court judge. Here's a story about it, and an interview with FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith:

http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep free speech alive on the Internet

gnome said:
I think you've got it backwards. The FEC is moving to regulate internet content under campaign finance laws, and this bill would block that.

What I'm wondering is why the FEC wants to do the regulating.
Click to expand...

Again, as I just posted, they don't want to. They're effectively being ordered to by a District Court judge.

Now, what could a District Court judge actually do to them if they told her to shove it, I don't know. But it'll be good to have at least this exeption codified into law.
 
Upchurch said:
Back on topic: I'm concerned about how this effects the board specifically. Politically, we're a diverse and fairly evenly mixed group here, I think. If the "political message" of the board isn't really one side or the other, does it still count?
Click to expand...

That's a good question, but I, for one, would rather have the problem fixed definitively than find out the hard way.
 
It sounds like with but a small amount of organizing, I could actually throw a monkey wrench at a candidate I didn't like, by publishing content ostensibly on their behalf...

I don't like the sound of this.
 
I think that I am speaking for the majority here when I say:

Censoring the internet is bad.

One of the main problems with this bill is that it might be seen as legitimizing other censorship.

Shanek made a statement that was, from a strictly literal point of view, an exaggeration (but, on the other hand, used "comprise" correctly, which seems to be rare on the internet).

CFlarsen's attention to this has been out of proportion.
 
gnome said:
It sounds like with but a small amount of organizing, I could actually throw a monkey wrench at a candidate I didn't like, by publishing content ostensibly on their behalf...
Click to expand...

Vote Tom Delay! He's a good man, a good Christian, and certainly it's not worth wasting time investigating all those supposed ethics violations! Stop the activist judges today! Support Tom, and help delay the erosion of American values!



This message brought to you by the Reverse Psychology Monkeys For Partial Truth And Rumor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom