The Coming End of Free Speech on the Internet: FEC Censorship

[Statistikhengst]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

 

[Kosh]

Of course Stat doesn't care if free speech is censored as he has nothing of import to say on any serious topic.

Go play with your Inane Clown Posse, hun.

He lives in Germany. He can say whatever he wants..... err no he can't, can he?
But he has abdicated his rights even though he still feels free to comment on our politics while far removed from the fallout of policy he supports.

Claims to be a Jew as well..

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe this is why the fed is creating a new internet Czar. They know the minute censorship starts, "Anonymous" and affiliates are going to come out of the woodwork and melt the fascist motherboards in a nanosecond. They will tell the fed to megabyte them.

It's kind of like a baby having a tantrum, threatening to put her 250lb bodybuilder daddy in a headlock if he doesn't let her have control of the cookie jar Congressional leaders should realize the giants they're taking on before they go hog-wild with new regulations. The genie is out of the bottle and he gets really pissy when you try to shove him back in...if Snowden is a lesson to any of us..

 

[Statistikhengst]

Those of you who think this FEC proposal is a good idea, ask yourselves if you are really okay with the federal government collecting lists of subscribers to political journals.

Until I see EXACT proposals with real SPECIFICS, it is impossible to say whether this is a good idea or not.

But as usual, extreme RW reactionaries are screaming that the sky is falling long before any real details are known.

 

[Camp]

They have already cut Netflix's bandwidth. I'm trying to frame it in a way that you dummies will care about. I could've put FoxNews.com instead.

You didn't answer the question. I use Netflix all the time, and their bandwidth is perfectly adequate.

Yea because Netflix is paying them to let people access them on the internet now. Suppose Verizon didn't like USMB? I wonder if USMB could afford to pay them.

Then they could switch to another provider. Most big corporations don't give a damn about your political views so long as your money is green.

Except most people can't. I live in Fairfax County VA. Top 5 in the richest counties in America every single year and I have just 2 options for fast internet. Cox and Verizon. If one of those doesn't like your little internet business then SUCKS, your entire Northern Virginia market is gone! Not to mention the rest of the country that uses that ISP!

So if I, right next to the capital of the free world, have only 2 ISP options, imagine the rest of the country.

Any big website like The Drudge Report can easily relocate his servers to any area served by another provided. In fact, most such websites are hosted in corporate data centers. The contract for their bandwidth with the data center, not with some service provider like Verizon. The service provider can only control how much band with their customers have available. They can't control the bandwidth to any of the websites they visit. At least, they don't even attempt it at this point.

Why should they have to do that? And what if it is not a big website like Drudge Report? What if it is some little blogger that is computer illiterate and only knows how to type some words and post them way they do now?

 

[bripat9643]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

Of course they don't hint that suppression of opinion is the goal, but what happened with the IRS and 501 (C) organizations? When you give the government power to regulate speech, you're giving it the power to censor. That's the bottom line.

 

[g5000]

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

The FEC is trying to expand its powers against political journals which do not fall under that law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

Suppression of opinions is the goal, since "Michelle Obama's Mirror" would be subject to the expanded law. It is precisely the existence of such sites which is motivating these assholes to expand their powers.

 

[Kosh]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

And the far left propaganda comes out to support the far left religion without question or hesitation.

 

[g5000]

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal.

From the OP article:

Democratic Chairwoman Ann Ravel, who called the hearing, has said she wants to regulate politicking on the Internet

 

[Statistikhengst]

More from boedicca 's OP link:

"During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet."


Ok, here is the link to the hearingS. Notice that I wrote that in plural.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2015/news_releases/20150210release.shtml

There are FIVE panels scheduled for today, plus individual testimony scheduled to go through the night.

You see, this is not a past event, it is scheduled for TODAY. It is happening RIGHT NOW.

And now, Boedicca, I ask you point-blank: does your OP link list even one EXACT proposal designed to impinge on anyone's freedom? Is there even one proposal that would result in the Government having the power to eliminate 3rd party groups?

You see, Conservatives are screaming far too early. The event is not even over with yet. Panel 4 should start in 5 minutes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

It's no surprise the fucking lib/commies like you would support government censorship of the internet. All you leftwing scumwads claim to believe in freedom of speech, but the first thing you do when given a chance is anything you can to stifle it. Liberalism just can survive when it's subjected to the light of day.

Nothing is getting censored moron. Just because O'Reilly rants it at you doesn't mean its true. Go look up what net neutrality actually is.

Have you gotten you $2,500 of yearly savings from ObamaCare yet?

Has Obama instituted sharia law in your state yet?

Just in Dearborn Michigan...and when I say in Dearborn what I mean is that republicans spread a story that it was happening but it didnt ever.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't answer the question. I use Netflix all the time, and their bandwidth is perfectly adequate.

Yea because Netflix is paying them to let people access them on the internet now. Suppose Verizon didn't like USMB? I wonder if USMB could afford to pay them.

Then they could switch to another provider. Most big corporations don't give a damn about your political views so long as your money is green.

Except most people can't. I live in Fairfax County VA. Top 5 in the richest counties in America every single year and I have just 2 options for fast internet. Cox and Verizon. If one of those doesn't like your little internet business then SUCKS, your entire Northern Virginia market is gone! Not to mention the rest of the country that uses that ISP!

So if I, right next to the capital of the free world, have only 2 ISP options, imagine the rest of the country.

Any big website like The Drudge Report can easily relocate his servers to any area served by another provided. In fact, most such websites are hosted in corporate data centers. The contract for their bandwidth with the data center, not with some service provider like Verizon. The service provider can only control how much band with their customers have available. They can't control the bandwidth to any of the websites they visit. At least, they don't even attempt it at this point.

Why should they have to do that? And what if it is not a big website like Drudge Report? What if it is some little blogger that is computer illiterate and only knows how to type some words and post them way they do now?

That's far less of a threat than giving the government authority to regulate the internet. Relocating your servers is an inconvenience, at the worst. Even a small time website can easily afford it. They simply find a hosting company with a different service provider.

 

[g5000]

The FEC hearing is taking place today: FEC Public Hearing on the McCutcheon v. FEC Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, February 11, 2015

Let's revisit this topic when the transcript from the hearing is released.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Of course Stat doesn't care if free speech is censored as he has nothing of import to say on any serious topic.

Go play with your Inane Clown Posse, hun.

He lives in Germany. He can say whatever he wants..... err no he can't, can he?
But he has abdicated his rights even though he still feels free to comment on our politics while far removed from the fallout of policy he supports.

Well, aren't you a stupid pathetic fuck.
My geography has nothing to do with my citizenship.
I have abdicated no rights - well, only in your extreme RW twisted mind.
Nice fascist twist to what you write, but it is no surprise to me.

You absolutely do not have the ability to actually focus on an OP, not even for one second.

You are truly pathetic.

 

[Desperado]

I don't see this as a threat only to online journals. It is also a threat to any newspaper or other printed journals.

If a newspaper endorses a candidate, is the FEC going to demand a list of their subscribers?

That's where this is headed.

Excellent Point that many have not thought of. Government involvement does not make things better.

 

[Kosh]

Yea because Netflix is paying them to let people access them on the internet now. Suppose Verizon didn't like USMB? I wonder if USMB could afford to pay them.

Then they could switch to another provider. Most big corporations don't give a damn about your political views so long as your money is green.

Except most people can't. I live in Fairfax County VA. Top 5 in the richest counties in America every single year and I have just 2 options for fast internet. Cox and Verizon. If one of those doesn't like your little internet business then SUCKS, your entire Northern Virginia market is gone! Not to mention the rest of the country that uses that ISP!

So if I, right next to the capital of the free world, have only 2 ISP options, imagine the rest of the country.

Any big website like The Drudge Report can easily relocate his servers to any area served by another provided. In fact, most such websites are hosted in corporate data centers. The contract for their bandwidth with the data center, not with some service provider like Verizon. The service provider can only control how much band with their customers have available. They can't control the bandwidth to any of the websites they visit. At least, they don't even attempt it at this point.

Why should they have to do that? And what if it is not a big website like Drudge Report? What if it is some little blogger that is computer illiterate and only knows how to type some words and post them way they do now?

That's far less of a threat than giving the government authority to regulate the internet. Relocating your servers is an inconvenience, at the worst. Even a small time website can easily afford it. They simply find a hosting company with a different service provider.

You should see owns most of the internet lines. So switch providers does not do any good when the one company Verizon owns and maintains the main internet lines to that provider.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

Of course they don't hint that suppression of opinion is the goal, but what happened with the IRS and 501 (C) organizations? When you give the government power to regulate speech, you're giving it the power to censor. That's the bottom line.

Uhuh. So, your thoughts are not based on facts, but rather, on paranoia.

 

[Kosh]

Of course Stat doesn't care if free speech is censored as he has nothing of import to say on any serious topic.

Go play with your Inane Clown Posse, hun.

He lives in Germany. He can say whatever he wants..... err no he can't, can he?
But he has abdicated his rights even though he still feels free to comment on our politics while far removed from the fallout of policy he supports.

Well, aren't you a stupid pathetic fuck.
My geography has nothing to do with my citizenship.
I have abdicated no rights - well, only in your extreme RW twisted mind.
Nice fascist twist to what you write, but it is no surprise to me.

You absolutely do not have the ability to actually focus on an OP, not even for one second.

You are truly pathetic.

Yes the far left drones in the US are no different form the far left drones from overseas..

 

[Statistikhengst]

The FEC hearing is taking place today: FEC Public Hearing on the McCutcheon v. FEC Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, February 11, 2015

Let's revisit this topic when the transcript from the hearing is released.

Yepp, I just made that point.

 

[Kosh]

Let's get this topic back on track. The OP has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Basically, some liberals want to expand the definition of "electioneering" to include a wider range of public airing of political opinions, and therefore subject them to campaign finance regulations.

THAT is the insanity in play here.

Of course it has nothing to do with net neutrality. But Boedicca and the OP link would like you to think so.

The FEC already monitors donors (financial) donors for campaigns. It's the law.

No Democrat has even hinted that supression of opinions is the goal. The very fact that a hate site like "Michelle Obama's Mirror" still exists proves that this is not the issue.

20 years ago, people were FURIOUS that soon, stuff sold over the internet would be taxed, since the law did not forsee the advent of the internet. This here is not that much different.

Of course they don't hint that suppression of opinion is the goal, but what happened with the IRS and 501 (C) organizations? When you give the government power to regulate speech, you're giving it the power to censor. That's the bottom line.

Uhuh. So, your thoughts are not based on facts, but rather, on paranoia.

Says the far left drone!