billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
JohnRich 4
QuoteAgain, this is only an issue you are bringing up because some gun loving website/blog is pissed about it.
No matter how many times you say it, it won't be true.
Believe it or not I am concerned not just with gun rights, but also with free speech rights, and many others.
I quoted the pro-gun story on the free speech issue only for the portion which gave the breakdown in how the Senate votes were cast, and because they were the first item in the Google search list to do so. Curiously, few of the mainstream media reports bothered to do that. Perhaps they were giving cover for their liberal buddies?
Try and stick to the subject here - this is not about guns.
JohnRich 4
QuoteTracking what people say is already done now.
So, since a few infringements already exist, you therefore believe that any infringement is therefore now perfectly acceptable? In other words, we should give in and let the government dictate whatever infringements they want on free speech, and not worry about it any more? Have you already thrown up your hands in surrender?
JohnRich 4
Quote> It's none of their business what people say to each other . . .
Do you oppose laws against spamming or robo-calling, then?
No, and there is a difference between that and what we're talking about in this thread.
Spamming and robo-calling are unsolicited intrusions into the private lives of people who didn't ask for it.
What organizations send to their members is something they've specifically granted permission for them to do, by joining the organization and expressing an interest in that advocacy.
I subscribe to certain news lists about things in which I'm interested.
I do not subscribe to spam.
billvon 3,132
>Spamming and robo-calling are unsolicited intrusions into the
>private lives of people who didn't ask for it.
I agree. So sometimes you DO think that the exercise of free speech should be punished; I think most people would agree with that depending on what area of free speech you are talking about. Spamming is one area. Paid political ads would be another.
>private lives of people who didn't ask for it.
I agree. So sometimes you DO think that the exercise of free speech should be punished; I think most people would agree with that depending on what area of free speech you are talking about. Spamming is one area. Paid political ads would be another.
Gawain 0
Quote>Spamming and robo-calling are unsolicited intrusions into the
>private lives of people who didn't ask for it.
I agree. So sometimes you DO think that the exercise of free speech should be punished; I think most people would agree with that depending on what area of free speech you are talking about. Spamming is one area. Paid political ads would be another.
In lieu of punishing it, we created a "do not call" list. Political calls usually concentrate on their signed constituents.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 3,132
>In lieu of punishing it, we created a "do not call" list.
?? The "do not call" list is a piece of legislation that calls for punishment of people who "exercise their right of free speech" (i.e. call people at random to sell their widget.) It's not in lieu of punishment - it CREATES punishment. I think it's a good idea overall, but it certainly is antitheical to one form of speech.
?? The "do not call" list is a piece of legislation that calls for punishment of people who "exercise their right of free speech" (i.e. call people at random to sell their widget.) It's not in lieu of punishment - it CREATES punishment. I think it's a good idea overall, but it certainly is antitheical to one form of speech.
Andy9o8 3
I wasn't up to speed on this, so I looked this up for some details, and it's damned hard to find a neutral discussion of it. Lots of "summaries", all of which seem to be driven by "pro" or "con" agendas, but few verbatim recitations of the language in question.
Anyhow, the provision seems to apply not to anyone who simply communicates with 500 or more people in an effort to persuade them to influence congressional legislation, but to anyone that is paid by a client to do so - much the way a professional lobbyist is paid by a client to communicate with legislators to attempt to influence legislation.
I think the intent is to close a definitional loophole which might be used to evade the disclosure laws already in place which apply to "lobbyists" who communicate with members of Congress in attempt to influence legislation. In other words, the net effect, I suppose, is to broaden the definition of what constitutes a "lobbyist" subject to the disclosure laws.
So it does not apply to the average "you and me" if we sent a political e-mail to 600 people. But if we were paid by someone else to send out that e-mail, and it could be deemed an attempt to cause people to "lobby Congress"...well, then it just might apply.
That being said, it really doesn't pass my smell test; and on balance, I think we're better off without it.
Anyhow, the provision seems to apply not to anyone who simply communicates with 500 or more people in an effort to persuade them to influence congressional legislation, but to anyone that is paid by a client to do so - much the way a professional lobbyist is paid by a client to communicate with legislators to attempt to influence legislation.
I think the intent is to close a definitional loophole which might be used to evade the disclosure laws already in place which apply to "lobbyists" who communicate with members of Congress in attempt to influence legislation. In other words, the net effect, I suppose, is to broaden the definition of what constitutes a "lobbyist" subject to the disclosure laws.
So it does not apply to the average "you and me" if we sent a political e-mail to 600 people. But if we were paid by someone else to send out that e-mail, and it could be deemed an attempt to cause people to "lobby Congress"...well, then it just might apply.
That being said, it really doesn't pass my smell test; and on balance, I think we're better off without it.
QuoteIt's none of their business what people say to each other, or what organizations say to their members.
So how do you feel about the limited sharing of insider information (regarding publicly held companies)?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteIf they can penalize you $100,000 for simply communicating with your membership, then it's not "free" speech.
.
I think you seriously MISREPRESENT the situation.
The fine is for avoiding reporting requirements, not for the communication....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote>In lieu of punishing it, we created a "do not call" list.
?? The "do not call" list is a piece of legislation that calls for punishment of people who "exercise their right of free speech" (i.e. call people at random to sell their widget.) It's not in lieu of punishment - it CREATES punishment. I think it's a good idea overall, but it certainly is antitheical to one form of speech.
Hardly. It's just a reflection of the fact that telemarketing and spamming steals people's resources at no cost to the initiator, whether the recipients want it or not. Phone/disk space/fax paper/time is a finite resource for everyone.
OTOH, when the christian wingnuts takes over Sproul Plaza to exercise their right to preach to godless heathens at Berkeley, there is no measurable cost paid by the people who walk by.
Do Not Call doesn't seem to work very well in terms of campaigns though - lots of loopholes there. It's more aimed at commercial interests.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteIf they can penalize you $100,000 for simply communicating with your membership, then it's not "free" speech.
I think you seriously MISREPRESENT the situation. The fine is for avoiding reporting requirements, not for the communication.
Oh, given the previous discussion, I think everyone understood what I meant. Yes, if you do a communication and don't tell the government that you did it, then they can fine you $100,000. That's not "free speech". Organizations shouldn't have to tell the government everytime they send out an e-mail. That's along the slippery slope to having to ask for permission first.
So, are you for it or against it?
billvon 3,132
>It's just a reflection of the fact that telemarketing and spamming
> steals people's resources at no cost to the initiator, whether the
> recipients want it or not. Phone/disk space/fax paper/time is a finite
> resource for everyone.
Well, most phone calls do not cost the recipient a penny, but I agree with you in theory. It is indeed a restriction on free speech, but it is a reasonable one. (There is no way you can argue that prohibiting one party from communicating with another party in a given way is not a restriction on free speech.)
>OTOH, when the christian wingnuts takes over Sproul Plaza . . .
?? Surely you do not claim that real estate is free? But we think that "taking over" a public space for a short time for the purposes of free speech is acceptable; calling people is not.
> steals people's resources at no cost to the initiator, whether the
> recipients want it or not. Phone/disk space/fax paper/time is a finite
> resource for everyone.
Well, most phone calls do not cost the recipient a penny, but I agree with you in theory. It is indeed a restriction on free speech, but it is a reasonable one. (There is no way you can argue that prohibiting one party from communicating with another party in a given way is not a restriction on free speech.)
>OTOH, when the christian wingnuts takes over Sproul Plaza . . .
?? Surely you do not claim that real estate is free? But we think that "taking over" a public space for a short time for the purposes of free speech is acceptable; calling people is not.
Quote?? Surely you do not claim that real estate is free? But we think that "taking over" a public space for a short time for the purposes of free speech is acceptable; calling people is not.
They don't block access. And it's public space at a public university. So don't read 'take over' quite literally. Instead just that there are a lot of funny people in the wrong place with the wrong message.
Hey JohnRich, guess what????
The Republicans did A VERY SIMILAR thing back in 2004 with the new Federal Election Commission regulations.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/11199prs20040415.html
The Republicans did A VERY SIMILAR thing back in 2004 with the new Federal Election Commission regulations.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/11199prs20040415.html
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 3,132
>They don't block access. And it's public space at a public university.
People sleeping there, or sewing T-shirts there, would not block access either. Yet we prohibit those activities and allow free speech because we think that free speech deserves more protection than those activities (with good reason.)
People sleeping there, or sewing T-shirts there, would not block access either. Yet we prohibit those activities and allow free speech because we think that free speech deserves more protection than those activities (with good reason.)
Do you oppose laws against spamming or robo-calling, then?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites