Democrats defeat election-law aid for bloggers

Troubleshooter · 11-03-2005, 01:56 PM

To borrow a line from the Reason web site, "Thanks, Jackasses"

http://news.com.com/Democrats+defeat...9587&subj=news

"In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules."

...more...

Happy Monkey · 11-03-2005, 02:14 PM

Here's a Daily Kos analysis.

glatt · 11-03-2005, 03:45 PM

I don't know anything about this issue, but feel the need to join in, so I'll just take a moment to mention that while I understand the origins of the word "blog," I think it is silly. "Blogger" is even sillier. I can't think of a better replacement though. That is all.

Griff · 11-03-2005, 05:37 PM

The net is probably the closest thing to pampheteering (you know like got the revolution rolling) that we have today. Thanks Jackasses for reminding me why the Demorats suck and how far we've slid from what the Founders intended. Maybe the ACLU should take try helping out on freedom of speech?

Happy Monkey · 11-03-2005, 06:24 PM

At first blush I support the law, and wish it had passed, but what the opponents envision is equivalent to the East India Company secretly funding supposedly independent antirevolutionary pamphleteering.

IMHO, stuff like that would most likely be fairly detectable and effectively drowned out, so it isn't as big of an issue as the opponents suggest.

Amnesiac42 · 11-03-2005, 11:30 PM

i have no idea what the bill lays out or what the issue even is, but i feel like the internet is the only truely free place for people to go to without harming each other (physically anyway). think about it: human beings have been around a long time. civilization has been kept up and advanced for a long time. human thought has been explored for a long time, all of these things at great costs, even lives. but you and i are living in the one time in all of human existance, that we can freely and actively communicate with practically any one person, on the entire planet, at any given time, almost instantaneously. who doesn't think that's pretty cool? i mean, this century we've just past by was probably the single most accelerated rate of progress mankind has ever been through. while i think some regulation is required to maintain the system (internet as communication), i don't think it's up to any one group or political body to really govern the internet. i can, however, understand if a certain nation or state wants to impose X laws onto it's citizens regarding what they do from their respective terminals, if that makes any sense. like, i mean come on. how free can we allow it to be. this of course raises a lot of problems...

xoxoxoBruce · 11-04-2005, 02:07 AM

Quote:

how free can we allow it to be

As free as it is now. Just leave to hell alone. Don't try to fix it 'cause it ain't broke.

11-03-2005, 01:56 PM	#1
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Democrats defeat election-law aid for bloggers To borrow a line from the Reason web site, "Thanks, Jackasses" http://news.com.com/Democrats+defeat...9587&subj=news "In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules." ...more... __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

11-03-2005, 02:14 PM	#2
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Here's a Daily Kos analysis. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-03-2005, 05:37 PM	#4
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	The net is probably the closest thing to pampheteering (you know like got the revolution rolling) that we have today. Thanks Jackasses for reminding me why the Demorats suck and how far we've slid from what the Founders intended. Maybe the ACLU should take try helping out on freedom of speech? __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

11-03-2005, 06:24 PM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	At first blush I support the law, and wish it had passed, but what the opponents envision is equivalent to the East India Company secretly funding supposedly independent antirevolutionary pamphleteering. IMHO, stuff like that would most likely be fairly detectable and effectively drowned out, so it isn't as big of an issue as the opponents suggest. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-03-2005, 11:30 PM	#6
Amnesiac42 just a guy Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: SC Posts: 20	i have no idea what the bill lays out or what the issue even is, but i feel like the internet is the only truely free place for people to go to without harming each other (physically anyway). think about it: human beings have been around a long time. civilization has been kept up and advanced for a long time. human thought has been explored for a long time, all of these things at great costs, even lives. but you and i are living in the one time in all of human existance, that we can freely and actively communicate with practically any one person, on the entire planet, at any given time, almost instantaneously. who doesn't think that's pretty cool? i mean, this century we've just past by was probably the single most accelerated rate of progress mankind has ever been through. while i think some regulation is required to maintain the system (internet as communication), i don't think it's up to any one group or political body to really govern the internet. i can, however, understand if a certain nation or state wants to impose X laws onto it's citizens regarding what they do from their respective terminals, if that makes any sense. like, i mean come on. how free can we allow it to be. this of course raises a lot of problems... Last edited by Amnesiac42; 11-03-2005 at 11:32 PM. Reason: major typographical error

11-03-2005, 03:45 PM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I don't know anything about this issue, but feel the need to join in, so I'll just take a moment to mention that while I understand the origins of the word "blog," I think it is silly. "Blogger" is even sillier. I can't think of a better replacement though. That is all.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)