From the AP, “Wash. regulators ask: Can blogging be lobbying?”
Blogger beware? State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to file public reports detailing their finances.
In a collision of 21st century media and 1970s political reforms, the inquiry hints at a showdown over press freedoms for bloggers, whose self-published journals can shift between news reporting, opinion writing, political organizing and campaign fundraising.
State officials are downplaying any possible media rights conflict, pointing out that regulators have already exempted journalistic blogging from previous guidelines for online campaign activity.
And there it is: the hook upon which the credentialing of “journalist bloggers” can conceivably hang — with bureaucratic power going to those who decide who comes to count as a journalistic blogger (Google, for instance, has a rather calculus for making such determinations).
But the blogosphere is taking the notion seriously. One prominent liberal blogger in Seattle is already issuing a dare  if the government wants David Goldstein to file papers as a lobbyist, it will have to take him to court.
Goldstein, publisher of the widely read horsesass.org, wants to know how his political crusades could be subject to financial disclosures while newspaper writers, radio hosts and others in traditional media get a pass.
For most bloggers, Goldstein said, the work “is a hobby, a sideline. And yet they contribute greatly to the public debate and to the new journalism.”
“When you start talking about regulating Internet activity, you open up a Pandora’s Box,” he said.
[…]
Earlier this year, the PDC was asked by some lobbyists whether calls to action made over the Internet fell under any lobbying regulations, and the agency began probing the topic.
“One of the issues was the grass roots involvement, in terms of prompting individuals, in a call to action, to contact legislators, to send in letters,” said Doug Ellis, the PDC’s assistant director.
Business interests asked, “Can we do the same kind of thing? Is it proper? Do we have to report it?” Ellis said.
The question of blogging soon entered the picture. For online political junkies like Goldstein, stirring up the public and urging readers to sound off about public policy is a key part of the mission.
But, as Goldstein pointed out in a recent public meeting on the topic, the same could be said for newspaper editorialists or radio commentators  and they’re exempt from reporting their income and spending under an exemption created to protect the media.
“What you’re basically saying is, if you want to raise any money at all, now you have to report,” Goldstein said. “It’s treating us entirely different than other media outlets.”
Much of the discussion about blogging as lobbying boils down to the evolving distinction of who is and is not a member of the media.
— which is where government will come in and kindly explain to us what is and is not “journalism” — with the First Amendment secured, in a bit of Orwellian spin, only for those first approved by the feds.
While blogs and other online-only information sources are showing greater influence, traditional outlets  particularly newspapers  are struggling with a deeply wounded business model.
— No worries. Even though the “traditional outlets” — you know, the “journalists” — were far more responsible than blogs for driving public opinion (while doing so in a way that greatly benefited the Democrats), they’ll receive a kind of government bailout if these “Washington regulators” begin asking the kinds of “questions” intended to make free speech far more onerous.
Mainstream advocacy journalism acting under the cover of “objective” coverage has its rewards, evidently.
“Our definitions of all of this are changing so dramatically, right in front of our eyes,” said Sree Sreenivasan, of Columbia University’s journalism school.
Laws have often defined media by describing the form in which the information is delivered  a newspaper, a magazine, or a licensed TV or radio station. But the Internet is eroding those tried-and-true distinctions, making such definitions sound hopelessly outdated.
In this environment, Sreenivasan said, regulators facing a question about who qualifies as media might need to undertake a much more detailed examination of the content being produced.
— though, that would be blog content, mind you. The “journalists” at, say, the NYT or NPR or MSNBC being already exempt.
[…]
The PDC’s Ellis doesn’t expect commissioners to impose financial reporting for bloggers who a perform a journalistic function. Since that type of activity was excluded in campaign finance rules, he said, “I don’t see any reason why they would veer from past practice.”
Lobbyist Steve Gano, who represents business clients in Olympia, said he’s not troubled by activist bloggers who practice a form of journalism. But the increasing presence of Web-based advocacy groups are a different story, he said.
If an online group doesn’t have to report the type of activities that would otherwise be considered lobbying, Gano asked, why shouldn’t lobbyists just close up shop and relaunch their efforts online?
“There’s a new business model out there,” Gano said. “I can just sit at home, e-mail folks from here, and never have to disclose who my financial backers are.”
He says that like it’s a bad thing.
And really, can Mr Gano seriously not recognize the difference between in-person contact with lawmakers for the purposes of pushing a particular agenda with groups essentially advertising for a cause online?
God, how I really do hate John McCain’s “maverickyness” sometimes.
(h/t Terry H)
One more predictable step towards Hayek, Cassandra.
If this began last election, Kos and HuffPo would have been waaaaaaaay over the limit in contributing to O!s campaign…
Here we go though, the Feds will no begin to tell us whose speech id free and whose get’s regulated…
I’m not surprised it’s starting in Seattle, I just probably would have guessed San Francisco…
Just part of the Proggs efforts to gut First Amendment rights for anyone not willing to dance their tune.
Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) is responsible for this cynical attempt to gut the right to petition the government for redress.
JeffG
BTW, catch the quote at near the end of this.
I’ve never heard of “horse’s ass”, but I can’t help thinking that, in an O!bama administration, any Leftist’s stance that “The Gubmint Will Hafta Take Me Ta Kort” is the cheesiest type of false bravado.
When The Gubmint decides to audit Markos Moulefty about his “lobbying” (maybe Joe Lieberman could offer an opinion), then I’ll start to believe in Hope ‘N’ Change….
Clearly, their friends in the legacy Media have had it up to *here* with all you damned sniping internet pamphleteers…
Ha. This will be teh fail.
Look, if PW was hosted offshore, what could they do? What if everybody blogged abouot politics in countries other than their own?
But can’t anyone be part of the media nowadays, thanks to the internet? The onus is now on those of us receivers who have to gauge the credibility of the message/messanger. I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around this.
That’s what great about electing “progressives,” cynn! They’ll do your thinking for you! Meantime, go feel. And get angry at the Christianists.
(Not really directed at you, cynn. Or rather, it was, but from the point of view of the ubermasters. I was using an implied narrative voice. Just so there’s no misunderstanding.)
What do you think the odds of the Leftroots being included in this? I’m thinking slim…watch and see, as Kos, Huff and Co manage to meet the “journalistic” standard while those on the right consistantly don’t. Is that a cynical view? I suppose it is…until it’s not.
>>But can’t anyone be part of the media nowadays, thanks to the internet?
That’s the point. They want to delimit who can and who can’t be a journalist in order to protect their phony-baloney jobs, their industry, etc. But it can’t work through access like it used to, by press passes and the like. So, they want to give all the risks [libel, etc] without the immunities so as to discourage bloggers.
But the thing is, the net routes around problems. Free presses might have to exist outside the local ordinances of an oppressive regime.
Might be fun, really, to poke fun at the ‘regulated and regulators’ with impunity from an offshore server.
You know what the classical liberals need to do? Get off their collective arses, and take it to the meatspace. A modest proposal: get some of the finer thinkers on the right, generate some content explaining classical liberal principles and why they matter, and print up pamphlets to be left at coffee shops, bus stops, libraries, etc. A la Thomas Paine.
Plus, it has the added cache of being tres OUTLAW!
Better yet, the journalists are all in favor of exclusionary laws granting them the rights not to be held as ordinary citizens when they happen to be in possession of highly classified government information and the names of the inside sources who have feloniously released that information, which possession would land anyone else in jail for years. Testify in a case of treason? Oh hells no they’re not going to testify. Might lose them the use of further sources and means whereby to undermine the security of the United States, after all!
sdferr: remember, all animals are equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others.
I can’t believe that my country is slouching towards the left as fast as it is. I’ve seen where this all leads.
Ohnoes, the world is going to discover the Outlaw Party is funded completely on rye whiskey and wooden tokens.
I, Pitbull Skinner, member in good standing of the Outlaw Party of America, declare 4 empty shotgun shells as my 2008 financial contribution. Check the collection box, my shells are the ones rolling around on the bottom, I do hereby swear.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What does journalism have anything to do with it?
State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to file public reports detailing their finances.
Can someone explain to me the difference between lobbying as used here, and petitioning for a redress of grievances?
Oh by the way thor, have you noticed how much better the Falcons have been playing with a rookie quarterback instead of your brickheaded dog lover?
Journalism runs the gamut from CNN to Alexander Hamilton’s Camillus treatises to letters to the editor, frankly. Instead of defining down “journalism” to relabel unpopular points of view as lobbying, shouldn’t the proper approach be to succinctly define exactly what “lobbying” is? Is penning a letter to my Congressman on an issue with a $50 check included to save postage considered lobbying?
More importantly, I’m moving forward with the understanding wearing leather chaps sans pants =/ Outlaw!
B Moe: the difference is that they would presume to be the ones rendering the definitions.
“Oh no, we’re not limiting speech..we’re just controling those stinkin’ lobbyists, who do so ruin the political process. Except when they contribute to leftist causes.”
The gall and duplicity of these people knows no bounds.
*wondering whether commenting on blogs could be defended as ‘peaceful assembly’*
*also wondering why ‘journalists’ are not listed as ‘lobbyists’*
ahem……Speaking of dawgs, B Moe, what was the outcome of that event on Nov 1st now? Oh, yes it’s coming back to me……’twas just the Gators breaking out on their run for the national title…….next up, ‘bama!
Just think how good they’d be with Vick playing slot receiver and occasionally QB out the wildcat formation.
Sad that you have to project your misguided animus on a freakin’ football player. They took away his life but they could not take his Pride… In the name of pad speed, one more in the name of uncoachable foot speed.
Like I said a little while (couple of weeks?) ago: the Fair and Responsible Media Act of, I reckon, 2010. It might be this summer, but I don’t really think they’ll have the bit quite that firmly in their teeth by then.
It will define “journalism”, grandfather the ancien regime (NYT, CBS, etc. etc.), and establish a committee entrusted with deciding who’s a journalist and who isn’t. The committee members will of course require experience and familiarity with the proper characteristics of journalism as she is manned and sailed, so they will be drawn from those with that experience and familiarity, i.e., the existing Press (and a few Other Interested Parties, which is how Moulitsas gets a seat). There will be an ID card, with a registration number. You won’t be able to petition the Committee for Resposibility And Professionalism yourself; an established journalist has to submit on your behalf, so as to ensure only genuine journalists as applicants and not waste time on trivialities.
Huffington, Moulitsas, Yglesias, et. al. will be included automatically. They will probably allow Reynolds, just to be able to cite him as “fair and balanced”. Any examples of “hate speech” will automatically disqualify the applicant, keeping in mind that “I don’t think Obama is competent” is hate speech, whereas “I’d like to murder Sarah Palin” is not.
Jeff won’t get a card. Neither will Allahpundit, and Charles Johnson is Right Out. The guys at Power Line, probably not; Red State, definitely not; NRO, maybe, if they bring a few more lefties on board. Sullivann, automatically of course.
It’s what you voted for, cynn.
Regards,
Ric
Clarence Thomas is answering questions on the role of government on C-Span, which is a tentacle of the left-wing government funded media apparatus that includes NPR.
Velociman raises a good point: what, exactly, is lobbying?
In the same vein: what, exactly, constitutes a journalist? If a blogger were to surmount the government’s test for journalism, would they be extended the same privledges by the government vis-a-vis sources, etc?
Actually I think C-Span is funded entirely by the cable television industry, privately, in other words. How they came to get their near exclusive access to the two chambers of congress, I don’t know though.
Sorry, I just don’t see how the internet can be regulated for political content, and more importantly, what uberbeaurocracy will monitor and enforce such a stupid mandate. I would personally kick the balls of anyone daring to impose this.
There’s a chance I’m wrong and that you’re completely correct, because I’m just drawing my six-shooter out of its holster to try and build up speed.
Since they have the internet service providers in their back pockets, what makes anyone think that going off shore will do anything other than trigger the filtering of that content as “inappropriate?”
China wrt western style, without the Tienamen soldiers…
cynn: that’s not how mandates like this work. They create the legal framework, and somehow it only gets used against certain undesireables. Should a fuss be raised…hey, it’s all nice and legal!
I think it’s just all half-loaded mau-mauing, cynn. By the way, what’s your Outlaw name, cowgirl?
Sorry, I just don’t see how the internet can be regulated for political content
You don’t even know what a hyperlink is, cynn.
Why does your opinion on this count?
Faux News didn’t renew E.D. Hill’s contract, and you gotta wonder if that’s not some terrorist fist-bumping payback.
cynn, the Chinese manage quite handily. In fact, the fastest way to implement this would probably be to import some Ministry of Information types from China as advisors.
And don’t be vainglorious. You aren’t going to kick anybody. It is, after all, what you voted for.
Regards,
Ric
Well, Spies, you’re a boiling waterhead whose opinions are by what all other r-wingered dumbassedness is ranked.
Duuuh-hammered son’uva mule!
My outlaw name is Dissentra. Get it? Dissent + tra, to make the homonym. It’s clever! And it’s the highest form of patriotism!
No, Spies, I know what a hyperlink is. When I tried it, my comment was eaten.
And I guess my opinion doesn’t count. That’s where it begins, doesn’t it?
No, Spies, I know what a hyperlink is.
Liar.
And I guess my opinion doesn’t count.
You’re right. It doesn’t.
Like most leftoids, you confuse “having the right to express your opinion” with “the right to have others respect it”.
You don’t know anything about the technical infrastructure of the Internet, and thus, your opinion on whether it is, or is not, feasible to institute political censorship is about as relevant as Britney Spears’ opinion on quantum mechanics.
Sorry to damage your self-esteem.
That’s where it began, back in pre-history. What’s being discussed now is whether your opinion is to be stifled.
Oh, and what SBP said…
There doesn’t need to be a technical means to censor; the regulatory framework is sufficient. If blogging gets defined as “lobbying”, then suddenly your personal finances must become public in order to avoid “the appearance of impropriety”. All they’ll need to do is give the IRS jurisdiction on ensuring both the disclosure and accuracy…
Try to blog anonymously? The site hosting you will be subpoenaed. Try to blog overseas? Hey, guess what, there are international treaties allowing tax authorities to chase your information.
Fuck off, Spies, you elitist tool. Even illiterate people have access to the interweb. What to do with those goofs who manage to stumble into actual, live websites? Drooling fucker.
Even illiterate people have access to the interweb.
Yes, unfortunately.
Now explain why that makes your dullwitted opinion on the technical and regulatory infrastructure of the Internet valid or worthy of consideration.
Stupid bint.
lee: Nobody’s opinion can possibly be stifled, stomped on, obscured, or otherwise silenced. The free market is now the internet. The other one is broken.
Nobody’s opinion can possibly be stifled, stomped on, obscured, or otherwise silenced.
Moron.
You won’t click on it, of course, because it’s one of those “orange thingies”.
Spies: Because I can, asshole. And that’s the point.
Spies sure has a dog in this fight; why?
Hold on. It is, of course, feasible to institute political censorship on the net – China does that.
This isn’t exactly the same thing, since its a matter of defining who is, who’s not a ‘journalist’ as opposed to ‘lobbyist’ or ‘blogger’, then applying fees or penalties, investigating funding, etc.
I do not think that this effort would result in Facebook being declared ‘lobbyists’ no matter how much political content is on it. Nor do I think Facebook, with all its political content, will be censored out of existence.
So not the same as censorship, but it is an issue for free speech/press/assembly Rights.
Because you “can” what?
China 21 November 2008
Political essayist gets three years in prison for three articles posted online
Reporters Without Borders calls for the release of essayist Chen Daojun, who was sentenced today by a people’s court in Chengdu, in the western province of Sichuan, to three years in prison and three years’ loss of political rights for “inciting subversion of state authority†in three articles posted online.
China 6 November 2008
Cyber-dissident Guo Feixiong tortured in detention
Reporters Without Borders reiterates its call for the release of Yang Maodong, a cyber-dissident better known by the pen-name of Guo Feixiong, who has been tortured and beaten repeatedly by prison officials, as have some of his fellow inmates.
Iran20 November 2008
Two cyber-dissidents jailed, 5 million websites censored
Reporters Without Borders condemns online journalist Shahnaz Gholami’s arrest at her Tehran home on 9 November without any official reason being given. Her arrest came just a few days before a publication that supports the president called the Internet a “tool of subversion.â€Â
“Gholami is the second cyber-journalist currently detained and we fear there could be a major crackdown,†Reporters Without Borders said.
Burma 10 November 2008
Prison court sentences blogger to 20 years, poet to two years
Reporters Without Borders and the Burma Media Association are appalled by the combined sentence of 20 years and six months in prison that a special court in Insein prison passed today on a young blogger, Nay Phone Latt. A poet, Saw Wai, was sentenced to two years in prison for a poem containing a coded criticism of Gen. Than She, the head of the military junta.
Spies sure has a dog in this fight; why?
Because I believe in the Bill of Rights. All ten amendments.
You?
>>If blogging gets defined as “lobbyingâ€Â, then suddenly your personal finances must become public in order to avoid “the appearance of improprietyâ€Â.
1 – Not all blogging is political, obviously. PW is a language blog that gets into a lot of politics by necessity insofar as it impinges on language. ;^D
2 – Shouldn’t that be ‘professional’ finances?
You believe in nothing of the sort, sPiehole. You’re a drooling retard on a never ending speech control bender.
Thanks, ursetc, I don’t see it going that far. Lawsuits? Yes, but that’s case law.
I don’t see it going that far.
Hint: your opinion on that doesn’t matter, either.
I see my groupie showed up.
As I’ve observed before, that’s quite the productive and meaningful life you have there, thor. You’re making a real difference.
Heh.
>>to three years in prison and three years’ loss of political rights for “inciting subversion of state authority†in three articles posted online.
Sorry to say, but the same would happen here within existing laws. Including the ‘loss of political rights’.
Oh, except the ‘loss of political rights’ would be permanent
This looking glass sucks.
Alice needs better diggs.
Oh yeah…and thor sucks too.
But thor, he’s smart!
Like a baked potato (e)*
*Cuz Dan Quayle was right!
Sorry to say, but the same would happen here within existing laws.
Really?
Link to anyone from the KosKiddieKoolaidKult going to jail?
McCain didn’t see his attempt to inject “fairness” and “accountability” into campaign finance reform as leading to the abuses of 2008, but, cynn, you go ahead and believe that they wouldn’t do that… you aren’t the one that gonna judge how far “too far” is…
There is always someone willing to take that extra step out onto the ledge to see if the ledge will hold.
sPies is in hyperdumbass fear and insult mode. It’s most fun to laugh and mock him into hysterics when his emotional issues burstforth.
cynn, I think you’re intimidating him.
SBP –
What I mean is, somebody calling for violence done to the State, embodied in persons, gets investigated and often prosecuted. If convicted, they lose political rights as a convicted felon.
Currently, we have the kid who broke into Sarah’s email acct being prosecuted, so thats one of the KosKid types. Admittedly, much of the recent madness vs. Bush has been ignored much too often, but there have been investigations into attempted crimes, like the kids with the guns and plans to Crawford
Even illiterate people have access to the interweb.
Somehow I don’t think they get much out of the experience though.
thor can’t quit me.
I’m Moby Dick to his Ahab.
Ahab’s dialogue was much better, though.
I don’t see the intimidation and persecution happening here, you nellies. At any rate, I would huff and puff and defend freedom of speech, especially on the internet.
The Palin email kid broke in to someone’s account. That’s action, not speech.
Overt threats of violence are assault, not political speech.
“It’s most fun to laugh and mock him into hysterics when his emotional issues burstforth.”
You got half of those big words from cut scenes in Word Of Warcraft didn’t you?
Hit us with your “wizard-elf-short bus wisdom” slick.
Jackass.
cynn, the time to defend a thing isn’t when the thing is already lost.
I don’t see the intimidation and persecution happening here
Neither did the people in Berlin, circa 1932.
BTW, thor, I’m not seeing anything you write.
Your novelty, such as it was, wore off long ago.
Just so you know.
Gators eat boogers.
Seth Williams: Do you truly believe that’s the case? Can you elaborate — because I simply don’t see the great threat. It’s no more onerous than previous media tidal waves. By and large, the public responds to its own media.
SBP – look at the language used in the article: “inciting subversion of state authorityâ€Â
Inciting violence is a form of subversion.
How many Joe the Plumbers will stand against a state that exposes all the skeletons in their closet for having the temerity to make The One look bad?
Helen Jones-Kelley made the mistake of stating out-loud what she had done; had she never tried to justify her crime, she’d have gotten away with it. The next one won’t make that mistake. Even if caught, well, the novelty is gone, and a month’s suspension will just be too harsh.
Whatever; you guys are hopeless.
>>I don’t see the intimidation and persecution happening here, you nellies
Not yet. Its being discussed and some may feel intimidated, sure. It bears watching and pre-emptive bitching/carping, that I agree with.
“I don’t see the intimidation and persecution happening here”….
That’s because we’re armed.
Obama and his ilk take the 1st Amendment, we use the 2nd One.
See how that works?
Really? Try reciting a prayer in the Castro district.
Inciting violence is a form of subversion.
Do you have any evidence that the person in question incited violence?
You Outlaws are spoiling for a fight, and you won’t get it.
You’re not missing much. He’s not writing anything, just spray-painting childish graffiti.
It’s not up to you, cynn.
Sorry.
State regulators are fucking morons that don’t know what lobbying is. Electioneering, possibly. Lobbying, absolutely not. You’d think with the amount of exasperation spent over teh evul lobbyists that people would have a clue as to what they do.
>>Do you have any evidence that the person in question incited violence?
Who?
“You Outlaws are spoiling for a fight, and you won’t get it.”
Oh yes we will.
Fight’s comin’
We’ll do it for Johnny if we have to.
urthshu, it sounds like you’re being deliberately obtuse.
No time for that. Sorry.
I get that it’s not my call, Spies. I would really appreciate you not narrating every goddamn thread. We get it.
I would really appreciate you not narrating every goddamn thread.
What you would “appreciate” is of absolutely no consequence to me, cynn.
We get it.
No. You don’t.
That’s the whole point.
We’re back to defending and codifying the meaning of words again, aren’t we? JG is right. The fight must be held over who gets to do the defining, now and not once the arguments are reaching fruition. Trial balloons are interesting things in that they get first dibs on the meanings of things. Then the rest of the argument is just them reinforcing the meme…
Everybody run! The homecoming queen’s got a gun!
cynn: given that there is already talk of the “fairness doctrine” being re-instituted on radio (oh, but not on TV or newspaper where there is a surplus of left-leaning opinion), given that during the campaign people who dared oppose O! had their backgounds gone through with a fine tooth comb, given that now there is an apparent desire to apply onerous rules to public discourse online by applying scrutiny to any who would exercise their right to that discourse and effectively creating a new privledged, protected class (jounalists) as defined by the party in power…yeah, I’d say there is cause for concern. The time to protect your speech isn’t when that speech is effectively criminalized, it’s when you still have full legal writ to do so. Because after it’s gone, it’s a lot harder to fight back using just speech.
And if you’re one of those people who think that silencing the right for their “hate” speech (ie: speech that is contrary to the progressive view), just wait till those very self-same rules are applied to you. The loss of freedoms tend to creep in unexpected ways.
“State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to file public reports detailing their finances.”
Part of Obama’s “Night of the Long Knives.”
2009 is gonna be a helluva year.
Adding Pablo always makes for a full Duuuuh Squadron. Lame Comedy formation, wet nose into forward ass, here they come. Bzzzzzzz, cornhole-fitted snark guns engaged! Ohnoes, a low-hanging cloud of paranoia and the squadron has smashed into the side of a mountain.
Causalities, I predict many, many casualties.
It begins a bit earlier than that unfortunately.
“Everybody run! The homecoming queen’s got a gun!”
I’m standing next to Derry & Soda Pop.
So I’m sure to make it out alive.
Two Bit is pr’olly gonna get shot.
Along with cynn. He/she/it is having a fucking hissy fit.
“Comment by cynn on 11/22 @ 7:44 pm #
lee: Nobody’s opinion can possibly be stifled, stomped on, obscured, or otherwise silenced.”
A lot of Russians would disagree with you. Those that survived the gulag, anyway.
The others, not so much.
Comment by thor on 11/22 @ 8:53 pm #
Ah, thor, our own Corky the Retard impersonator.
Good job, good job.
“Adding Pablo always makes for a full Duuuuh Squadron. Lame Comedy formation, wet nose into forward ass, here they come. Bzzzzzzz, cornhole-fitted snark guns engaged! Ohnoes, a low-hanging cloud of paranoia and the squadron has smashed into the side of a mountain.”
…”I dunno Captain…I came up on his six and that thor douche just jumped right out of his plane like a pussy.”
“Rip Cord of Fail”
“Parachute of Shame.”
Ground is coming up quick thor…lol.
Jackass.
If the entire Duuuuh Squadron becomes so possessed with paranoia that they commit suicide in front of their webcams, I’m not going to watch.
What is this now, Campaign Finance Reform III or IV. Each building on the “failures” of the previous one.
For myself, the start on the long downhill was the defining of “lobbying” as something distinct from petitioning the government. Slicing that activity off as if it had nothing to do with free speech and so it could be limited and regulated. Not “well” regulated but controlled for political advantage.
Where sunshine was needed to cure, darkness was institutionalized, and monetized. In the name of fairness and battling corruption, corruption became the vaguely hidden SOP.
With McCain-Feingold average citizens were labeled as a threat to the well being of the political class. Their very presence in the political arena could cause those paragons of rectitude, aka Washington Politicians, to, despite their unwavering honesty, accept money, from citizens, and become corrupt. Horrors. Or perhaps Whores.
McCain-Feingold was to save themselves from themselves. Fine, but the key provision was the splitting off of the “media” as special and privileged above the common citizen. Journalist as “Supra-citizen”. Standing above all that dirty smelly common man stuff.
Quite a few “baby steps” have already been taken. The slope is becoming steeper. Not too far now. The edge of the cliff beckons saying “all will be well after the fall, there is peace in the abyss. It is the peace of the grave of freedom. RIP USA if this is allowed to stand.
I’d prefer to talk the post topic with the good folks here thor, but you’re a short dicked, wanna-be, I wish I was, please let me be, one inch-smart, thread hi-jacking, single thought, ass clown, fakeroo.
So, I’ll beat your ass like a stupid mule everytime you show up when I’m around.
Look at it this way…You’ll have your BoyScout “dumbass badge” in no time.
“Embarassment Badge” right after that.
Jackass.
Bravo, geoffb. Everything I wanted to say, but wasn’t erudite enough to pull off.
I’ll simply add this: the erosion of our foundational freedoms is real, and continues apace. What are we to do?
“I’ll simply add this: the erosion of our foundational freedoms is real, and continues apace. What are we to do?”
Rebel.
I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherefucking plane!!
Once one reads the last page of the article all the Duuuuh Squadron’s hyperventilating becomes more and more a testament of the effects of hyperventilating versus any sincere concern for freedom of speech issues.
Yeah, as it must, the Prog “mind” is going down. So it looks for Our resistance to keep it afloat: Attn., Progs, We are now in complete control….
Yeah, but the liberals press has been agitating for a redefinition of the terms ‘journalist’ and ‘press.’ They want ‘journalist’ to mean some kind of professional designation and ‘press’ to mean what those professionals do. They then make the anti-intentionalist leap and conclude that under such definitions, the Constitution won’t protect bloggers since they aren’t designated journalists by the profession.
That sucks.
…”sincere concern for freedom of speech issues.”
Free speech for thee & not for me? All about that aren’t you?
Do us a favor and don’t use big amendments you don’t understand.
Better yet, do us a favor and fuck off.
I’ll be over here hyperventilating.
Jackass.
This from the Glenn Beck interview of Jonah Goldberg as posted by dicentra at the pub.
Read the whole thing.
I really meant it that I would like/love to see a J. Goldstein-J. Goldberg discussion of the new fascism and how to combat it. Double Gold, (h/t SBP) going platinum soon.
“Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/22 @ 10:14 pm #
…â€Âsincere concern for freedom of speech issues.â€Â
Free speech for thee & not for me? All about that aren’t you?”
My thought exactly.
thor is a fascist wannabe, with a brown shirt and a tiny mustach drawn with his own feces.
I did read that, and can’t disagree with any of it (as an aside, Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is amazing).
I meant what I said above about the need to take the message off of the interweb and to the streets. There are people who can still be swayed by priniciples well explained. We need a “Common Sense” for the 21st century.
geoffb:
Strong definitions is where it is at. I think that is what made the VDH article good as well.
I think now that the progressives are running things, it is easier to focus not on how to make things better, but to preserve what is essential.
…”They want ‘journalist’ to mean some kind of professional designation”…
Websters: “Journalist.”
noun = liberal hump.* Or hack.
*(see douchebag)
Websters: “Press”
nounprajorative = Shit Heap.* Or Faustians.**
*(see cesspool)
**(see obama)
Here’s the deal, you dumbfucks. I will not permit any evil entity to shut your loudmouth shit up. I will fight to the death your right to be silly, because that’s how it’s done.
“Comment by cynn on 11/22 @ 7:55 pm #
Thanks, ursetc, I don’t see it going that far. Lawsuits? Yes, but that’s case law.”
When money represents the power to actualize freedom of choice, you see no problem with this?
Sheesh…
“I will not permit any evil entity to shut your loudmouth shit up.”
No, but I bet you’d gladly support a “regulator.”
…”a tiny mustach drawn with his own feces.”
Nah, no moustache N.O.
thor paints his poop on the walls for all to see.
Like any two-year old.
…And he throws his shit like a zoo chimp.
“Yes, but that’s case law.”
And what in the fuck, pray tell, do you know about case law?
For my part, I thank you cynn. I know not what I can do or what you can do either to stop this erosion of freedom.
Allies do not have to agree on anything except that they have a common foe. Other differences are that, other.
I may be a “dumbfuck” and a “loudmouth”, hell I admit to the loudmouth part, dumbfuck would be more of a “in the eye of the beholder” thing, but as long as you also see this thing that we are discussing as “evil” then we have something in common and that is a start.
For now I have an early morning tomorrow and an unexpectedly long day.
This is a long fight ahead. Damn, I’m getting to old for this shit. Where are my “Golden Years”?
Good night all.
I really meant it that I would like/love to see a J. Goldstein-J. Goldberg discussion of the new fascism and how to combat it. Double Gold
Who do we know that can set up summat like that? I’ve met Goldberg (took his leaky pen) and he linked one of my pub pieces at The Corner, but I doubt that constitutes any kind of pull whatsoever. He’s good buddies with Glenn Beck, and Glenn and I have LOTS in common: both left-handed, born 99 days apart, and both LDS.
Which constitutes exactly ZERO pull, as well. Though my BiL’s cousin used to sit for Glenn’s kids…
Hmmm…
Here’s the deal, you dumbfucks. I will not permit any evil entity to shut your loudmouth shit up. I will fight to the death your right to be silly, because that’s how it’s done.
I guess the government isn’t an evil entity then.
Nope, the government’s a beautiful pet, as long as it stays in its cage.
dicentra,
If you’ll keep those bicycle ridding, short-sleeved, buttoned down kids from knocking on my door @ 8:00am on Saturday morning and asking me about Jesus, I’ll make it my mission in life to get Goldberg & Goldstein together.
Nothing against my Savior, but I don’t think you can do it.
For Pete’s sake.
The last Saturday they knocked (early…I had crazy bedhead and everything), they wouldn’t quit! And I’m in sales. Good grief. I asked those kids if they would “help me move a dead body” and they came right in.
We talked Jesus and I made them frittatas.
Good times.
Anywho, get with the marketing department. No more Saturday mornings.
Please.
“Nope, the government’s a beautiful pet, as long as it stays in its cage.”
I’m beginning to get a crush on cynn (don’t tell anybody).
The new regulations for bloggers probably won’t be any more onerous than asking voters to produce the correct form of I.D. before they can vote.
Or workers to produce the correct paperwork before they’re allowed to earn a living.
Both beneficial Big Brother requirements, right?
There exists a continuum of possible solutions to any given problem. One antipode comprising fiat solutions and the other end comprising stochastic emergent solutions. Fiat solutions, no matter how profoundly intelligent and well-vetted the designers, are subject to various problems.
One reason for this is what the discordians call the “snafu principle” which can be formulated approximately as: “the entropy present in a communication channel is proportional to the number of hierarchical nodes the channel traverses”. As RAW would have put it, each rung in a hierarchy has a burden of nescience to the rung above it and conversely, the top of the hierarchy has a burden of omniscience. The social designers look down the hierarchy for (ostensibly) information and are met by a reflection of their own preconceptions. He (RAW) would use the analogy of the man with the gun to your head; you’re only going to tell him whatever you think will prevent him from pulling the trigger whether it accords with reality or not. The legion within the government hierarchy support the ascendant memes perfunctorily.
Stochastic emergent solutions are organic and they reflect IMO a more accurate representation of the way natural systems develop than purely bivalent system architectures. Examples obviously include markets, but another interesting example can be found in the systems described by Douglas Hofstadter in “Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies“. His use of non-deterministic execution within a framework that looks less like a hierarchy and more like a biological cell. This approach, which he developed over 10 years ago, was able to accomplish tasks in a more human way, more quickly and more efficiently than top-down approaches. As Hofstadter points out in GEB, intelligence in the brain is non-local. These kind of systems are more accurate representations of the way the universe works; and isn’t that the goal of model making?
The new regulations for bloggers probably won’t be any more onerous than asking voters to produce the correct form of I.D. before they can vote.
Or workers to produce the correct paperwork before they’re allowed to earn a living.
Both beneficial Big Brother requirements, right?
I don’t think this is really a parsnip, parsnips are smarter than that.
Here’s the deal, you dumbfucks. I will not permit any evil entity to shut your loudmouth shit up. I will fight to the death your right to be silly, because that’s how it’s done.
Go fish, cynn. Otherwise give me mucho money. Then maybe we’ll talk. In your case, cynn, that’s just how it’s done.
this is probably why Huffington and Firedoglake had feverishly tried to gain press credentials.
this is probably why Huffington and Firedoglake had feverishly tried to gain press credentials.
A Yes, but also to fall under the province of the Endangered Species Act as well.
scratch “A”, I have no idea what that means.
If our government didn’t regulate the economy to the point that it has the de facto power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, Washington wouldn’t be crawling with lobbyists and this political pressure on our First Amendment rights would not exist. The Founders constituted a limited government for a reason.
malaclypse sensai-san!
you might be interested in this Poulos piece.
He speaks to the contrast of conservative hub-and-spoke style structures vs liberal webbish distibuted local node structures.
Since top down externally imposed control structures govern the hub/spoke subnets, they are doomed to entropic degradation, right?
And then the webbish lateral emergent social networks will colonize the vertically organized social networks.
I don’t see the intimidation and persecution happening here, you nellies.
cynn — from my drive-by participation here, it seems you at least try to keep an open mind on these things.
Want to see a state-by-state map of threats to free speech on campuses across America?Pay a visit to the website of F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), started by classic liberal and Enlightenment period scholar, Alan Kors.
Click on the left-hand sidebar link that reads “Spotlight” and then click around various states.
Intimidation goes on every day on campuses across America. I’ve seen the howling mobs shout down reasoned discourse, cynn. I’ve begun what I thought would be amiable discussions and then stood in the middle of a circle of angry faculty members and felt their spittle on my face. They think they are doing the right thing.
http://www.thefire.org/
It can’t be ‘journalism’: that is a profession.
I’m not getting paid for it, so I receive no value from it other than personal pleasure. That is ‘unprofessional’ in the way that I am not working at a profession.
The right to have a free press is given to the people, not to the press.
Benjamin Franklin would be calling for a revolution by now.
“I can’t define journalism, but I know it when I see it.”
I say we make a really concerted effort to have the blogosphere redefined as political pornography.
Seems to be both clear and concise. Such a tangled web has been woven to hobble this and bring it to heel at the politicians feet, prostrate.
Of course someone, such as I, see this;
as having a clear meaning also and it has, over the years been brought to heel too.
Our Constitution has always been the enemy of the political class that desires power, control and tyranny. Language, definitions of words, bending of the original intent and meaning has been the means used to kill this document. Calling it the “living” Constitution is a foul joke as the life has been sucked out by those who use that expression.
What they mean by “living” Constitution is a zombie Constitution. A shambling undead thing in thrall to those very ones it was meant to, written to, hold in check lest they run amuck and destroy all liberty in their quest to rule over all.
This type of personality is always present in all peoples. The urge to control is present in everyone to a greater or lesser degree. It is neither good or bad in and of itself and has usefulness. It does however need to be leashed, “caged” as cynn put it above. In the private realm if not leashed it is the sociopath. In the public realm it becomes in extremis the dictator. Government like fire is a useful servant and a terrible, horrifying master.
Velociman, I’m shocked that you haven’t picked up on this angle, btw. I’m going to get a blog address out of Sweden, just to crank up the salivating political junkies into thinking they’re going to see some sweet, outrageous debate-worthy topic on my blog.
Malaclypse, I’d be interested in your take on this. It’s my attempt to reduce the notions you describe to games theory terms.
Regards,
Ric
Anyone else get the sweet, sweet irony in someone who’s spent the last six months playing the heckler’s veto right here on this blog telling us free speech is in no danger?
Does anyone here have contact with Bill Whittle? Since he seems to have landed a gig with NRO?
#155
Weren’t you the one that got all paranoid about what Bush would do to free speech once he was elected?
Who’s talking ‘fairness doctrine’ again? Refresh my memory.
He speaks to the contrast of conservative hub-and-spoke style structures vs liberal webbish distibuted local node structures.
Since top down externally imposed control structures govern the hub/spoke subnets, they are doomed to entropic degradation, right?
And then the webbish lateral emergent social networks will colonize the vertically organized social networks.
Try to loosen your grip on your partisanship nishi, and think of what you are saying in in context of the post Ric linked in 140. If what you are saying is true, how can the progressive ideal of an all powerful centralized government succeed? And ask yourself why their party structure is the exact opposite of the government they espouse?
As far as the parties to, I would also argue that the hub and spoke style is a the natural arrangement for the party that is in power, as they have found leadership that worked, while the local node web is natural for the party that is out of power and searching for a leadership policy that resonates.
B Moe, why are you bothering? The bitch won’t consider anything that doesn’t support her lust for Dear Leader O.
The idiocy of characterizing organizational structures as “conservative” and “liberal” is telling. They are no such thing, they merely are.
I am a partisan of evolution, B Moes.
In all its forms.
Think of me as an otaku of evolutionary theory of culture.
The model Ric Locke proposes is strongly contradicted by my all-time favorite book, teh Holy John Maynard-Smith’s Evolution and the Theory of Games.
And that was Poulos’ characterization, not mine.
The idiocy of characterizing organizational structures as “conservative†and “liberal†is telling. They are no such thing, they merely are.
Agreed, but I would rather try to explain it than take the thor route of absolute declarations. I also think the whole discussion spreads some light on something I have brought up before: the inherent trap in our current system of running a successful campaign of change and rebellion only to discover once you take power you don’t know how to bring it about. It bit Newt hard in the ass in ’94, and it is fixing to happen again. I was struck by the possibility of the difference in organizational structures, and the natural evolution from one to the other when the rebels take power, as being a large part of the explanation.
Think Animal Farm.
And B Moes, you didn’t read Poulos.
He says the models relate to material services and information services, types of jobs for the working class.
Bonus treat! Aldo in the comments when he was still around.
The “thor route of absolute declarations” is a false declaration. Nishi is entitled to her opinion but I’m wary of labels and generalities used in the article she linked, unless I’m referring to you, BMoe, as a hick in response to one of you stupid comments.
I view everyone individually as best I can.
Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican. The former get their values from competitive universities and the media world; the latter get theirs from churches, management seminars and the country club.
I just tried to read Poulos, nishi. The dude is too full of shit to finish. Doctors and Lawyers vote Democrat because they are the beneficiaries of Government controlled monopolies who benefit from strong centralized government. The media wants to be. Trying to break economic, cultural and social structures down into neat little liberal/conservative paradigms is absurd, these systems are far too complex and chaotic. I know that rattles your little mathematical brain, but it is obvious to most of us.
Someone has political structures confused with the marketplace.
The “thor route of absolute declarations†is a false declaration.
He bloviates with yet another absolute declaration.
There are not monolithic reasons for voting.
Voter preference is an aggregate most strongly influenced by realtime environmental factors. Eg, the econopalypse turning voters into Obamacans.
Another statistically valid method of attempting to describe voting patterns is the GINI, or inequality index.
It is my personal hypothesis that voting preference can be correlated with IQ grouping.
It is also very true that an appealing candidate can use local targetting of his particular electoral marketplace to succeed against model predictions.
It is my personal hypothesis that voting preference can be correlated with IQ grouping.
Get no argument here, I don’t think it is a coincidence that Democrats work so hard to make registration and voting idiot proof.
Also there’s a dirty socialist media what makes the Christians ridiculous. This is very helpful for when you want to institute card checks and make people to where they have to give their monies to government instead of like a 401k. Also now we can prop up Cuba and help validate the dirty socialist model more better. Sometimes freedom has to take one on the chin.
Carbon dioxide molecules hate you. You can fight back by helping Baracky decimate our economy. Do your part.
Really?
You might be on to something there.
A guaranteed 3% return Baracky? Forever and ever? Best Christmas Ever!!!!
I mean Kwanzaa. You knew that.
Hi nishi. I’m having trouble selling Sonny but the Genki Rockets sell themselves and FTSK are sort of in between. NG likes them in a big way though. GodTube. Sigh. (That was me sighing) … Sometimes you don’t need your dirty socialist media to lift a finger. I think there are several versions of that all over YouTube but I don’t feel very explorey about it.
it’s going viral in a big way but for the mockery not the message is why I link that
[…] you’ve got them scared when they want to regulate you. And/or shut you up. Protein Wisdom with moves to regulate bloggers. Gateway on Holder’s call for “reasonable […]
What Kate Mengele doesn’t consider is that IQ doesn’t denote values, ethics or morality. Indeed, very bright and very amoral/immoral people are just as capable of being predators as any gangbanger. And voting themselves a “right” to a portion of their neighbor’s earnings proves it.
anybody know what Josef Goebbels’ IQ was?
He had a PhD from Heidelberg.
Ted Bundy was a very bright man. Look what he did with it…
Agreed, Darleen, but I have just decided to start fighting back harder against the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are the more intelligent party when it is obvious that it is a pseudo-intellectual power structure manipulating and exploiting an ignorant mob. Like the Franken attorney above alludes, the Democrats are the ones constantly making it easier for the illiterate and uneducated to vote, that is their base.
“Comment by McGehee on 11/23 @ 10:37 am #
anybody know what Josef Goebbels’ IQ was?”
Higher than nishi’s.
I think we should be enacting sensible newspaper control.
I think sensible newspaper control is well under way. The New York Times is now just a prissy dirty socialist niche vehicle focusing on delivery of high median income white people what hate Christians. Advertisers are still figuring out how this works with their media plans.
There are not monolithic reasons for voting.
Tell it to 95% of the black people in this country.
I think if you correlate the self-estimate of intelligence to voting, you’d find a rock-solid pattern. I’d bet self-esteem would similarly correlate.
So what you’re saying is, Dr. Goebbels’ IQ had at least one digit.
ã«ã—　ã©ãŠもã‚りãÂ΋¨ãÂâ€Ã£Â–ã„ã¾ã—ãŸ
Thank you too Malaclypse.
[…] Am I overly naive for getting just a bit angry that even after 220 years we still have to fight to keep our political speech free? […]
Revenooers, Ma! Git mah scattergun!