IAH777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1242 times:
For some reason, I don't believe the FBI will be kicking-down little Kimmie Johnson's door for her "Boys I Think Are Cute In My Junior High Class" blog when she fails to register. Or Andrew's "A.netters I've Known And Loved" blog. (again)
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Nah, it will be Customs or they will change the name of ATF to the ATFC breaking down you door, and dragging you away to some unknown place in the middle of the night without reading you your rights.. X2
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18844 posts, RR: 64 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1196 times:
And according to one of the embedded links in the opening post of this thread, the amendment to S.1 was authored by Sen. David Vitter, a Republican. In the other thread, it was blamed on the Democrats.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1092 times:
You have to register with the government and submit quarterly reports when talking to activists, blogs, and possibly groups of people over 500. Failure to do so can get you a year imprisonment.
Now, a question. Can the govenrment deny you the right to register? Because that would make it impossible to criticize the government,
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 992 times:
In reading the article it appears that this whole thing is falling under the umbrella of "campaign finance reform" in that many bloggers seem to be organs for the various political parties.
My problem with bloggers is that there is no verification or standard for accuracy in their missives, nor is there an ombudsman to enforce any that may be developed. If Americans....or anyone....chooses to gain all their news and input from bloggers without being able to verify as fact that which is being put out then they are subject to being led down whatever garden path the blogger wants without any proof or foundation in reality.
I don't mind fining bloggers who allow child porn on their sites, nor do I have an issue with setting it up so that bloggers can be sued for libel/slander. I do have a problem with much of campaign finance reform in that it severly restricts freedom of speech in the political arena (nothing to do with societal standards for decency or obscenity). I'm not happy with that.
The chances of this amendment (as attached to a broader bill) even going to a vote are slim since the bill failed to garner the necessary 2/3rd majority by 14 votes to end debate.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18844 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 977 times:
Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 9): Forgive my ignorance as this is about the only forum I use, but what's the difference between a 'blog' and a forum exactly?
This is a forum, where you can open threads at will, and participate in them directly. A blog is content owned by a person or company, where they create the initial postings, and sometimes open it to comments.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): I do have a problem with much of campaign finance reform in that it severly restricts freedom of speech in the political arena (nothing to do with societal standards for decency or obscenity). I'm not happy with that.
Good point. I find that it is often when certain extremist individuals or groups on the left (or, in the past, the right) get into power, anywhere, whether in government or on the Internet, that they try to impose speech restrictions on others. As the article noted, it's Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congress that has started this legislation.
SW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6072 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 953 times:
Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 13): A "Blog" is an online journal... Pretty much like what you had when you were 10 :P
Yep...it's pretty much the best way to cry like a little baby about how mean big brother is without getting off your lazy ass to do anything, but still claim you did. Good times, good times indeed.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 906 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): My problem with bloggers is that there is no verification or standard for accuracy in their missives, nor is there an ombudsman to enforce any that may be developed.
I don't recall reading anything int he first amendment that says free speech must also be accurate speech.
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11): The chances of this amendment (as attached to a broader bill) even going to a vote are slim since the bill failed to garner the necessary 2/3rd majority by 14 votes to end debate.
If I had time, I'd start a blog that features nothing but all of the crackpot, lame and outrageous legislation that ultimately has no chance of passing.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 841 times:
The real fear I perceive is this....
Whenever one encroaches upon a civil right, it opens up the door for more encroaching. Now it's Blogs, how long before political message boards will have to register with the government or go to jail? Where will it end?
It pays to read the embedded links as I pointed out in an earlier post.
" According to GrassrootsFreedom.com, under Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, bloggers who have more than 500 readers will have to register and report quarterly to Congress just like lobbiests or go to jail.
GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie said the new law would create the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever.
The amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter and is currently on hold as it seems to have got bogged down in the legislative process."
Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."
In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18844 posts, RR: 64 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 693 times:
Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21): In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.
That's what it said in the article.
What part of this are you not understanding? Section 220 was authored by Republican Senator David Vitter.
UALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 673 times:
I understand it perfectly well.
Maybe he put it in there as a poison pill that would a consistant with common tactics in the Senate.
But the fact is, that based on the reading of the original article there was no reason for people to jump to the conclusion that Bush or McCain were responcible for it, as these comments implied.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18844 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 669 times:
Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 23):
But the fact is, that based on the reading of the original article there was no reason for people to jump to the conclusion that Bush or McCain were responcible for it, as these comments implied.
I agree with you there, but I believe those comments were sardonic in nature, in fact the first comment begged it on, which was irresponsible, and confused the issue.
That said, your comment here was just as irresponsible, since it overhyped the issue, and was nothing other than a pot shot against the Speaker of the House when a Republican was responsible for the amendment.
Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 18):
Seems to me Nancy Pelosi is just taking a page from Hugo Chavez.
International Homo of Mystery
25 UALPHLCS: Again based on the original article and the recent actions of Hugo Chavez the conclusion was correct.
26 AeroWesty: LOL, okay. I can accept that you feel that way, while at the same time feeling sorry for you that you hold that impression.
27 UALPHLCS: You misunderstand. I accepted that the ammendment was from a Republican Senator. I can only hope that the bill doesn't pass or that it is vetoed. I w
28 AeroWesty: I did misunderstand then, thanks for the explanation.
29 N1120A: You misunderstood both posts. He was being sarcastic with his post, he actually likes the Gorilla of Pennsylvania Ave. I was responding to the articl
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
FUZZYGATE ALERT 
Printer friendly format 
