“To permit an entire class of political communications to be completely unregulated… would permit an evasion of campaign finance laws…”
The American regions of the blogosphere has been reverberating after Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly stated that blogs must be regulated in order to comply with US campaign finance laws.
However I do not propose to add my voice to the myriad of other commentators decrying this or explaining why it is such a bad idea, as regular readers of this blog can pretty much join the dots to guess The Samizdata Position on that issue. What I will do though is point out that as well as being a threat to freedom of expression, this has huge positive potential as well.
There are few things more corrosive to the power of the state than for it to decree something and then be seen to be unable to enforce its writ. So let Colleen Kollar-Kotelly do her worst. You want to link to a Democratic or Republican campaign site regardless of what regulations say you can or cannot do? Simple… off-shore hosting. Host your blog outside the USA and post using a pseudonym (like maybe “Tom Paine” or “Ben Franklin”) and then link to whoever the hell you want to. Moreover put a banner on your blog saying “This Blog is in wilful violation of US Campaign Laws and there is not a damn thing you can do about it”.
Hell, my ‘inner capitalist’ is whispering in my ear as I write this… I just might talk to some chums of mine who are hosting experts with a view to setting up Samizdata.net branded non-US based hosting, available for bloggers across the political spectrum who want to stick their thumb in the eye of those people who want to control free political expression. Anything which weakens the authority of the state, shows the limits of political power and makes enterprising folks some money whilst helping people to do all that is too good for me to pass up. Yeah, I really hope this travesty becomes law in the USA… stay tuned <evil laugh>
Where is samizdata hosted? Why not do it for the whole thing?
AT the moment we are hosted in the USA but it is really a simple matter to host elsewhere or mirror elsewhere. Setting up a UK mirror makes enforcing a US court order rather more difficult… better yet, setting up a Romanian or Swiss mirror (both quite easy to do) makes it impossible for US authorities to do anything… then imagine a few hundred thousand US bloggers doing that and the absurdity of this becomes clear, though actually just a few dozen high profile high traffic blogs doing that is really all that is needed to make some people in high places look pretty damn stupid.
The Chinese have made a surprisingly decent fist of blocking overseas sites that piss off Beijing – not to say that the system’s bulletproof by any means. Can you imagine America adopting forms of Chinese-style internet censorship when they realise the force of mere legislation isn’t sufficient?
I’d sign up for off-shore hosting in a heartbeat, so long as I was convinced that the IP from which I posted would remain concealed from prying authorities (pseudonymity isn’t much good if they can trace your internet connection to your front door).
I’m suffering for my art: I would like nothing more than for them to try create a US version of the Great Internet Wall of China! I think the political damage it would do to anyone associated would move things very much in various directions I would *love* to see.
“In court filings the company argued that the Web sites were not protected by free speech because they are not legitimate members of the press.” (link)
Combine that with this Colleen on the “campaign finance reform” laws and it could get pretty messy, I keep telling myself it can’t happen but history says that it most certainly will, at some point anyway.
All the experiancec some folks have put into keeping illegal software and porn servers going offshore may just save free speech, until the US gov decides to emulate Castro in dealing with unwanted political ideas.
BTW: great site. I am loving it, I feel like I have found long-lost family.
Oh and I think McCain-Feingold are going to have their own special room in hell. In the same general area that all the other “do-gooders” go.
Damnit! I feel like moving to Israel, WTH!?
I love how the net has statists (as well as closet statists) going nuts. Just the idea of individual, uncontrolled, volition scares the hell out of so many. Heh!
What’s next…pure capitalism? Liberty, maybe?:)
I publish a daily email based newsletter on political and defense matters. My readers prefer the email format, and I have gone along with that. However, newsletters and emails seem to be especially targeted by Senator McCain. So be it. May I humbly add my encouragement for a SAMIZDATA branded “Liberty Server Farm”. If necessary, I will become a real Blog page. I have so warned my readers. My thanks for coming up with this idea.
Y’e Liu Chu t’sai
There is no way they could make this stick, short of emulating China . And last I looked at the US constitution, the first amendment was for EVERYBODY, not just people with NYT press credentials. What in hell are they smoking?
I don’t think the correct response is to run away to a non-US hosting provider. That’s admitting that the politicians have won. The right way to go is mass civil disobedience, on US servers. I think this would be the probable outcome if the government actually tried to enforce any of these regulations.
Perry,
Don’t be silly, they could well do it and succeed in creating a system that was pretty effective for most users. If they wanted to justify it they would just label those who got round it unpatriotic or terrorists or similar and throw them in the American Gulag for a very long time.
Della
Stop whining and get up off your knees. The freedom to speak freely, enshrined in the Constitution, belongs to each individual American. It does not belong to politicians, Congress or the courts. Perry’s right. Attempting to shut down free speech would be wonderful. I only hope you’re right that the state attempts to drag off dissidents to a gulag. How long do you think it would take for a Waco stand-off to develop? There are alot of guns in the US, you know. I’ve never met Kim du Toit but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who’ll come quietly when the mighty Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly tells him to shut up or face arrest. As always, such opinions deserve contempt, ridicule and disobedience.
What is it with you and knees? You have a fixation with them. Some sort of fetish, perhaps 😉
EG
Why not take a look at HavenCo who are located on Sealand ?
Thanks for the offer, Perry … but there is no where left to run if the feds get away with this.
America is merely the heathiest patient in the world’s tyranny cancer ward.
We are going to have to stand and fight.
( or, as Euan suggested, buy kneepads. )
That may be the theory, but the practice is often very much at variance with the theory.
Man! You are so stupid.
What a bad example. Waco was a case where the state killed a bunch of people who were either innocent or not guilty of anything really serious, the agents of the state got away with it without punishment. I have heard a lot of people who believe the state’s story that they brought upon themselves their shooting, gassing and burning.
Well yeah, but what you and Perry are doing is cheering him on in the belief that he’ll lose in the long term. Maybe it would fail in the long term, but in the short to medium term, which could be a very long time, they could place severe restrictions on freedom of speech, and lock a lot of people up.
Della: my initial comment was facetious. The IT industry would be deeply disadvantaged by anything vaguely approaching Chinese-style regulation of the internet. No American lawmaker would go there. Sorry Perry.
Well, this is a matter to be concerned about, but I don’t think it is time to start jumping to conclusions about what is going to happen.
In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission(Link) decided in 2003, almost a year before Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said:
This Court’s consideration of plaintiffs’ claim that the expanded regulation is both overinclusive and underinclusive is informed by the conclusion that the distinction between express advocacy and so-called issue advocacy is not constitutionally compelled. Thus, the Court examines the degree to which BCRA burdens First Amendment expression and evaluates whether a compelling governmental interest justifies that burden. Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving that new FECA §316(b)(2) is overbroad. …
Also rejected is plaintiffs’ argument that new FECA §316(b)(2)’s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive because it does not apply to print or Internet advertising. The record here reflects that corporations and unions used soft money to finance a virtual torrent of televised election-related ads during the relevant period. Congress justifiably concluded that remedial legislation was needed to stanch that flow of money. Finally, §304(f)(3)(B)(i), which excludes news items and commentary from the electioneering communications definition, is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles as applied to the media.
I’m not a lawyer, but the obvious question is whether or not Kollar-Kotelly’s is even valid as the Supreme Court seems to have clearly exempted both print and Internet advertising in toto.
Finally, even though for the most part this is probably an exercise in futility, there is no federal privilege for journalists.
Several Court (Link)holdings do firmly point to the conclusion that the press clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or to give the press access to information that the public generally does not have. 34 Nor in many respects is the press entitled to treatment different in kind than the treatment any other member of the public may be subjected to.
With some qualifications, therefore, it is submitted that the speech and press clauses may be analyzed under an umbrella ”expression” standard, with little, if any, hazard of missing significant doctrinal differences.
This whole computer/internet/information revolution has caught the control freaks off their guard. My favorite example of this is the now defunct anti-trust case against IBM, which dragged on for years and years, until the Gov’t finally had to admit the computer landscape had changed so fundamentally that the grounds for the action no longer existed.
So then they went after Microsoft, as well as some of the chip makers. The zeal is still there, they just don’t know where to aim the gun from one day to the next.
This latest deal, aside from being an assault on freedom of speech, is another example of the desparate attempts to regulate, tax, and otherwise control something the pols simply don’t understand, and, therefore, fear.
Just as the state in previous decades tried to control radio and TV, and, infamously, copy machines, now the powers are trying to get a handle on this internet monster, which, along with cell phones and satellite TV, brings enormous information capability right into ordinary peoples’ homes and offices.
Since, in an information society, information is power, it’s no surprise the big guys are nervous. The hopeful aspect is that, since so many people now consider internet use as a daily necessity, tampering with access might very well result in the same type of reaction long noted about messing with autos.
It was said during WW2 that people would put up with all kinds of rules and rationing, except for gas and tires. Then they would do anything to get what they wanted to use their cars. One can only hope that open access has reached that level of political danger for anyone attempting to curtail it.
What a bad example. Waco was a case where the state killed a bunch of people who were either innocent or not guilty of anything really serious, the agents of the state got away with it without punishment. I have heard a lot of people who believe the state’s story that they brought upon themselves their shooting, gassing and burning.
There were a few real criminals at the Waco compound but the fact that the Gov got away with simply burning everyone (on the video you can see them shooting into the fire, like they were clearing a bunker in WWII or something) is a clear sign of how far we have fallen, and what kind of treatment people that become a thorn in the side of thought policing and internationalism can expect.
I am not suggesting any blogging will be killed, but getting in the way of the do-gooders, after they have the full force of law on their side, is not something to be considered lightly.
From a 2004 story:
The attorney says the charges were dropped against the remaining seven because they were not seen quoting scripture on the videotape. Fahling says in Philadelphia, it appears the public reading of scripture will land a person in jail.
Don’t misunderestimate them.
Misunderestimate?
Does this mean you think we should underestimate them?
EG
Misunderestimate?
Does this mean you think we should underestimate them?
EG
If we’re going to underestimate them, we should do it properly. Something worth doing is worth doing right.
What makes you think that the US government would need to impose Chinese-style controls in order to find and proscecute a single blogger offender?
You really do misunderestimate the technical skills available to some agencies if you think that.
Re: Repent America arrests
The charges have been dropped in this case. Looking at the video of these people being arrested it looks like they were arrested for being cheeky to police oficers. The officers did the classic US police officer thing of making up a bunch of charges, luckily these people had political influence and got out of it.
TCS has an excellent article suggesting who is behind this orwellian charade.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, this is where I would be looking.
I’m afraid, chaps and chapesses, that Della is spot on. If the US Government wanted to put the clamp on bloggers, it could do so and without breaking sweat.
Of course, truly effective control could only be achieved by means inter-governmental co-operation of the kind we witnessed in the 1990’s and which led the global system of anti ‘money-laundering’ (i.e. tax avoidance) laws. In fact, an international campaign to bring the internet under ‘democratic control’ would be one US policy that would be warmly welcomed in Europe, Britain, China, Russia and just about everywhere else. The rubrics would most likely be kiddie porn or ‘hate’ speech.
This idea that the internet is somehow beyond the control of government is complete horseshit. The model that was used to bring global banking under state control can just as easily be applied to the internet.
Furthermore, I don’t buy all this insurrectionary bravura. It is very difficult and dangerous to resist concerted state power and there are very few (too few) people who are willing to throw themselves onto Leviathan’s bayonets. Revolutions only succeed if a significant proportion of the demos is prepared to rise up against the government but if anyone expects the public to start taking to the barricades for the sake of a few raggedy-arsed bloggers then all I can say is that you are in an acute state of delusion.
Control of the internet is a perfectly feasible state project. The only requirement is the political will. This may not be manifest now but would quickly materialise if ever bloggers ever become a serious nuisance.
In my 57 years, I know of one time when the people of the USA spontaneously protested to Congress in sufficient numbers to get a piece of state sponsored coercion stopped in its tracks.
It was under Jimmy Carter, as I recall. The powers that be had decided that too many people were failing to report savings account interest to the IRS, therefore henceforth 20% would simply be deducted in advance and sent in to the Feds.
The public response was devastating. The law, which had quietly passed, with approval of all the requisite agencies and courts, was repealed fast enough to cause observable relativistic effects.
Out of all the power grabs committed by all the administrations since at least FDR, if not Abe Lincoln, this is the only time -that I know of anyway- that most of the American people said not just no, but Hell No. Why just this time? Obviously because it affected them immediately and directly.
As the restriction of blogs would affect us. But are we at the point where it would effect enough other people to matter? Probably not. Certainly not like confiscating 20% of their savings account interest mattered.
I sympathize with the revolutionary sentiments of almost all of you. To win, however, we need more people who care whether blogs are around to blog next year. If you were to fight to the death against McCain’s goons, you would be lucky to make a tenth the impact on the public psyche that the tsunami did. It is already fading from everyone’s attention. I expect that it will be mentioned again on about December 29th or 30th of this year in some of those New Years retrospective articles, and that’s about it.
I see two ways to oppose this. One would be to promote the blogosphere to the population as widely and quickly as possible. If people think that they are going to lose something valuable to them -even potentially valuable- it will matter. I don’t know how to do this since we don’t have large amounts of money to spend on publicity. Are we as numerous and as individually willing to spend as, for instance, the gun owners? (The NRA may very well be an excellent model to emulate. They are fighting a similar constitutional battle – and might even have an interest in our fight.) Could we form a NBA?
One other idea that occurred to me, an idea that would be feasible for anyone with some copywriting ability who cared to try, would be an adaptation of the chain letter concept. Some of them that I have seen have been amazingly persuasive – even when I knew they were pure baloney! The idea would be to get a few of the good ones to use for models, then write one selling the idea of:
1.) Going to ones computer and discovering some good blogs and then,
2.) Appalled that the government is proposing to keep these wonderful inventions from you (which hitherto you may have barely known existed),
3.) Copying this letter and sending it on to 5 or 10 of your friends and relations, and,
4.) Copy and send these letters now! Next week may be too late .
If enough people composed and distributed these letters, they would be subject to a kind of selective pressure. The good ones would propagate and the poorer ones would disappear.
Anyone who likes this idea and wants to do something NOW can write one and mail a few copies. You don’t need an organization, or a revolution. You just need some good models. Look in your junk mail over the next few days – which ones do you dispose of reluctantly? How are they written? Go and do likewise. And remember the ad man’s cardinal rule: Don’t close the letter without asking for the sale!
(And I would like to see McCain regulate THAT.)
Perry,
It’s better (or worse) than you think. Foreigners may not contribute to US campaigns. A link from a blog is now considered a contribution. Simply link to a campaign site from a foreign blog (to Hillary’s by preference, maybe McCain) then tell the FEC on them. Watch the fireworks.
Yankblgr: you obviously don know much abo Israel:-)
Now there at least two of us that understand
jurisdiction.