Daily Kos

View Story | 54 comments

  •  not really (none / 0)

    For two reasons:
    1.  People own websites.  The server on which this post sits is a real machine that someone pays for.
    2.  The regulations (theoretically) only cover money, not "pure speech".  That's the plan, anyway.

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:05:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't get it... (none / 0)

      In the above Coffee House example, surely that's a "real" building, engaged in commerce, with a real physical location too.  How is that different than a server sitting in an air conditioned room somewhere?

      -- The uncreative mind can spot wrong answers; it takes a creative mind to spot wrong questions.

      by Ten Buddhas on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:11:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  coffee houses (none / 0)

        Aren't public spaces.  If you stood up in Starbucks and started giving people grief about the DDR, they could kick you out.

        Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

        by Adam B on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:12:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  dKos is just like a bar (none / 0)

          But, I've gone to lots of bars and had organized meetings where we discussed politics, union actives, candidates and all the same stuff we talk about here and I don't see them being held up as contributers.  And most bars have their own troll rating system that will ban unproductive beople very forcefully.

          I'm not sure, but I think that anything that is open to the public is a public space regardless of who opens the physical property.

          if (Kos) doesn't like what goes on here, he can start his own damn website! - Major Danby

          by Green Zombie on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:06:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  speech (none / 0)

      "The regulations (theoretically) only cover money, not "pure speech".  That's the plan, anyway."

      Not so. The regulations, and current practice, is about speech, trying to make it illegal to put a sign in your window that says "vote for smith".
      In AO-1998-22, the FEC tried to tell Leo Smith he had to put a "paid for by" disclaimer on his web site. I had written them coments at the time saying that would be a bad idea, but they ignored me. Their theory was that his computer must have cost something, so his web page was an "expense."
      What the FEC is ignoring there, aside from Reno v ACLU, is that anonymous political speech is protected under supreme court decisions including Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, Watchtower v Stratton. Text and info at http://majors.blogspot.com.
      If they know who you are, you are at risk of being tracked down, maybe attacked, maybe fired, maybe relatives in the old country sent to slave labor camps. For the internet to work as a free speech medium, we need to keep up the fight for the right to anonymous speech. I have chosen to concentrate on political speech, although the internet indecency cases are where most of the victories have been so far.
      Whether the internet is a safe place for free speech is a bigger question than who gets elected.
      I am greatful that so many of you have chosen to get involved and speak out.
         

      by arbi on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:56:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 54 comments