Constant Conservative

This sounds as though it is a good idea, based on my currently limited knowledge of the matter:

The Freedom for Consumer Choice Act (FCC Act) would force the commission to prove consumers are being harmed by lack of choice before it can impose new rules.

It would also force the FCC to weigh the potential cost of action against benefits while imposing a five-year sunset on FCC regulations. Rules can be renewed if they pass muster under a market-based standard.

Original co-sponsors will include Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Ensign (R-Nev.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and John Thune (R-S.D.).

Any law which purports to solve a problem which does not yet exist, and may not exist at all,  is not in keeping with the concept of limited government.

Today is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Lacking the ability to draw more than swoopy stick figures, I figured that I would replicate an image which someone else had made. Here, in all its medieval glory is a representation of Mohammed meeting with four angels. The art is from the 16th century, I do believe, which would put it almost 1000 years after the person in question found out that he was 72 virgins short upon arrival in the afterlife.

It was interesting to note, while searching for this image, that Wikimedia Commons has a number of depictions of Mohammed which do not obfuscate his face. These, and some obfuscated images, may be found here. One wonders why Wikimedia has not seen threats while various other people who publish similar images have? Then again, the entire response to the Mohammed cartoons is far from thoughtful and rational.

It is sad that it has come to the point where simply creating an image which may be offensive to some is sufficient to bring down threats of dismemberment, death and destruction. There are any number of images which I might find personally offensive–but I simply choose not to view them. Or, in the event that I would be shown them, I experience distaste, disgust, sorrow, etc without wishing the publisher or creator dead.

Personally, I am certain that God is capable of dealing with any dishonor or blasphemy without my violent assistance.

ACLU of South Dakota Concerned By Two Bills in South Dakota House That Chill Free Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 5, 2010

Contact:
Robert Doody, ACLU of South Dakota, (917) 385-5702 or rdoody@aclu.org

SIOUX FALLS, SD- The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota is deeply concerned by two bills that have been introduced into the South Dakota Legislature this week. Both bills seek to add serious constraints to websites that allow users to post anonymous opinions. HB 1277 and HB 1278 mandate that websites in South Dakota that allow for unnamed posting of comments, opinions and other speech items must track those who are posting on their web pages and keep records of IP addresses and other potential identifying and private information.

“These bills seek to address issues of defamation on internet websites but do so in a way that is so excessively broad that it suppresses South Dakotans’ rights to freedom of expression and infringes on their right to privacy,” states Robert Doody, Executive Director of the SD Chapter of the ACLU. “Placing burdensome requirements on bloggers, website owners and others who operate internet-based sites that accept anonymous comments chills freedom of expression to its very core,” said Doody.

The two companion bills seek to undermine and discourage freedom of expression while forcing individuals who operate web-based forums to track their users. If HB 1277 passes, individuals would have the right to sue bloggers, website owners and operators, and others to force them to turn over their business records which identify those who post anonymous comments that might be viewed as defamatory. HB 1278 mandates that “content providers,” those who manage and run websites, blogs, and other forms of internet-based media, track and keep records of all identifying information of their website users.

“Defamation is not protected speech, but anonymous speech and the right to exercise your First Amendment rights are at the very heart of our democracy,” exclaimed Pat Powers, author of South Dakota War College, a blog which allows anonymous comments and which discusses political issues in South Dakota. “Blogs, online newspapers, hospitals, your local funeral home, anyone who allows anonymous comments must install tracking software if this law passes,” according to Pat Powers.

“Defamation is not protected speech on the internet or in any other forum; however, the current bills seek to make anonymous speech a virtual liability for any website owner,” according to Robert Doody of the ACLU of South Dakota. “The ACLU is particularly concerned with how HB 1277 and HB 1278 will chill speech about politicians and other public figures. “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority…It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation…” as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

Although HB 1277 and HB 1278 have the express purpose of helping combat defamation, both bills place undue burdens on websites to the point where the ability to make anonymous comments would be curtailed and in turn limit the ability to exercise the First Amendment. “There are other avenues to address online defamation through the legal process besides passing such chilling legislation,” said Doody.

As noted previously, there were rumblings of a bill that would seriously curtail certain anonymous speech in South Dakota (commenting on blogs and other websites). Now, the bill is here. Pat Powers is staying on the situation with his post here (including the full bill) and the follow up (addressing those who would be affected).

Here are a few questions:

1. Where are the circumstances where the lack of this law has resulted in grievous harm to a person or persons? Generally, one passes laws to correct gaps in existing law. It would be nice to know exactly what situation/crime prompted this law.
2. Does this law only pertain to blogs/websites which are hosted in South Dakota or simply those which are written/administered by South Dakotans? For example, if I were part of a group blog with one (or dozens of) other writers–does this apply even if I am the only South Dakota blogger in the group and the blog is hosted in Seattle?
3. Does the hosting company have any legal requirements to ensure that the logs are kept? After all, I might keep the logs, but the hosting provider might remove them to keep me from running out of the space I have rented from them on the server (for example) unless I wish to pay for more space.
4. How long must the logs be kept? If I shut down my blog/website, do I need to store these somewhere for a certain number of years?
5. How would this works for stuff like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Tumblr–where as one user among millions, I don’t have access to the logs? Does it mean that each of these companies is on the hook because some of their users live in South Dakota?
6. And, the most important question: Under what part of the South Dakota  or United States constitution do the sponsors of this bill find legal basis for this direct curtailment of free speech?

I’m sure there are even more questions which could be asked, but this enough for now. Yes, there are times when people take advantage of being anonymous to say unkind things about other people. People do this in large groups at political rallies, at sporting events, etc. People do this on blogs.

Part of being human is knowing that other humans will be unkind. However, when someone is unkind in my house–it is my personal responsiblity to deal with it in the way I deem most correct. Sometimes that means I invite the person to leave, sometimes it means I stop having guests at all. If I want to allow the person to stay and say what they will, I can choose that as well.

This bill is intended to address libel and slander. We already have a number of laws which handle that. Not to mention that the threshold for such findings is (and should be) quite high.

To all the senators and representatives who are backing HB 1278, I appreciate your desire to right the wrongs of public speech–but it really is none of your concern as duly elected public servants. The only thing which is worse than putting no law in place is putting in bad law. Allow me to state, for the record, that I mean no libel or slander against any of the following individuals by any of the above:

Representatives Hamiel, Bolin, Brunner, Carson, Cutler, Deadrick, Fargen, Gibson, Gosch, Greenfield, Hoffman, Hunt, Iron Cloud III, Jensen, Juhnke, Kirkeby, Kopp, Krebs, Lederman, McLaughlin, Moser, Olson (Betty), Schlekeway, Sly, Sorenson, Turbiville, Vanneman, and Verchio and Senators Turbak Berry, Brown, Dempster, and Vehle.

If any of these individuals represent you–please let them know that their representation is lacking.

People who comment on this and other blogs are sometimes desirous of remaining anonymous. I do not choose to be anonymous myself, but have no difficulty with others who may wish to do so for a variety of reasons. If a commenter, anonymous or otherwise, turns into a troll, then we all deal with it as well as we can. Some will use the “banhammer,” others will engage and overwhelm, still others will simply turn off the commenting.

Pat Powers at the SDWC is reporting that some South Dakota legislators think we can’t police our own place:

I’ve spoken with several legislators who have signed on, or are being asked to sign on to a pair of bills being circulated by Hamiel who is apparently directing an attack at bloggers. And more specifically, the free speech of commenters.

One of these measures I’m being told directs those hosting or writing blogs to turn over (upon request) identifying information of commenters. I believe the other is with regards to “libelous” statements allowed to remain out on the internet.

There are so many reasons that we should be concerned about this, not the least of which is the bearing on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Go, read and educate yourself on the matter. Should this overreaching by the legislature make it into bill form, I know we’ll be talking about it in this space again.

Hmm. I wonder if she is any relation of the good Cardinal? In her own words, Representative Lynn Woolsey:

I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.

I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Who elected them to Congress?

The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.

Via Ace (who makes a very good point about her claim–further down in the piece–that churches are being subsidized because they are tax exempt).

The much-written-about First Amendment is sacred (or as close as one can get in this brave new secular society which forgets a whole lot of history) for both Conservatives and non-Conservatives. Or not:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

[...]

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

There are roughly three approaches that our government can take to change the Constitution, including the First Amendment:

1. Follow existing law and pass more to make changes (backed up by the courts). This would include creating amendments to the Constitution in accordance with the same.
2. Ignore the parts of the Constitution which just don’t really pertain anymore (in the leader’s thinking). Hope that people don’t catch on until it is too late and momentum is on the side of the progressives.
3. Get the UN to pass stuff which is then bundled into some type of treaty which the US signs onto.

Any guesses as to which approach seems to be growing increasingly attractive to a beleaguered administration?

The US Senate has passed the bill which I wrote about yesterday. All that is lacking now is a promised presidential signature. God help us.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we are living in the late middle ages and I’m required to pay the headsman to ensure my end is begun with a clean chop.

While it is not uncommon for folks to argue about whether our country is historically what can be termed a Christian nation, those same people would also generally agree that our country’s laws protect a freedom to religious expression–at least by the individual.

Well, under one section of the bill known as GIVE (aka HR 1388) which has already passed the US House and is shortly to arrive at the Senate (if it has not already), those freedoms would be severely curtailed for a number of our citizens:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

‘(8) Providing a direct benefit to–

‘(A) a business organized for profit;

‘(B) a labor organization;

‘(C) a partisan political organization;

‘(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

‘(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

‘(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

‘(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

Now, if you would pay particular attention to number 7 in the above list, you will note that participants in this program are specifically proscribed from (in everyday terms) teaching Sunday School or Bible study classes, preaching or providing religious instruction, building churches/religious use structures, maintaining those same structures, or engaging in what is commonly called witnessing or telling others of religious experiences/personal beliefs.

Of course, there is also number 10, but that is a catch-all clause which does not concern me half as much as number 7. Then there are the other items (such as 5) which also give me pause. In short, it would look as though a person who is participating in this national service organization loses his or her freedom to exercise a number of rights as a citizen.

I wonder how this list of constraints compares to those which are placed on personnel serving in the various branches of the military. I say this because I realize that they also give up some privileges/rights for the duration of their time in service, but I do not believe that their list of constraints approaches the depth and detail of the above.

What a kerfuffle. Sometimes I wonder if we live in the the “land of the free speech” or not. The Hill put out its Big Question for today: Is Rush Limbaugh good or bad for Republicans? and several Congresspeople answered. One of them was Senator Thune:

I think that Rush inspires the Republican base at a time when there’s a real shortage of morale out there. Like everybody, he says things that not all of us agree with. But I think that his point about the Republican Party staying true to its core values and principles is a message that is well-taken.

Well-taken on Limbaugh’s part, well-stated on Thune’s. For the details of what some other legislators said, you can go to the linked page, but here a couple more which stood out for me:

He’s another voice of the Republican Party and everybody’s welcome to join in the debate. (John McCain)

Well, I think loose lips sink ships is what they used to say during that big war. I think his comments are illustrative of that. (Frank Lautenberg)

As I noted in the very first post on this blog, I can’t wait for someone else to come forward: I am constrained to do what I can with what talents are at my disposal. Dr. Helen agrees:

Please remember that most people are cowards, if you speak up, they will often back down or stammer. Too many times, we let liberals get away with making fun of Republicans and those of us who do not agree with them politically. This needs to stop and the only way to do it is to speak up in the classrooms, public and at work. Remember that we are 56 million strong–those of us who did not vote for Obama. We are hardly alone.

Too long we’ve been told that we need to tolerate those who disagree with us. Now it is time for those with whom we disagree to tolerate us back. By the way, “toleration” does not involve subscribing to or supporting positions with which one disagrees. Rather, it encompasses the idea of letting the other side speak without reprisal. For those who are unfamiliar with this meaning, it is supported by the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause.

Apparently selected to be the new leader (or czar as some are calling it) of the FCC during the Bush/Obama transition: Henry Rivera.

Following are excerpts of the 1985 article which covered his resignation from the FCC (which was embedded in this article from 2004):

Henry M. Rivera, who blocked abandonment of equal employment opportunity rules for broadcasters and led an unsuccessful fight for more regulation for children’s’ television, said Wednesday he was resigning from the Federal Communications Commission.

[...]

“Referring to his sometimes lonely battles to help minorities and monitor TV aimed at children, Rivera said, ‘Being the “Rambo” commissioner on many issues has not always been easy.’

[...]

The Albuquerque, N.M., native said he remained on the commission as long as he did because he feared minority and children’s issues would not be well represented if he left. Rivera is the only minority-group commissioner on the panel.”

Then, from the article in which this older piece was embedded, comes the following:

In the 1970s, the FCC had adopted an “ascertainment requirement” that required broadcasters to question members of the community to determine local needs in 19 areas ranging from agriculture to religion. If the broadcasting didn’t make acceptable efforts to be responsive to community concerns, that would be a factor in whether their licenses would be renewed.

It was a weapon that empowered community groups, who used the threat of license challenges to make gains in programming and employment for people of color.

“In 1981 the FCC eliminated its rules and policies that required radio stations to keep program logs and conduct ascertainment of community problems, imposing non-entertainment programming requirements and limiting the amount of commercial time. The FCC similarly deregulated television, eliminating ascertainment and other requirements in 1984.”

Also eliminated was the Fairness Doctrine, adopted by the FCC in 1949, designed “to ensure the right of reply and the fair and adequate coverage of controversial issues of importance,” as Tim Gardam, a former director of programs at Britain’s Channel 4, wrote in an April 24 Financial Times piece.

“To the Reaganites, who saw information as no different from any other commodity, impartiality was redundant, a relic of a prohibition era. The free market should deliver a democracy’s news. A free market of ideas would be a fair one.”

[...]

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine led to the proliferation of right-wing talk radio, as broadcasters were no longer obligated to attempt to be “fair and balanced.”

While it is difficult to know, based on the context of the above quotes who is speaking at all times, it would appear that Mr. Rivera supported or subscribed to the expressed sentiments. If this be the case (and I’m sure there are minutes of FCC meetings with proposals, amendments, etc somewhere out there from Mr. Rivera’s tenure) then we may have quite a difficult struggle in front of us.

Again, I believe it safe to say that Mr. Rivera is definitely in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, as well as affirmative action and apparently this thing (of which I was previously completely unaware) called the “ascertainment requirement.” This last one appears to be just as bad, if not worse than the Fairness Doctrine, but entirely in keeping with Mr. Rivera’s belief that the free market of ideas is not fair.

More to come, I’m sure, but this is an unequivocal opening salvo on the part of President-elect Obama against the First Amendment. While Congress does not need to confirm Mr. Rivera now (as part of the transition team) it may well be called upon to do so in the not-to-distant future. Now is the time to start educating ourselves, and those who still represent us–if imperfectly-in Washington DC regarding Mr. Rivera.