'I Will Defend To Keep It Based On Free Speech'

KOMO News ^ | May 13, 2005 | Liz Rocca

[Calpernia]

ping

[lOKKI]

Here's what's interesting to me -

That is "John 3-16" is not a blatantly religious reference -It's simply a combination of letters and numbers, or, at best a name and some numbers.

It's the interpretation of the viewer that it has a religious meaning (That it also happens to match the interpretation of the plate owner is not relevant here).

Could I complain to the state that a license plate reading XZQ 735 offends me? This sounds like fun! I could just get my Boss' license plate number and write to the state complaining that I'm offended. He'd have to go to the hassle of having his plates changed. Six months later -Ba-Boom! I'm offended again by whatever new plate number he gets.

I LIKE this idea!

[agooga]

""We're always interested in finding out if one slipped through the cracks," he said.

They caught one last year. "GOT MILF" was thought to be a play on the milk commercials. It turned out to be a sexual reference to good looking moms."

Leave it to the morons at the DMV to confuse a benign Biblical reference and a porno reference.

Sheesh.

[TXnMA]

See tagline.

(Closing exclamation in celebration of what we just escaped having as First "Lady"...)

[AbeKrieger]

Nope, not allowed. Jesus is a proper noun. Against the rules of Scrabble. Put in on the back of your car instead.

I did not play it for fear of offending someone. :) Fortunately no rules were broken either way.

[purpleland]

First Amendment Issue: Quote from following article -

"I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible," said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

***Are Freepers "ordinary people"???

Excerpt, article Chicago Tribune via http://www.news.yahoo.com

---

FEC treads into sticky web of political blogs By Dawn Withers Washington Bureau
Tue May 31, 9:40 AM ET

Web loggers, who pride themselves on freewheeling political activism, might face new federal rules on candidate endorsements, online fundraising and political ads, though bloggers who don't take money from political groups would not be affected.

Draft rules from the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, would require that paid political advertisements on the Internet declare who funded the ad, as television spots do.

Similar disclaimers would be placed on political Web sites, as well as on e-mails sent to people on purchased lists containing more than 500 addresses. The FEC also is considering whether to require Web loggers, called bloggers, to disclose whether they get money from a campaign committee or a candidate and to reveal whether they are being paid to write about certain candidates or solicit contributions on their behalf.

These rules would not affect citizens who don't take money from political action committees or parties.

The FEC long has been reluctant to craft rules for the Internet, and it has exempted the online world from many regulations that apply to other media such as television and radio. But a court ruling last fall required the agency to include the Internet in its definition of public communications and to begin regulating activities there.

The FEC, which also is striving to clarify regulations about online volunteer campaign activity, is accepting public comments on the proposals until Friday. Hearings will be held June 28 and 29.

The final version of the rules is expected later this year, unless Congress intervenes to exempt the Internet from FEC regulation, as is wanted by lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Advocates for rules say they are necessary to prevent groups such as corporations and labor unions from exploiting loopholes.

"I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible," said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

But as Internet technology improves, she said, politicians, corporations and unions will "learn where to go to reach unconverted people. They will use Internet more and more. People like me who are worried about corporate and union abuse are less comfortable with that."

Opponents of the regulations, including many bloggers, worry that freedom of speech would suffer and that the rules would have a chilling effect on the lively political discussions that occur online. FEC regulation, they say, would unfairly punish individuals, adding that nothing happened in the 2004 elections to warrant intervention.

Adam Bonin, a lawyer in Philadelphia, is drafting comments to the FEC on behalf of two prominent bloggers, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos and Duncan Black of Eschaton.

Bonin said his clients "want to know they are protected in . . . terms of reporting, advocacy, fundraising for candidates and accepting advertising."

He added, "They want to make sure the regulations are clear enough so they and their users feel confident they can speak without worrying that the FEC will issue a subpoena for innocuous activities."

FEC commissioners say they are drafting rules cautiously and being careful to craft protections for individual speakers and online news publications.

"The fundamental presumption has changed from the Internet being unregulatable to now it will be regulated," said FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith.

Smith cautioned that the rules, if approved, could be more restrictive than many think, and he predicted that more rules likely would follow.

Smith, who favors less regulation, said he wouldn't commit to voting in favor of the rules.

He said he had wanted the FEC to appeal U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's decision in hopes of warding off any Internet regulation.

---

[Irontank]

Everytime there is a question as to whether some federal action violates one of the Bill of Rights...the first thing to assume is that the federal government probably doesn't even have the authority to do what it is trying to do.

It seems to be the great forgotten fact that our Constitution's fundamental purpose was to lay out the specific powers of the federal government and everything that was not specifically delegated to the feds was left to the states. If the federal government is not explicitly given the power to do something, it is unconstitutional for it to then do that something.

In Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the proposed Bill of Rights:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

This coming from Hamilton who, more than any of the other leading Framers of the Constitution, believed that the Constitution created a powerful federal government. Hamilton (and all of the other Framers) would be stunned and horrified to see the current federal government which does not even acknowledge that there are any limits on its powers.

So, federal regulation of political speech over the internet is clearly unconsitutional...not because its violates the First Amendment, but rather because the feds simply do not have the legal authority to do it.

[Rebelbase]

"We tracked down the woman who lodged the complaint, and she declined an on-camera interview. She says frankly, she's dismayed the state didn't keep her complaint anonymous"

Dismayed that her assine complaint might come back to haunt her.

[chs68]

"A Pierce County woman made the complaint, which reads in part: "I was offended that I have to be 'prayed over' by a license plate... What happened to keeping church and state separate?""

This Pierce County woman is, I'm quite sure, a regular poster over at DU.

They have a thread over htere today about how the next fascists will not be wearing swastikas --- they will wear, according to the DUmmies, crosses and Bibles.

[GadareneDemoniac]

She's being "prayed over" by a piece of metal?
There's no other scenery in the beautiful Pacific northwest that she can enjoy other than somebody's license plate?
This gal is nuts, just plain nuts, I tell ya....

[tnlibertarian]

You should have shrinkwrapped the holder and Scrabble tiles and sold them on eBay next to the "Mary in my grilled-cheese".