[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Perhaps you should ask "the Man"....

[firewalk]

Bump for reading later...

[Libertarian_4_eva]

Not under the current law I believe but what exactly do you think will be next?

[Dudoight]

From what I understand it would not affect FR. It would affect paid announcements. Rush could say what he wants up to the end, as could other commentators or news reporters. From what I understand, a politician could not pay for air time in that time period which was negative.

[The Old Hoosier]

It only affects BROADCAST advertising. Not internet or print ads or announcements of any other kind.

[logic101.net]

Nope, not yet. That will be addressed in CFR #2 or #3.

MARK A SITY
www.logic101.net

[smith288]

No.

[sam_paine]

You're just worried about who censors FR. FR is heavily censored by anonymous FR "Moderators."

Sure, there's lots of things that I like to see removed, and sure there are lots of legal and other reasons why JimRob is required to remove certain posts....but FR is NOT totally free speech, can't be.

So all they're arguing now is WHO regulates other kinds of speech. Same old slippy slope.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Hopefully, Jimrob & co. will disobey the anti-speech provisions of this law wherever and whenever applicable, as will hopefully ALL special interest groups and the media that deal with them.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Hit and run poster, 4th post in over a month.

Hardly someone really wanting info, seems more to harass. Am I off on this?

[Redcloak]

That's my understanding of Shays-Meehan. A post here would be considered advertising for a candidate and thus need to be reported. But since it crosses state lines, reports would have to be filed for any race in any jurisdiction were the issue being discussed could be seen as refering to a Federal candidate.

Let's say that in a post I write "gun control is bad". That could be taken as an "attack ad" against Sen. Chuckles Schumer. (And now that I think of it, calling him Chuckles could be an "attack ad", but I digress...) Never mind that I'm in California or that Chuckles was the furthest thing from my mind at the moment I wrote it; because gun control is one of Chuckie's issues and because the post is readable by users in New York, it's considered an "ad" in favor of his opponents. The cost of the "ad" would have to be reported to the FEC as a donation. The "ad" would also be subject to the same blackout rules as any other covered ad.

[Jerry_M]

Why the concern over the limits of censorship?

It would appear to me that we should be fighting any infringement of our First Amendment rights, regardless of how much or how little it might impact us personally.

Once the nose of the camel is under the tent...

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

On February 8, 1996, the Communications Decency Act was enacted into law.

Why Censoring Cyberspace is Dangerous & Futile

ISSUES in INTERNET RIGHTS - GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET -

Examples of this are:
· Eastern European railway gauges were designed to be incompatible across certain borders for the strategic purpose of impeding potential military invasion.
· Television broadcasting standards were deliberately chosen to stake out trade blocks and avoid domination by outside manufacturers.
· The Chinese government wants a one bit change in the underlying IP code of the Internet. The state of this single bit could determine whether something was accessible in China or not, thus censoring the Internet for several hundred million people.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

NO WAY.

[xzins]

In my mind, FR is a major media outlet that would be exempt under that bill. If that isn't so, then I'll just act as if it is.

And if it isn't so, and the speech police knock on JimRob's door to take him away because he defied them, then "my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor" will be 100% behind FR, Jim, or whomever.

I will back my words with my money. Who else will?