Gut Rumbles

June 03, 2005


I'm already straying so far from obeying "The Law" that this shit doesn't bother me. I'm not going to write the FEC and beg their permission to blog. I'm gonna blog, and those fuckwads can beg MY forgiveness for being complete govermental shit-heads if they want to prosecute me, fine me or throw me in jail.

You ain't gonna shut me up.

I think I'm in a unique situation here that not many people share. I've already lost everything I ever gave a shit about. Somebody I loved did that to me, and I managed to survive. Do you really think a government BUREAUCRAT scares me now? Not hardly.

Have an ex-wife like mine. NO government asshole can come close to that kind of scorched earth in my life.


Oh Gawd. How ridiculous.

Posted by: Alaska Kim on June 3, 2005 01:46 PM

I'd blow it off as laughable if it weren't for the fact that I just know there are some people stupid enough to try it.

Posted by: Chablis on June 3, 2005 02:12 PM

Hell of it acidman is that the fucking feds are serious about controling blogs. Pissed the left off about blogs showing what an asshole Kerry was plus outing MSM lies. Feds want to be damn sure that they know who is getting the money and from who. Its bullshit at its best and a fucking crime at its worse. I don't blog-just pitch in my two cents worth on several in the comments. But, I did e-mail the feds on this one. Keep their goddamn hands away from my right to free speech.

Posted by: GUYK on June 3, 2005 02:36 PM

Two things:
1. The campaign finance laws contain a "periodical" exception - which IMHO we would come under.
2. Theory is that a link or blog mention is the same as a contribution. The laws requires contributions to be reported by the candidate - not the giver. Let the bastards have to track down every link to them. I think I'll begin linking to Hillary today.

Posted by: Juan Paxety on June 3, 2005 02:50 PM

Expect the bastards to eventually attempt it on a national scale, but don't expect it to be that successful. What next, are we all gonna need registrations to speak in public??

Posted by: JG22 on June 3, 2005 02:52 PM

What cause that? Those lillte darling angels love us, Chop Chop

Posted by: catfish on June 3, 2005 03:11 PM

BFD is that for Bethel Fire Department?

Posted by: GUYK on June 3, 2005 03:19 PM

Yeah, they're trying to lock in freedom of the press for old media corporations, forgetting that the first amendment protects INDIVIDUAL rights.

A similar thing was done when the 1998 Tobacco Extortion created a permanent cartel of old companies in partnership with the state governments.

Amazingly reactionary, these progressives.

Posted by: Brett on June 3, 2005 05:10 PM

Rob, have you actually read the proposal?

All they are proposing is that advertising carried on a weblog also carry a disclaimer if was purchased by a political interest. This is not unreasonable. If weblogs expect to be taken seriously they should not have a problem with this transparency, if I'm getting my information from someone I would like to know if they have been bought and paid for.

The burden of reporting is entirely on the politician. They explicitly state that this will not,"... affect content placed by an individual on his or her web site, blog or email." Individuals and groups remain free to campaign for their candidate of choice, the only difference is that when money changes hands it has to be made public -- remember the uproar when Kos came clean? These changes hope to avoid that in the future and will equally affect both parties.

If weblogs can really alter the course of an election we need a way to discern what is paid advertising from what is 'reporting'.

The sky is not falling.

Posted by: Zappatista on June 3, 2005 09:46 PM

I can tell the thin end from the thick, zappatista.

Posted by: Brett on June 4, 2005 08:32 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.