Monday, May 9, 2016
Is online free speech under attack?
Regulators in Washington are showing increasing interest in tightening rules on political speech on the web, arguing that the dissonant voices enabled by "new media" have become too influential. If that effort is successful, experts wonder whether it could impact more traditional media as well, especially in how it relates to conservatives."The best example we can give is going back a few years to when the [Federal Communications Commission] was looking at trying to silence talk radio, which was obviously a realm of conservatism," said Drew Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit group "Protect Internet Freedom." He was referring to the agency's "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to grant equal time to opposing political candidates.
Democrats on the Federal Election Commission demonstrated a similar regulatory ambition in February, when they voted unsuccessfully to apply campaign finance laws, which are traditionally intended to govern paid political advertisements, to unpaid political accounts on Twitter.
"The Twitterverse has carved out for itself a unique and increasingly important role in American elections and political debate," Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub wrote in support of the effort, adding that she believed it "reasonable to count Twitter profiles as among a political committee's websites."
The effort failed narrowly in a 3-3 split along party lines. Had it succeeded, Republicans warned, it could have been a gateway to regulating traditional media. "Social media platforms as diverse as Facebook and Instagram to Snapchat and the New York Times comment boards would be swept into a cumbersome and often speech-prohibitive disclaimer scheme," the FEC's three GOP commissioners argued in a joint statement.
Some conservatives agree that the Internet has changed the nature of media, but not in an auspicious way. "We're not seeing the best and the brightest anymore," said Jason Lewis, a 25-year talk radio host who retired from his syndicated broadcast in 2014.
However, he added, "Someone in their pajamas in the basement can say and write anything he wants without much consequence. The good news is that not very many people will read it."
The move to crack down on speech has also faced pushback from conservative regulators. Speaking about the prospect of...
What Is The TPP (Pacific Partnership Agreement), And Why Is It So Secretive?
How Could This Effect Bloggers?
- Create New Threats for Journalists and Whistleblowers:Dangerously vague text on the misuse of trade secrets, which could be used to enact harsh criminal punishments against anyone who reveals or even accesses information through a "computer system" that is allegedly confidential.
- Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. Companies that adopt more user-friendly rules could also risk lawsuits by content industry investors who believe these rules limit their profits.
- Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the U.S. DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety on other countries. Chile and Canada have gotten exceptions to allow their forward-thinking regimes that better safeguard user rights to stay in place. However, the TPP would still help entrench the United States' flawed takedown regime as an international standard.
- Adopt Heavy Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without commercial motivation. Users could be jailed or hit with debilitating fines over file sharing, and may have their property or domains seized or destroyed even without a formal complaint from the copyright holder.
How Would This Effect Your Privacy?
- Place Barriers in the Way of Protecting Your Privacy: The TPP's Electronic Commerce and Telecommunications Chapters establish only the weakest baseline for the protection of your private data—even enforcing self-regulation by the companies that profit from your data is enough. On the other hand, stronger privacy laws are outlawed if they amount to an “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.”
- Do Nothing on Net Neutrality and Spam: The TPP includes provisions on net neutrality and spam control that are so weak that they achieve nothing. But including them in the agreement at all could lead countries to wrongly assume that these topics have been adequately dealt with, dissuading them from working towards more positive solutions.
- Prohibit Open Source Mandates: With no good rationale, the agreement would outlaw a country from adopting rules for the sale of software that include mandatory code review or the release of source code. This could inhibit countries from addressing pressing information security problems, such as widespread and massive vulnerability in closed-source home routers.
The ‘Never Trump’ Pouters
This reckless disregard for consequences is matched only by a blindness to what has made Trump the presumptive nominee. When he entered the Republican primaries a year ago, Trump was given no chance of surviving even the first contest, let alone becoming the Republican nominee. That was the view of all the experts, and especially those experts with the best records of prediction.
Trump — who had never held political office and had no experience in any political job — faced a field of sixteen tested political leaders, including nine governors and five senators from major states. Most of his political opponents were conservatives. During the primaries, several hundred million dollars were spent in negative campaign ads — nastier and more personal than in any Republican primary in memory.
At least 60,000 of those ads were aimed at Trump, attacking him as a fraud, a corporate predator, a not-so-closet liberal, an ally of Hillary Clinton, indistinguishable from Barack Obama, an ignoramus, and too crass to be president (Bill Clinton, anyone?).
These negative ads were directed at Republican primary voters, a constituency well to the right of the party. These primary voters are a constituency that may be said to represent the heart of the conservative movement in America and are generally more politically engaged and informed than most Republican voters. Trump won their support. He won by millions of votes — more votes from...
Paul Ryan’s Betrayal..
Paul Ryan and the GOPe (GOP Establishment), have been bought by Open Border Billionaires.
Of course these anti-Americans don't like America First Donald Trump.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
DONALD TRUMP Won’t Rule Out Replacing Paul Ryan as Chairman of Republican Convention
Donald J. Trump said he would not rule out an effort to remove Representative Paul D. Ryan as chairman of the Republican National Convention if he did not endorse Mr. Trump’s candidacy.Mr. Trump stopped short of calling for Mr. Ryan, the speaker of the House, to step down from his convention role. But in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Trump said there could be consequences in the event that Mr. Ryan continued withholding his support.
“I will give you a very solid answer, if that happens, about one minute after that happens, O.K.?” Mr. Trump said. “There’s no reason to give it right now, but I’ll be very quick with the answer.”
Mr. Trump has shown little interest over the last few days in placating his critics inside the party, including Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan, a representative from Wisconsin, said on Thursday that he was not ready to endorse Mr. Trump, citing reservations about his political style and policy agenda. The two men are scheduled to meet privately in Washington next week.
But on “Meet the Press,” Mr. Trump struck a dismissive tone toward Mr. Ryan and responded with outright hostility to other Republican critics who have refused to back his campaign.
Jeb Bush, he said, was “not honorable” for breaking his promise to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)