3/13/2005

8 Responses to “Xrlq on Campaign Finance and Blogs”

1. Wellllll sort of…..

   But, don’t take away his gun/s!

   Flap (6c75cb) — 3/13/2005 @ 7:44 pm

   
   

2. The time & place for civil disobedience needs to be considered carefully, and reserved for only the most important of issues. I’d certainly say this qualifies.

   The censorship crowd is fighting their battle in both the political and the legal arenas, so you need to oppose them in both. That means civil disobedience. Get used to describing it that way, too.

   I wouldn’t dare to give you legal advice; I’m just a Canadian layman. But politically, it’s pretty clear that if you don’t raise a stink, it’ll be taken as a sign of acquiescence. Xrlq makes some great points – so think thru your strategy before you start, and re-think it, just in case, every day.

   The big selling point – such as it is – for the censorship forces is class-warfare; that society needs to restrict The Other from gaining an unfair advantage.

   I’d counter it with something like a “disclosure, yes; censorship, no” rebuttal, and note that what’s really needed is merely a full accounting of just who finances whom. That’d put the censorship side in the position of having to say that people are too stupid to decide for themselves, even when given all the facts; not a winning argument with most crowds. It’d also put McCain & co on the defensive, since they have dirty laundry to hide.

   And to paraphrase Frank Herbert from memory, censoship creates two classes of people: those who know and those who don’t. This always struck me as a most effective argument to use against the censors, since, emotionally, it will appeal to the same people that the original class-warfare argument appealed to, and for the same reasons. Better than preaching to the choir, anyway.

   Your fight may or may not happen, tho I think it will (the suppression crowd are backed into a corner; they have to fight or they lose the historical control of the media that they aboslutely need to stay on top). If it does, be prepared, Patrick – the fight will be for real.

   I don’t wanna go melodramatic here – gird your loins, and all that – but do be prepared, if there’s a fight over this, it will be a big one. Xrlq is quite right to warn of the consequences.

   ras (482403) — 3/13/2005 @ 10:19 pm

   
   

3. Government intervention is required when people abuse their rights. Citizens pretty much do not want unlimited unlicensed concealed guns. Citizens do not want unlimited secret contributions to presidential campaigns. In these cases, interpreting the Constitution in a hugely unpopular way is not warranted.

   Ladainian (91b3b2) — 3/13/2005 @ 11:01 pm

   
   

4. By All Means, Speak Freely!
   Via Patterico, I read Xrlq’s First and Second Amendment discourse. Best part: This entry originated as a rebuttal to one of Patterico’s threads, but as you can see, the end result was more questions than answers. The argument’s substantive, and…

   PS (5bef0a) — 3/14/2005 @ 3:42 am

   
   

5. Government intervention is required when people abuse their rights. Citizens pretty much do not want unlimited unlicensed concealed guns. Citizens do not want unlimited secret contributions to presidential campaigns. In these cases, interpreting the Constitution in a hugely unpopular way is not warranted.

   Even when the law can interpret a blog entry as a “contribution”?

   I agree with the notion that we should not have unlimited secret contributions to any politician’s campaign. That’s why I support mandatory and full disclosure.

   Patterico (756436) — 3/14/2005 @ 6:49 am

   
   

6. I’m not even sure I support that, except as a lesser evil. If a candidate refuses to disclose where his funding comes from, it looks as though he has something to hide, so let his opponent make an issue of that. The only law I’d support in this arena is one against false disclosure.

   Xrlq (e2795d) — 3/14/2005 @ 8:37 am

   
   

7. If M-F had targeted the MSM in the same way it now threatens the blogosphere, does anyone doubt the MSM would have created such a fuss that the whole thing would have been thrown out by Congress?
   If the FEC is allowed to regulate the blogosphere, is there any doubt that equal treatment under the law will eventually accrue to the MSM?
   Shouldn’t the MSM, in its own interest, recognize that, and that it has a similar interest with the blogsphere in protecting its freedoms?

   Boman (9ad96b) — 3/14/2005 @ 11:00 am

   
   

8. Government intervention is necessary in any economy without it it is not possible for a country to run economy smoothly.

   [I disagree, both with your point and your use of your comment as a spamming device. I’ll leave your comment but I have altered your URL. — The Mgmt.]

   Sandra the Spammer (6b30ee) — 3/16/2006 @ 11:18 am