Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs 102

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the shuffling-paperwork dept.
CNet is reporting that the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of internet regulations last Friday. From the article: "The rules [PDF] say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs

Comments Filter:
  • Re:How nice of them. (Score:5, Informative)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @10:12AM (#14993538)
    We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

    This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."
  • by SeeMyNuts! (955740) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @11:08AM (#14993698)

    Isn't the 'g' necessary only to replace multiple occurences?


    $ echo "This election sponsored by Diebold" | sed -e "s/sponsored/decided/"
    This election decided by Diebold
  • by techno-vampire (666512) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @04:11PM (#14994837) Homepage
    If an elected official knowingly (and politicians overwhelmingly tend to be lawyers, so I doubt they can claim ignorance) contradicts the highest law of the land, especially for the purpose of political gain, they should simply be charged with treason and tried in a criminal court, and if found guilty by a court of law, they should be executed or receive life in prison.

    From the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...