Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Free speech is totally disappearing, I agree.  It's very sick and people don't even understand
what is going on.

But you have to realise also that the reason that protesting a f-ing _funeral_ is about the
most asshole and completely inconsiderate thing that a person can possibly do. I can't express
it strong enough words here. I mean you have to be a really _dumb_ motherf-er to even think
you can get away with something like that. Not to mention also that it's dangerous. I am
suprised that there hasn't been a case yet of a distraught family member driving their truck
at high speed into a mass of protesters.

So as much as I love free speech the the people that protested funerals did it to themselves
by being huge pricks. They should be arrested as far as I am concerned. Seriously. That stuff
is just wrong. Society has a responsibility to protect people against emotional carnage being
inflicted on them like that.


Also I don't have a problem with the FBI monitoring groups either. That's partially what I was
talking about was that having all political speech open makes it easy to identify who the
crazies are and keep them in check if they decide to get together and break laws. Just as long
as the FBI is open about what it's doing also. 

Free Speech Zones are complete horse shit though. It's just politicians making sure that their
photo op. won't get spoiled.


Political speech is much more on the rocks then anything you mentioned.


For example take 'Campaign Finance Reform'. 

Ostensively it sounds all cool and dandy. 'Get money out of politics' and try to prevent
corruption and all that stuff. Sounds good doesn't it?

Of course what the politicians and their media buddies say the laws do and what they actually
do are two entirely different things...


There is a big difference between the sort of 'theatrics' that some people call 'political
speech' like blocking traffic or getting half naked and covering themselves up with fake blood
(and completely and utterly undermining their own message at the same time) (and I agree this
sort of thing is protected speech even though the people engaged in it are morons) and having
speech that has real political power... the ability to get messages out to large amounts of
people and actually affect people.

Legislation like the BCRA.

They say (the politicians behind it) that it's designed to get rid of 'soft money' and such
things. Of course what they say is a out and out lie. 

What it has done is things like requiring you to register with the government prior to a
election in order to publish any sort of media related to a election.

This is 'suppose' to get rid of 'soft money'. But in effect what it means is that large groups
that can afford to spend money _years_ before a election cycle can saturate the airwaves with
all sorts of nonsense about their favorite politicians.

Smaller groups without that much funding can only afford to spend money on advertisement at
the most critical time: days and weeks before a election.

However the BCRA forbids that sort of behavior. So instead of getting rid of money in politics
what is has done was protect the groups currently in power from having to deal with third
parties or other types of minority political groups from having any significant influence over
a election.

Also this has given total control over any sort of media broadcast to the big media companies.

You see while people can't pay for advertisements anymore, unless they get permission from the
government first. The media companies can broadcast all they want. Their speech is not
regulated. Only yours is.

They have given the ability for the US Government to fine people, and outright censor them,
for producing media that attempts to sway people one way or another.

A few examples of this are:
Fining the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' $300,000 dollars for failing to register with the
government prior to running their ads.

Of course they are the only ones to get fined...
'League of Conservative Voters' were fined $180,000
'Move-on.org' got it for $150,000
'Progress for Voters America Fund' for $750,000


In March 28, 2008 "Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc" wanted to air a ad that mentioned
some of the people running in the up coming election. Because this was within 30 days of a
election they were forbidden to express themselves by court order.

In 2004 Micheal Moore's movies were attacked for advertising themselves on TV. So the movie
studios promised that they made no mention about the election and that was 'ok' then. They
self-censored so the government didn't really have to do anything then, I guess.


It goes on and on. 

It's effectively made it impossible for smaller parties to successfully run a campaign within
a month of a election and it has put the people that own the media companies as the total
gatekeepers on all political speech.. they can interview and report on the news and the people
they want, everybody else has to go through the courts.

The goals of the BCRA seem like good ones. To bad the actual legislation has very very little
to do with those goals...


Of course the Internet is not immune for it. Only by accident has it avoided most
restrictions. It's only a matter of time before BCRA or other legislation like it are going to
go into regulating 'Political Action' Blogs and websites.