I 360 Needs a website

Navigation

User login

Online users

emmettoconnell
JstPlnOnry
Guglielmo

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

I 360 Needs a website

Submitted by JXN on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 2:52am.

I don't know how to program websites and haven't the funds to buy one. Does anybody with strong antifascist sentiment and some html wish to lend a hand? 360-888-2335.

free web sites

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 4:41am.

You can get a free web site with a gmail account. Their templates for setting up a site are very easy to use. I'd recommend them. the website will be linked to your email name so do something like I360Olympia.gmail.com.

I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Explain I-360

Submitted by youarealldevo on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 8:07am.

From your post a reader would be led to believe this is an unconstitutional anti-free speech effort.

Explain.

Unconstitutional?

Submitted by JXN on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 3:27pm.

Its actually participatory government in action. You can totally protest it by not signing.

participatory secrecy, eh?

Submitted by youarealldevo on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 4:58pm.

I see. Still no explanation of what it is.

I suppose We should look for cloaked figures on the side-streets whispering, "Pstt.. hey you.. will you sign a petition without reading it or asking any questions?"

Good luck with that.

initiative 360 Ending Corporate Personhood

Submitted by youarealldevo on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 5:19pm.

You should describe an Initiative every time you reference it, as in above title. Otherwise it starts being alphabet soup.

Since the I-360 poster didn't describe I-360 at all, other than asking for tech help that was of "strong antifascist sentiment" I offer the following from the Sec. of State:

Assigned Number: 360

Filed: 06/07/2006

Sponsor
Mr. Jackson E. Millikan
1216 Conger Ave NW
Olympia, WA 98502
Phone: (360) 888-2335

Ballot Title

Initiative Measure No. 360 concerns the definition of the term “person” in state law.

This measure would amend the statutory definition of “person” to exclude corporations or companies, and provide that references in state laws to persons shall apply to individual human beings or human communities only. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would enact a new statute reading, “Washington state laws, rules, and protections concerning a person, persons, or people shall be applicable to an individual human being or a human community only.” It would also amend the statutory definition of the term “person” to read, “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or non-profit affinity group, but never a corporation or company.”

Dude

Submitted by JXN on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 8:19pm.

Like I said, "sign it or don't".

yeah

Submitted by JXN on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 8:20pm.

we have pool AND a pond. I'm thinkin the pond for you.

Just in case you were wondering.

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 4:30am.

They've actually posted quite a few times about this initiative. Here's a link for you. http://www.olyblog.net/initiative-360-corporate-personhood I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone. I hadn't even read this thread until today because I already knew what it was about. It's been talked about for awhile.

I found it

Submitted by youarealldevo on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:32am.

But not here. Not in this post. And not in the last post here on 360, either. Your link is good, but the last two posts I found on olyblog were alphabet soup- descriptionless.

It took 15-20 minutes of googling to find the description I posted above for others.

While I support the concept (now that I know it isn't an anti-speech effort), at this point I feel very much like taking the advise of JXN and just not signing it. It seems he just doesn't care to get every possible signature. He says "sign it or don't" often enough without ever telling me what it is (three words) or why it's good (optional). An initiative is a public relations effort. They fail if the supporters are not willing to sell them clearly to the public. And it takes a hell of a lot of signatures. "Sign it or don't" and failing to respond with a three word description when a concern is raised and can easily be addressed (in three words!), is not a good start. Especially when the poster is trying to recruit help. When I first read it I was in the room with a web designer who might have helped, but who also thought from the wording it was likely an anti-speech effort.

Agreed. No reason to be rude.

Submitted by M Kretzler on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:54am.

An initiative effort is a public relations effort. You're off to a bad start on an uphill road.

I don't care.

Submitted by JXN on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 3:14pm.

If stopping fascism is less important than your feelings, that's up to you. I'm spending all my fucking time working on this initiative. I have a full time job. I don't sleep any more. By tomorrow, thanks to some helpful Olybloggers, I will have a website link to post here. Until then, I'll be dealing with the large scale networking necessary to pull this off. I'll be at the farmers market again tomorrow.

I just gotta ask...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:32pm.

If laws preventing particular crimes use the words "person", "persons", or "people", and this initiative would erase the definition of corporations as "people", would that give corporations free reign to commit crimes? Any other havoc that this initiative could wreak?

Rights not laws

Submitted by JXN on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 4:08am.

Corporations are subject to many of the same laws as, and some more stringent laws than, we human citizens. Revoking corporate personhood hasn't any pertinence to laws. If a dog or an escaped zoo elephant kills someone, it is immediately put down. The Bill of Rights is about protections. They will have to bribe legislators to invent a corporate bill of rights or something, but laws are still laws.

I'm not clear about your answer.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 6:51am.

My question was specifically legal: could this initiative release corporations from the laws that protect us?

This measure would enact a new statute reading, “Washington state laws, rules, and protections concerning a person, persons, or people shall be applicable to an individual human being or a human community only.”

So what happens if a law effectively says, "No person shall dump raw waste into a river", and a corporation is doing just that? Target the individuals (the workers?!) without holding the corporation responsible? If a corporation isn't legally a person, and the law only pertains to "a person".... anyone following me here?

I don't think you need to worry.

Submitted by JXN on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 10:05am.

Laws prohibit activities. Protections empower people. It is illegal to dump raw waste into the river. People cannot have their property inspected without propable cause. Corporations, at the moment, can't either. If corporations weren't protected by the fourth amendment, citizen watchdog groups and the EPA could walk onto any corporate property any time. Prohibitions are prohibitions. Personhood only affects the ability of the defendant to escape consequences of breaking such prohibitions. Remember. This is only an intiative. You can sign it and then vote against it later.

I'm clear that your

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 1:39pm.

I'm clear that your intentions are to roll back protections for corporations while still holding them accountable to the law.

But I'm not clear that the language of this initiative will actually accomplish that. I'd recommend having an attorney look over the language with you to advise you of any possible unintended consequences of this initiative.

hey

Submitted by JXN on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 8:54pm.

there is no more asking an attorney. The time has passed. THIS is I 360. Sign it or don't. Then vote for it or don't. It seems to make everyone want to shit their brain out when they get too close to participatory government. I'm sorry, was that crass? I've had about enough of olyblog for this purpose. Did you know YOU could still take YOUR five dollars down to the elections office and file YOUR initiative? I'm done discussing what can't be changed. You just keep living in it. Don't ever introduce yourself to me in public unless you've sponsored another initiative to end corporate personhood. There is no such thing as too many. I'm done with all you fucks. Sign it or don't . Vote for it or don't . I'm out.

Whoa, buddy!

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 2:31am.

I think what's going on here is that everyone thinks you have a brilliant idea, they feel they have a stake in its success, and they want to help it be successful. What you have is a great opportunity for leadership, since it's YOUR idea and everyone is talking to YOU about it. Don't squander that--and endanger the success of this important initiative--by taking things personally. This isn't people having a fit because they're too close to participatory democracy: this IS participatory democracy. You can either put it in your engine or flush it down the toilet. I hope--for the sake of participatory democracy--that you continue to talk about it, both here and in other forums.

Phil,I was following you.

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 5:45am.

Phil,

I was following you. An interesting point and one I had not thought of.

If a corporation is not defined as one entity, could they also be protected from lawsuits?

As you pointed out, there would now only be individuals in Washington State. If there were illegal activity taking place on the property of a defined "corporation," it would seem the language lends itself to only holding an individual (re: employee) responsible.

Because the question is: How can you sue something that, legally speaking, doesn't exist?

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

Thank you TFI.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 9:44am.

That is just where I was going with this. It's too bad JXN decided to cut off the dialogue so quickly; he asked Rick to remove him from the site. I think he had a good idea, but this whole thing needs a lot more research.

He seemed pretty serious

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 1:38pm.

He seemed pretty serious about the effort.

If he was upset about asking what the unintended consequences might be at this point in time, just imagine after pouring X-amount of hours only to have something that could have been addressed earlier come back to squash the whole thing.

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: