[IMC-Tech] IRS and website info
Sheri Herndon
sheri at indymedia.org
Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:59:06 -0800
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3061807147_870964_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
here's some info from alan korn, attorney for nlg, committee on democratic
communications, represented stephen dunifer and free radio berkeley, etc.
cool guy.=20
some interesting info. we might want to check in with alliance for justice
and have them keep us apprised of developments concerning the irs and it's
wanting to intrude into the web world and free speech.
sheri
----------
From: Alan Korn <aakorn@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:14:12 -0800
To: Sheri Herndon <sheri@indymedia.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: IRS regs
Sheri:
Thought you'd find the message below to be relevant to IMC.
Alan=20
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:31:04 -0500
From: Cheryl Leanza <cleanza@mediaaccess.org>
Organization: Media Access Project
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: microradioproject@earthlink.net
CC: stiefr@ucc.org, aakorn <aakorn@igc.org>, Andrea <ma@igc.org>,
Andy Lang <langa@ucc.org>, Barabara Powell <powellb@ucc.org>,
Ben Clarke <mediafile@media-alliance.org>, Bob Chase
<chaser@ucc.org>,
David Bryden <dbryden@j2000usa.org>,
Glenn Austin <glenaus@concentric.net>,
"Joan D. Levin" <jdlevin@interaccess.com>,
lcasten <lcasten@interaccess.com>, Patricia Rumer <pjrbike@cs.com>,
Peter Franck <pfranck@culturelaw.com>,
PeteTriDish <petri@critpath.org>,
Trillium Ovatum <o_trillium@lycos.com>,
Wally Kuroiwa <ryankurw@ucc.org>
Subject: Re: FW: IRS regs
I did a little checking. The IRS is seeking assistance on how to apply the
current non-profit law to web sites. Although the IRS is seeking comment o=
n
these questions, the likelihood of them growing into an anti-free speech
rule is unlikely.=20
A wonderful organization that is working on this issue is the Alliance for
Justice. They have very helpful resources on advocacy and non-profit
status. In addition, they are writing detailed comments for the IRS that
will be submitted on CD rom and will show examples of web sites and why the
questions noted below are clearly outside the bounds of reasonableness.
Their comments will be available on-line this week and you can sign your
organization on with them if you would like to participate without writing
your own letter. In addition, a short letter encouraging the IRS to listen
to the Alliance for Justice would also be helpful.
If you would like to get more information about the IRS alert and the page
to monitor to sign on to AFJ's comments, please see:
http://www.afj.org/news/irscommentreq.html
If you would like a detailed guide about on-line advocacy and your 501(c)(3=
)
status, see: http://www.afj.org/eadvocacy/index.htm
Section IV of the guide contains detailed advice about how your 501(c)(3)
status is affected by your Internet activities.
Alliance for Justice's home page is: www.afj.org <www.afj.htm>
I hope this helps,=20
Cheryl=20
Microradio Implementation Project wrote:
FYI, From my friends at Portland Indy Media... Andrea VargasThe Microradi=
o
Implementation Projectmicroradioproject@earthlink..net
<mailto:microradioproject@earthlink.net> www.microradio.org
<http://www.microradio.org> Phone 877 468 8884 (outside of Oregon)Phone 503
226 9036Fax 503 226 9057
The IRS is threatening to hold non-profit organizations liable for the
comments madeby visitors to their websites and to associate these
non-profits with the actionsof organizations to which their websites have
links. [This seems to be aimed directlyat Indymedia!!]"Guilty" organization=
s
would be stripped of their tax-exempt status. The IRS is nowseeking public
comments on their intentions (see address below). Commenters may alsosend a
copy of their comments to Senators and Representatives in Congress where
concern has been expressed(see below). The deadline for public comments is
February 13, 2001. Freedom of speech and thefreedom of non-profit
organizations to dispense valuable information depends on citizen
response.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) acting on its own initiative,
without legislative authorization. This renegade agency is considering "th=
e
necessity=94 of issuing this =93guidance=94 that would clarify the application of
the Internal Revenue Code to useof the Internet by [tax] exempt
organizations. In short, the IRS wants to monitor and regulate free speech
on the Internet.Organizations may be held liable for the activities of othe=
r
organizations over whom they have neither control or internal knowledge of
operations. Organizations may also be held liable for the speech of
individual comments made online at the website. Tax-exempt (non-profit)
organizations are required by law to restrict lobbying activities to a
minimum, or lose their tax-exempt status. Those that take the IRS (h)
election are allowed to allocate a small percentage of their revenues to
lobbying activities. Clarifying an intention to regulate speech, this IRS
announcement attempts to set precedents concerning many questions under
consideration regarding regulation of the use of the Internet by non-profit=
,
tax exempt organizations. These are a few questions policy makers presently
have no clear answers to: * To what extent are statements made by
subscribers to a forum, such as a listserv or newsgroup, attributable to an
exempt organization that maintains the forum?* Does providing a hyperlink o=
n
a charitable organization's website to another organization that engages in
political campaign intervention result in per se prohibited political
intervention?* Does providing a hyperlink to the website of another
organization that engages in lobbying activity constitute lobbying by a
charitable organization?* Unlike other publications of an exempt
organization, a website may be modified on a daily basis. To what extent an=
d
by what means should an exempt organization maintain the information from
prior versions of the organization's website? The effect of IRS regulation
and monitoring of Internet sites--no doubt with the threat of hefty fines
for infringements--will seriously limit public discourse and freedom of
speech. Even if the website is eventually found to be innocent of an
IRScharge, damage to the organization will be extensive: in lawyer fees,
temporary or long- term loss of the website, and energy directed away from
operations to focus on securing exoneration. Members of Congress are also
concerned. Rep. Dick Armey chastised the IRS' request for comments saying,
"The IRS has no business getting involved in whether a think tank has links
on its website, or how often a charity's site is updated. The idea of
turning the tax man into a net copwould have a chilling effect on free
speech on the Internet" (Tech Law Journal, 10/26/00)---Citizens' Council on
Health Care, November 28, 2000----------------------------------TO
COMMENT:Send public comments to:Internal Revenue Service1111 Constitution
Ave., NWWashington, DC 20224Attn: Judith E. KindellRegarding Document: IRS
Announcement 2000-84, Dated October 16.DEADLINE: February 13, 2001.View IRS
document=20
at:http://www.techlawjournal.com/agencies/irs/internet/20001016.aspOne
sample letter follows: Feel free to use and/or modifyREGARDING Document: IR=
S
Announcement 2000-84, Dated October 16Deadline for comment February 13,
2001To the IRS Agency:Please consider this letter to be my comments on the
consideration being given byyour agency to limit free speech, without the
authorization of the legislative bodyof this government. I am referring to
the proposal being made by your agency, inthe document entitiled: IRS
Annoncement 2000-84, that is dated October 16, 2000.This limitation of the
manner of free speech is not within the realm of your agency=92sjurisdiction,
and should be brought before Congress for assessment of the
constitutionalramifications before this policy can be legitimately put into
place by your agency. One issue I have with this broad sweeping limitation
that will be placed on freespeec presently occurring over the internet is a=
s
follows: How can any exempt organizationthat is maintaining a for my for th=
e
purposes of free speech, such as a listserveor a newsgroup, be held
accountable for the ocntent of the things posted on thatnewsgroup, as long
as criminal activity is not being advocated?This is a very important issue =
I
would like to have addressed in your response tomy comment. This is
analogous to associating the writer of an article with each andevery one of
the bibliography books and articles the writer uses as a reference tosource
the materials contained within the article. Please show me how this
regulationis in any way different to this analogy.Another issue being raise=
d
here concerns the prohibitions presently in place againstpolitical
intervention done by tax exempt groups by this proposed regulation.
Providinga hyperlink to a website of another organization that engages in
lobbying or politicalactivity does NOT constitute violation of the
aforementioned prohibition.Finally, how would a website be maintained
diligently enough to prevent such postingsof links even were the postings
found by the courts and the legislature to be sufficientevidence to find a
non-profit group guilty of engaging in political activity, inviolation of
regulations governing tax exempt instituitions? As your agency may
alreadyknow, it is impossible to monitor information that is posted daily,
and it wouldbe an enormous task that is impossible to achieve, to go back
through things thatmight have been posted in the past to erase such links,
were this to become a policy.Imagine if the IRS had to sift through all
files to delete and investigate linksthat were suddenly undesirable for
public view? This is indeed a difficult undertaking,you must agree.In short=
,
this proposal amounts to a serious restriction being placed on public
discourseand freedom of speech. The efforts to avoid being in violation of
this regualtionwould be burden too great for most non-profits to achieve,
especially if no censorshipof publishing to a group=92s site exists presently=
.
Damage to an organization resultingfrom being thought by your agency to be
in violation and subsequently being shutdown, even temporarily, would be
extensive.The monitoring of internet sites by the IRS to enforce this
regulation presents anothergroup of rather obvious questions, centering
around enforcement: How is this policyto be enforced? How will enforcement
be funded? To whom would a group that has beenaccused of violating this rul=
e
bring their appeal? Has the increased expense of enforcementbeen cleared by
the Government Accounting Office?This policy would require censorship of
websites, put out by non-profit groups, aswell as the need for tight
screening of every post, a task that is impossible formost non-profit group=
s
to achieve. I believe this policy, if enacted, would clearlyhave a chilling
effect on free speech in this ocuntry, as do many of our
congressionalrepresentatives.If the purpose of the IRS is to prevent the
free exchange of information, and tosuppress free speech, your goal will
surely be reached by putting this policy intoeffect.If however your Agency
has a goal of following US law, and constitutional intent,then this policy
should never be considered nd should not be introduced again withoutfull
legislative oversight, and with full input of citizens of his country who
nowenjoy the freedoms provided bythe internet. This forum should not be
restricted;Ever.Thanks for considering my comments. I look forward to, and
expect your timely reply.Please place me on the mailing list to receive all
further information regardingthe progress of this announcement, and how it
develops.=20
--=20
Cheryl A. Leanza=20
Deputy Director=20
Media Access Project
NEW ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER:
950 18th St., NW=20
(hand delivery address: 1800 K St.)
Suite 220=20
Washington, DC 20006
**direct: (202) 454-5683
main: (202) 232-4300
fax: (202) 466-7656
=20
--MS_Mac_OE_3061807147_870964_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>IRS and website info</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
here's some info from alan korn, attorney for nlg, committee on democratic =
communications, represented stephen dunifer and free radio berkeley, etc. &n=
bsp;cool guy. <BR>
<BR>
some interesting info. we might want to check in with alliance for ju=
stice and have them keep us apprised of developments concerning the irs and =
it's wanting to intrude into the web world and free speech.<BR>
<BR>
sheri<BR>
<BR>
----------<BR>
<B>From: </B>Alan Korn <aakorn@igc.org><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:14:12 -0800<BR>
<B>To: </B>Sheri Herndon <sheri@indymedia.org><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Fwd: Re: FW: IRS regs<BR>
<BR>
Sheri:<BR>
<BR>
Thought you'd find the message below to be relevant to IMC.<BR>
<BR>
Alan <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:31:04 -0500<BR>
From: Cheryl Leanza <cleanza@mediaaccess.org><BR>
Organization: Media Access Project<BR>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)<BR>
X-Accept-Language: en<BR>
To: microradioproject@earthlink.net<BR>
CC: stiefr@ucc.org, aakorn <aakorn@igc.org>, Andrea <ma@igc.org>=
;,<BR>
Andy Lang <langa@ucc.org>,=
Barabara Powell <powellb@ucc.org>,<BR>
Ben Clarke <mediafile@media-a=
lliance.org>, Bob Chase <chaser@ucc.org>,<BR>
David Bryden <dbryden@j2000us=
a.org>,<BR>
Glenn Austin <glenaus@concent=
ric.net>,<BR>
"Joan D. Levin" <jd=
levin@interaccess.com>,<BR>
lcasten <lcasten@interaccess.=
com>, Patricia Rumer <pjrbike@cs.com>,<BR>
Peter Franck <pfranck@culture=
law.com>,<BR>
PeteTriDish <petri@critpath.o=
rg>,<BR>
Trillium Ovatum <o_trillium@l=
ycos.com>,<BR>
Wally Kuroiwa <ryankurw@ucc.o=
rg><BR>
Subject: Re: FW: IRS regs<BR>
<BR>
I did a little checking. The IRS is seeking assistance on how to appl=
y the current non-profit law to web sites. Although the IRS is seeking=
comment on these questions, the likelihood of them growing into an anti-fre=
e speech rule is unlikely. <BR>
<BR>
A wonderful organization that is working on this issue is the Alliance for =
Justice. They have very helpful resources on advocacy and non-profit s=
tatus. In addition, they are writing detailed comments for the IRS tha=
t will be submitted on CD rom and will show examples of web sites and why th=
e questions noted below are clearly outside the bounds of reasonableness. <B=
R>
<BR>
Their comments will be available on-line this week and you can sign your or=
ganization on with them if you would like to participate without writing you=
r own letter. In addition, a short letter encouraging the IRS to liste=
n to the Alliance for Justice would also be helpful. <BR>
<BR>
If you would like to get more information about the IRS alert and the page =
to monitor to sign on to AFJ's comments, please see: http://www.afj.org/news=
/irscommentreq.html <BR>
<BR>
If you would like a detailed guide about on-line advocacy and your 501(c)(3=
) status, see: http://www.afj.org/eadvocacy/index.htm <BR>
Section IV of the guide contains detailed advice about how your 501(c)(3) s=
tatus is affected by your Internet activities. <BR>
<BR>
Alliance for Justice's home page is: www.afj.org <www.afj.htm> =
<BR>
<BR>
I hope this helps, <BR>
Cheryl <BR>
<BR>
Microradio Implementation Project wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE> FYI, From my friends at Portland Indy Media... Andrea Va=
rgasThe Microradio Implementation Projectmicroradioproject@earthlink..net &l=
t;mailto:microradioproject@earthlink.net> www.microradio.org <http://w=
ww.microradio.org> Phone 877 468 8884 (outside of Oregon)Phone 503 226 90=
36Fax 503 226 9057 <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE> <FONT SIZE=3D"2">The IRS is threatening to hold non-profit=
organizations liable for the comments madeby visitors to their websites and=
to associate these non-profits with the actionsof organizations to which th=
eir websites have links. [This seems to be aimed directlyat Indymedia!!]&quo=
t;Guilty" organizations would be stripped of their tax-exempt status. T=
he IRS is nowseeking public comments on their intentions (see address below)=
. Commenters may alsosend a copy of their comments to Senators and Rep=
resentatives in Congress where concern has been expressed(see below). =
The deadline for public comments is February 13, 2001. Freedom of speech and=
thefreedom of non-profit organizations to dispense valuable information dep=
ends on citizen response.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) acting on its ow=
n initiative, without legislative authorization. This renegade agency =
is considering "the necessity=94 of issuing this =93guidance=94 that would cl=
arify the application of the Internal Revenue Code to useof the Internet by =
[tax] exempt organizations. In short, the IRS wants to monitor and regulate =
free speech on the Internet.Organizations may be held liable for the activit=
ies of other organizations over whom they have neither control or internal k=
nowledge of operations. Organizations may also be held liable for the speech=
of individual comments made online at the website.</FONT> <FONT SIZE=3D"2">Ta=
x-exempt (non-profit) organizations are required by law to restrict lobbying=
activities to a minimum, or lose their tax-exempt status. Those that take t=
he IRS (h) election are allowed to allocate a small percentage of their reve=
nues to lobbying activities. Clarifying an intention to regulate speech, thi=
s IRS announcement attempts to set precedents concerning many questions unde=
r consideration regarding regulation of the use of the Internet by non-profi=
t, tax exempt organizations.</FONT> <FONT SIZE=3D"2">These are a few questions=
policy makers presently have no clear answers to: * To what extent are stat=
ements made by subscribers to a forum, such as a listserv or newsgroup, attr=
ibutable to an exempt organization that maintains the forum?* Does providing=
a hyperlink on a charitable organization's website to another organization =
that engages in political campaign intervention result in per se prohibited =
political intervention?* Does providing a hyperlink to the website of anothe=
r organization that engages in lobbying activity constitute lobbying by a ch=
aritable organization?* Unlike other publications of an exempt organization,=
a website may be modified on a daily basis. To what extent and by what mean=
s should an exempt organization maintain the information from prior versions=
of the organization's website?</FONT> <FONT SIZE=3D"2">The effect of IR=
S regulation and monitoring of Internet sites--no doubt with the threat of h=
efty fines for infringements--will seriously limit public discourse and free=
dom of speech. Even if the website is eventually found to be innocent of an =
IRScharge, damage to the organization will be extensive: in lawyer fees, tem=
porary or long- term loss of the website, and energy directed away from oper=
ations to focus on securing exoneration. Members of Congress are also =
concerned. Rep. Dick Armey chastised the IRS' request for comments saying, &=
quot;The IRS has no business getting involved in whether a think tank has li=
nks on its website, or how often a charity's site is updated. The idea=
of turning the tax man into a net copwould have a chilling effect on free s=
peech on the Internet" (Tech Law Journal, 10/26/00)---Citizens' Council=
on Health Care, November 28, 2000----------------------------------TO COMME=
NT:Send public comments to:Internal Revenue Service1111 Constitution Ave., N=
WWashington, DC 20224Attn: Judith E. KindellRegarding Document: IRS Announce=
ment 2000-84, Dated October 16.DEADLINE: February 13, 2001.View IRS document=
at:http://www.techlawjournal.com/agencies/irs/internet/20001016.aspOne samp=
le letter follows: Feel free to use and/or modifyREGARDING Document: IRS Ann=
ouncement 2000-84, Dated October 16Deadline for comment February 13, 2001To =
the IRS Agency:Please consider this letter to be my comments on the consider=
ation being given byyour agency to limit free speech, without the authorizat=
ion of the legislative bodyof this government. I am referring to the proposa=
l being made by your agency, inthe document entitiled: IRS Annoncement 2000-=
84, that is dated October 16, 2000.This limitation of the manner of free spe=
ech is not within the realm of your agency=92sjurisdiction, and should be brou=
ght before Congress for assessment of the constitutionalramifications before=
this policy can be legitimately put into place by your agency.</FONT> <FONT=
SIZE=3D"2">One issue I have with this broad sweeping limitation that will be =
placed on freespeec presently occurring over the internet is as follows: How=
can any exempt organizationthat is maintaining a for my for the purposes of=
free speech, such as a listserveor a newsgroup, be held accountable for the=
ocntent of the things posted on thatnewsgroup, as long as criminal activity=
is not being advocated?This is a very important issue I would like to have =
addressed in your response tomy comment. This is analogous to associating th=
e writer of an article with each andevery one of the bibliography books and =
articles the writer uses as a reference tosource the materials contained wit=
hin the article. Please show me how this regulationis in any way different t=
o this analogy.Another issue being raised here concerns the prohibitions pre=
sently in place againstpolitical intervention done by tax exempt groups by t=
his proposed regulation. Providinga hyperlink to a website of another organi=
zation that engages in lobbying or politicalactivity does NOT constitute vio=
lation of the aforementioned prohibition.Finally, how would a website be mai=
ntained diligently enough to prevent such postingsof links even were the pos=
tings found by the courts and the legislature to be sufficientevidence to fi=
nd a non-profit group guilty of engaging in political activity, inviolation =
of regulations governing tax exempt instituitions? As your agency may alread=
yknow, it is impossible to monitor information that is posted daily, and it =
wouldbe an enormous task that is impossible to achieve, to go back through t=
hings thatmight have been posted in the past to erase such links, were this =
to become a policy.Imagine if the IRS had to sift through all files to delet=
e and investigate linksthat were suddenly undesirable for public view? This =
is indeed a difficult undertaking,you must agree.In short, this proposal amo=
unts to a serious restriction being placed on public discourseand freedom of=
speech. The efforts to avoid being in violation of this regualtionwould be =
burden too great for most non-profits to achieve, especially if no censorshi=
pof publishing to a group=92s site exists presently. Damage to an organization=
resultingfrom being thought by your agency to be in violation and sub=
sequently being shutdown, even temporarily, would be extensive.The monitorin=
g of internet sites by the IRS to enforce this regulation presents anothergr=
oup of rather obvious questions, centering around enforcement: How is this p=
olicyto be enforced? How will enforcement be funded? To whom would a group t=
hat has beenaccused of violating this rule bring their appeal? Has the incre=
ased expense of enforcementbeen cleared by the Government Accounting Office?=
This policy would require censorship of websites, put out by non-profit grou=
ps, aswell as the need for tight screening of every post, a task that is imp=
ossible formost non-profit groups to achieve. I believe this policy, if enac=
ted, would clearlyhave a chilling effect on free speech in this ocuntry, as =
do many of our congressionalrepresentatives.If the purpose of the IRS is to =
prevent the free exchange of information, and tosuppress free speech, your g=
oal will surely be reached by putting this policy intoeffect.If however your=
Agency has a goal of following US law, and constitutional intent,then this =
policy should never be considered nd should not be introduced again withoutf=
ull legislative oversight, and with full input of citizens of his country wh=
o nowenjoy the freedoms provided bythe internet. This forum should not be re=
stricted;Ever.Thanks for considering my comments. I look forward to, and exp=
ect your timely reply.Please place me on the mailing list to receive all fur=
ther information regardingthe progress of this announcement, and how it deve=
lops.</FONT> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
-- <BR>
Cheryl A. Leanza <BR>
Deputy Director <BR>
Media Access Project <BR>
<BR>
NEW ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER: <BR>
950 18th St., NW <BR>
(hand delivery address: 1800 K St.) <BR>
Suite 220 <BR>
Washington, DC 20006 <BR>
<BR>
**direct: (202) 454-5683 <BR>
main: (202) 232-4300 <BR>
fax: (202) 466-7656 <=
BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3061807147_870964_MIME_Part--