Man, the supreme court has been on a roll in recent years.
First Corporations can steal everyone's land, and now they can buy the elections too!
Man, the supreme court has been on a roll in recent years.
First Corporations can steal everyone's land, and now they can buy the elections too!
I enjoy blank walls.
I'm pretty sure that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." was ripped from something Paine said that went "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property and Power". We are finally getting back to basics.Originally Posted by Supermarioman
Man, the supreme court has been on a roll in recent years.
First Corporations can steal everyone's land, and now they can buy the elections too!
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
The speech we are talking about is campaign advertisements on television and radio. To buy advertising spots you have to be able to spend piles of money. The bigger the piles, the more time, and the better the time slot. The more time and the better the time slot, the more peole you reach. It has nothing to do with how good your idea is or how persuasive you are or how much you love your country. In that playing field those with free speech are those with the MONEY. You are free to speak all you want; start a blog, write a letter to the editor, wear a sandwich board in times square. You want to call that equal right to free speach? You have the same right of speech that Exxon Mobile does? If you opposed them on an issue in the next election - Dread vs. Exxon Mobile. Whose going to hear you?
So its ok to pretend you are entertainment but really be a propaganda instrument for a political agenda? No danger to democracy there? And I don't know anything about air america. I don't listen to non-stop editorial crap all day.So what if someone has hours or political editorial on a radio show? People want to hear it enough that Rush can attract advertisers. Is this your way of whining about Air America going bankrupt?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You do realize that everything you're saying is completely antithetical to the idea of free speech, right?
You're saying that certain kinds of advertisements should be banned because they contain a certain message or are backed by a certain group. Or that other kinds of messages should be promoted by the government if they are believed to be in opposition to a certain group.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me say what I'm saying:
#1. Corporations should not be granted speach as if they were individual citizens. They are not.
#2. Political speech is extremely important in the US. It should not be restricted to wealthy people or organizations. Given the power of mass media, when it comes to political speech, it should be equally available to legitimate players in the political arena. How do you decide what player is legitimate - if a candidate is on the the ballot, ie has enough petition signatures for example, he should have the same access to mass media as anyone else. Regarding adds by non-candidates, I'm not sure. There could be another petition based system set up to get equal access or something else. Something that takes money out of the equation and says if you're a significant player, you get to speak. As it is now, those that get to speak to the masses are those that can spend piles of money. That has never been fair and now it's going to be horribly stacked in the favor of corporate entities.
This decision will not expand free speach, it will further limit it.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
No="EyeKhan"]No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me say what I'm saying:
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
But they're composed of individual citizens, and saying they don't get speech when they're together in the form of a corporation is an attack on the freedom of association as well as freedom of speech.
How are you defining political speech? Why is it okay to force media venues to propogate messages whether they want to or not? Who gets to decide what counts as political speech and what counts as entertainment?#2. Political speech is extremely important in the US. It should not be restricted to wealthy people or organizations. Given the power of mass media, when it comes to political speech, it should be equally available to legitimate players in the political arena. How do you decide what player is legitimate - if a candidate is on the the ballot, ie has enough petition signatures for example, he should have the same access to mass media as anyone else. Regarding adds by non-candidates, I'm not sure. There could be another petition based system set up to get equal access or something else. Something that takes money out of the equation and says if you're a significant player, you get to speak. As it is now, those that get to speak to the masses are those that can spend piles of money. That has never been fair and now it's going to be horribly stacked in the favor of corporate entities.
Aren't you killing a method of protest by saying that both sides always get equal time? The government will then always be able to silence dissenters simply by not granting air time to their supporters - effectively ending all complaints about an issue by refusing to acknowledge that an issue exists.
Limiting others free speech because you think your side isn't loud enough to compete effectively is a bad idea.
How many corporations have the same interests as ALL individual citizens they are composed of?
How many corporations have the same interests as MOST individual citizens they are composed of?
How many corporations have the same interests as THE TOP ECHELON individual citizens they are composed of?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
It doesn't matter. Free association. Anyone's free to disassociate themselves at any time if they disagree with the course it's taking, and the manner in which the group makes decisions is easily knowable before anyone signs up. The organization varies radically across corporations anyways.
As long as you are willing to quit your job.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Employees are typically there to sell their labor to the corporation, they aren't actually part of what forms the real association there unless made so. But sure, they're free to quit their jobs if they disagree with the corp's policies and decisions, whatever they may be.
How high up the chain is the association cut-off? And shareholders, do they all have the same interests as the corporation? Or is there a cut-off at a certain level of investment?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Tough shit, because what the courts say and what is and is not constitutional does matter.
It doesn't matter what the courts say. The fairness doctrine prevented radio stations like WJR in detroit from broadcasting one-sided political propaganda literally all day long. I don't know if you've ever bumped into anyone that listens to talk radio but they put on one channel and leave it on all day long. They don't switch to the other channels to get other points of view. They soak up one political message all day long with no opportunity for balance. And then they vote. In practice, regardless of what the courts say, this is disastrous.
Except that has not been, is not now, and will not in the future be what happens.
It is what currently happens. People shop around for whatever happens to match their views. In print, on the internet, and via broadcast media. Whether it's Rush, CNN, the NYT, or Daily Kos. That's why SCOTUS sees no rational basis for government interference. Anyone can get their message out, easily. There's no barrier to access anymore. Your complaint isn't that messages can't be heard since they manifestly can if people are interested. Your complaint is actually that people just won't be interested enough to listen. And that's not something for the government to remedy.Democratic discourse implies everyone with a stake in the issue gets to speak and be heard. That's not what currently happens in the US and this is going to make it far worse.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-25-2010 at 09:28 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Employees of corporations have the same right to speech as anyone else. What they should not have is the right to take the resources of that corporation and use them to blare their speech to drown out the speech of most other citizens who don't have access to those resources. And you also make the mistake of conflating the speech of the employee or the stock holder with that of the corporation itself. The people within a corporation are very diverse and have a variety of opinions. That freedom of association is interesting but doesn't apply here - nobody is saying you can't form a corporation, just that you can't use its resources to abuse the political system.
For the public good. If a media outlet reaches millions of people it has a responsiblity not to undermine our system of government. One sided political propaganda does that.Why is it okay to force media venues to propogate messages whether they want to or not?If your're advocating policy or candidates, you're making political speech.Who gets to decide what counts as political speech and what counts as entertainment?
No, you're enhancing protest. AFAIK its not legitimate protest to silence the opposition. It might be an effective way to win an election, good for one party or one candidate, but its not good for a democratic political process.Aren't you killing a method of protest by saying that both sides always get equal time?No, I'm saying the opposite. Air time has to be granted to the opposition.The government will then always be able to silence dissenters simply by not granting air time to their supporters - effectively ending all complaints about an issue by refusing to acknowledge that an issue exists.
No, I'm advocating granting all sides equal speech. This is about expanding speech. The recent court ruling will limit speech.Limiting others free speech because you think your side isn't loud enough to compete effectively is a bad idea.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The McCain-Fiengold act didn't "grant all sides equal speech" though. When it comes to media, it just said certain groups couldn't advertise in certain conditions.
It was an abrogation of free speech. One may disagree with the idea, but it's a lot less of a mental somersault than the idea that giving groups unlimited rights to advocate somehow limits free speech.
This is where the disconnect between idealism and reality sets in. Ideally a corporation is all of one mind. Ideally a fifty million dollar add campaign won't drown out a ten thousand dollar ad campaign and the speech from either is the same. Ideally having ten radio stations in a market means all citizens will get political speech from a variety of viewpoints. But all your ideals fail in reality. And while you feel safe and secure in your ideals, reality is undermining our democracy.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Oh, but ideally you can just sell your stock! Never mind that you own the stock through index funds.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Yep, regardless of the harm it does to the nation. Oh well.
Wait and see. We haven't tried this one yet. We've been pretty secure knowing its something we did NOT want to try, but oh well. The conservative court has ruled; against all precedent....Except that has not been, is not now, and will not in the future be what happens.
Not true. And will be less true going forward. Wait til corporate money is buying up all the advertising spots - prices will rise, pricing out those with smaller budgets. Supply and demand...Anyone can get their message out, easily.Really? How many region commercial spots could you buy? There's a regional great lakes protection environmental group that's always emailing me. I've never seen them run tv spots. But their opponents sure can - big water bottlers, utilities, mining companies, oil companies, shipping companies.There's no barrier to access anymore.You're missing reality Fuzzy.Your complaint isn't that messages can't be heard since they manifestly can if people are interested.Not even close. Thanks for trying to read my mind and put words in my mouth. But no thanks.Your complaint is actually that people just won't be interested enough to listen.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
So it should have been enhanced, not removed. You don't fix problems by making them worse.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
People keep saying, "what about the people that comprise corporations? Don't they deserve free speech?" The answer is no, not as a collective, because their speech as individuals is protected. Protecting it as a collective effectively bundles their speech to be doled out in a paternalistic manner by one or a handful of top officials, in the form of cash. This also disenfranchises shareholders (also protected as citizens), since their speech is summarized by executive decision. Unless you all posit that the employees of corporations have monolithic values, we're talking disenfranchisement.
So, at best this is a bogus argument, since corporate employees already have voices as individual citizens. At worst, it is "mock" voices, as unelected representatives pretend to represent their "constituency."
Corporations are not citizens. They are treated as pseudo-citizens wrt business law. by why the rights of the corporation should extend beyond that is beyond me. Somebody please show me the passage of the constitution that says this.
That's the exact same rationale Chavez is using, isn't it? It's bollocks.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm telling you that you're flat-out wrong. You pin your beliefs on statements that run counter to reality. There's just too much broadcast room to swamp, even if interests cared to try and spend that much money on the effort (they don't, it's not cost-effective, they'll use more targetted approaches), and broadcast is a shrinking portion of media anyway due to the ubiquitous and still-growing internet. People spend more time online than they do listening to the radio and it's looking like they'll eventually spend more time online than watching broadcast TV too. What you fear is a particular dystopic vision, and that vision is still possible, it just comes from passive action on the part of the listener, rather than those evil corporate interests.Not even close. Thanks for trying to read my mind and put words in my mouth. But no thanks.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-25-2010 at 06:26 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Believe it or not, it actually arises as an application of freedom of association. The protections aren't as deep, but they're there, because the Founding Fathers recognized that individuals frequently need to be organized into groups to accomplish anything. So freedom of association, in addition to letting people organize at all, is interpreted as spreading constitutional protections to organizations.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You've just defended the right for a corporation to exist. That doesn't bear on our discussion.
a. it depends on which people you're talking about, what they do for a living, and so on.
b. it doesn't matter where it comes from, lazy consumer or not, its still real. Lazy consumer is practically an American archtype.
c. you don't have to throw out there 'evil corporate interests.' I don't believe in evil, per se. And the corporate interests arn't necessarily bad, but they are very narrow and very highly motivated. They are almost never in line with the good of the nation. And by good of the nation I mean the good of the citizens.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I also pointed out that the ability to be organized is meaningless if the organization has no rights, if it can be banned from doing anything.
Which matters not in the least in this case because the public acts in aggregate.
You always say that, but somehow that tone is still present once you've climbed on the soapbox. And it does matter because while what you originally allege can conceivably be mitigated by some "Fairness Doctrine," at least under the right conditions, the latter can't be when any message is accessible.c. you don't have to throw out there 'evil corporate interests.' I don't believe in evil, per se.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-25-2010 at 09:35 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I only say it because I believe it.Perhaps the tone you detect is a pre-conceived notion of your own, or maybe a misunderstanding of what I'm attempting to say. You might recall a thread from 2003 when I discussed the concept of good and evil, what they mean, whether they exist as objective concepts and so on. That particular thread had some really intersting - imo - analysis of what might and might not be evil and why, from an objective stand point. I was going to collect that portion of it but pre-2004 was deleted before I could.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Anyway you cut it you are depriving someone of the ability to do something. In this case it is speech. If I own something I should be able to use its resources to speak, write, print or air. Not allowing me to do that is a violation of 1st amendment rights. That is the ruling.
Can't swear on TV. Can't use hate speech. Oh Noes!
Yes to Oh Noes. You should be able to swear on TV and hate speech is bunk. I don't like liberals because they smell... is that hate speech? Seems pretty hateful on the surface. What about stating that Islamo Fascists are coming to kill us? Is that hatred towards a religion. The only types of speech that should be regulated are slander/libel issues, personal threats of vioence and similar such issues. Ideas, beliefs, political positions, religious positions should all be OK.
Why don't we ask Homeschooler her opinion? hmm?
Is one reason why you and she shun/criticize public school education due to the erroneous belief that Librulz smell, or homos rub off, or everyone is out to bastardize Judeo-Christian biblical beliefs in the name of the US Constitution?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote