Progressives take aim at the 1st Amendment

[acptulsa]

Well, well... Since when do you not want to grow government to keep it from growing??? If this was a different issue, you'd be making the exact opposite argument:

"Government needs the power to limit speech because certain people will use that speech to limit your liberty!" <seems pretty ridiculous when you apply it to other realms, eh?>

Government can always count on partisans to abandon their principles when they think they can gain a little power by doing so.

The sad thing is they cling to "conventional wisdom", meaning hundred-year-old models of the way things are, like the antiquated notion that rich people contribute to Republicans. The cold hard facts of Soros, Adelson, Gates and the city of Hollywood are inconvenient truths that get blocked out, and that's how the Swamp tricks them into shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Stop censoring people with whom you disagree (like Alex Jones) and let the Citizens decide for themselves what to listen to.

This is not allowed comrade.

We made jokes about it and laughed when it happened, when government, by fatwa, decreed how much water your toilet can use.

If the citizen cannot decide for himself how much of his water to use, or his gasoline his car uses, or million other examples I can cite, that citizen certainly cannot be trusted to decide what he wants to listen to.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You sure are a broken record. You love to repeat that limiting money to amplify speech is limiting speech. 'Giving government power to limit speech' is a cute tag line well calculated to frighten any libertarians, but it only works on those who can't see it's pure shyll$#@!.

So, the bottom line is the Bushes were swamp RINOs, but you're partisan enough to argue until Doomsday their SCOTUS nominees can do no wrong, even when you have no leg to stand on. Got it.

Typical spin, I never said Bush nominees could do no wrong and you are the one who has no leg to stand on, that is why you won't debate the merits of your idea to give government more power and thereby give the corporations that own the MSM more power.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Well, well... Since when do you not want to grow government to keep it from growing??? If this was a different issue, you'd be making the exact opposite argument:

"Government needs the power to limit speech because certain people will use that speech to limit your liberty!" <seems pretty ridiculous when you apply it to other realms, eh?>

Nice strawman, the few places I believe government has a legitimate role are entirely different.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Government can always count on partisans to abandon their principles when they think they can gain a little power by doing so.

The sad thing is they cling to "conventional wisdom", meaning hundred-year-old models of the way things are, like the antiquated notion that rich people contribute to Republicans. The cold hard facts of Soros, Adelson, Gates and the city of Hollywood are inconvenient truths that get blocked out, and that's how the Swamp tricks them into shooting themselves in the foot.

More progressive nonsense, the very people you hate would be empowered by the things you suggest.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The dissenters responded that the First Amendment did not require allowing [...]

Well, there's your problem, right there.

For the umpty-umpth time, the Anti-Federalists turn out to be absolutely right ...

(Even Alexander Hamilton scores some "stopped clock" points - the so-called "Bill of Rights" has indeed become nothing more than a list of revocable permissions magnanimously granted to the Mundanes, and not at all a list of prohibitions to be applied to the Federales ...)

[L]iberals who once championed expansive First Amendment rights are now uneasy about them.

“The left was once not just on board but leading in supporting the broadest First Amendment protections,” said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer and a supporter of broad free-speech rights. “Now the progressive community is at least skeptical and sometimes distraught at the level of First Amendment protection which is being afforded in cases brought by litigants on the right.”

Many on the left have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.

Take pornography and street protests. Liberals were once largely united in fighting to protect sexually explicit materials from government censorship. Now many on the left see pornography as an assault on women’s rights.

In 1977, many liberals supported the right of the American Nazi Party to march among Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Far fewer supported the free-speech rights of the white nationalists who marched last year in Charlottesville, Va.

There was a certain naïveté in how liberals used to approach free speech, said Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

“Because so many free-speech claims of the 1950s and 1960s involved anti-obscenity claims, or civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protests, it was easy for the left to sympathize with the speakers or believe that speech in general was harmless,” he said. “But the claim that speech was harmless or causally inert was never true, even if it has taken recent events to convince the left of that. The question, then, is why the left ever believed otherwise.”

Some liberals now say that free speech disproportionately protects the powerful and the status quo.

“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.

“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”

Judge Robert H. Bork in 1987. “Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political,” he wrote in 1971 in a law-review article. “There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic.”

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal wannabe Thought Police, that they are endowed by their Creator own sanctimonious self-righteousness with certain unalienable Rights Grievances, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Bêtes Noires, Pet Peeves and the pursuit of Outrage ..."

 

[Swordsmyth]

Well, there's your problem, right there.

For the umpty-umpth time, the Anti-Federalists turn out to be absolutely right ...

(Even Alexander Hamilton scores some "stopped clock" points - the so-called "Bill of Rights" has indeed become nothing more than a list of revocable permissions magnanimously granted to the Mundanes, and not at all a list of prohibitions to be applied to the Federales ...)



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal wannabe Thought Police, that they are endowed by their Creator own sanctimonious self-righteousness with certain unalienable Rights Grievances, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Bêtes Noires, Pet Peeves and the pursuit of Outrage ..."

Even here we have "libertarians" and "anarchists" who want government to control speech:

I'd rather take a page from the playbook of the War on Tobacco and outlaw political advertising.

I remember when it was illegal for Big Pharma to advertise their wares. Seems to me repealing that law led to nothing but trouble.

Certainly campaign advertising budgets give the media one hell of an incentive to promote the candidate who got the most bribes campaign contributions.

Paid commercials are not free speech. Free speech happens when free people converse.

Only a corporate tool calls paid messages "free" speech--especially in an era when individual political donations are strictly limited but for corporations, the sky is the limit. Please keep exposing yourself like this.

 

[Occam's Banana]

There is a problem. A law is passed to fix the problem. Now there are two problems ...

 

[acptulsa]

Even here we have "libertarians" and "anarchists" who want government to control speech:

How many times do you need to repeat the same statement and conveniently delete the fact that you aren't talking about speech itself, but money to broadcast speech?

You figure repeating the same misleading statement a certain number of times will hypnotise people into thinking it isn't misleading? Just out of curiosity, how many times do you figure you have to repeat yourself before people magically forget you're leaving out key details? Twelve? Twenty?

There is a problem. A law is passed to fix the problem. Now there are two problems ...

Swordshyll doesn't see a problem. He doesn't figure the Bill of Rights says they can withhold your inalienable rights on a whim. He figures you have an ironclad right to buy them for cash.

 

[Swordsmyth]

blather

You called for a speech ban, not only is that self-evidently wrong but it would give the corporations and politicians you claim to oppose even more power.

 

[acptulsa]

You called for a speech ban...

Right, because if you can't talk on a paid commercial, you can't talk at all.

...not only is that self-evidently wrong but it would give the corporations and politicians you claim to oppose even more power.

Right, because the more television spots a corporation can buy, the less power it has.

Or should I use your best, most rational usual argument:

So, are your posts, like television commercials, pre-recorded? Because they couldn't be more repetitious. Though I notice that while you continue to call money "speech", you have grown enough brain cells to stop calling it "free speech".

 

[Swordsmyth]

Right, because if you can't talk on a paid commercial, you can't talk at all.

LOL, any ban on any kind of speech is a speech ban.
A ban on handguns is a gun ban, a ban on semi-autos is a gun ban, a ban on full-autos is a gun ban, a ban on internet posts is a speech ban, a ban on leaflets is a speech ban and a ban on radio/TV ads is a speech ban.

Right, because the more television spots a corporation can buy, the less power it has.

Who owns the MSM? Corporations.

Who gets covered in the news? Politicians.

You would leave them with the only voices able to reach a mass audience.

I can't believe I have to explain this on a "libertarian" forum.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL, any ban on any kind of speech is a speech ban.

Who owns the MSM? Corporations.

Who gets covered in the news? Politicians.

You would leave them with the only voices able to reach a mass audience.

I can't believe I have to explain this on a "libertarian" forum.

They're basically in that position now, thanks to your Bush RINO-packed court limiting the donations of American citizens while allowing companies--even those owned by the very same foreigners you're scared to death might be voting--to enable candidates to buy all the repetitious amplified speech they want. Interesting you ignore that, offer no solutions to that, tacitly effectively approve of that, while screeching half-truths in multiple threads about my method of addressing it.

Got solutions? Or just a yen to turn half a dozen threads into platforms for libel? Or do you even consider it a problem that foreign business owners have more right to buy our candidates name recognition than U.S. citizens do?

As for your constant spam that I'm anti-speech, may I remind you I'm not talking about amplifying the speech of civilians, but of politicians? After all, campaign contributions don't speak for themselves (well, maybe so to speak), they enable the politicians to speak louder. What other part of the Bill of Rights do you figure is about guaranteeing the government and the politicians rights, rather than limiting their ability to interfere with us? Do you think guaranteeing the right of foreign-owned corporations to enable the amplification of the words of politicians--usually sitting politicians--is really the Original Intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights? Shall I take a page from your playbook and run around the forum posting in a dozen unrelated threads that you think the Bill of Rights should apply only to politicians and not to American civilians?

I guess I had better not try. That's yet another guideline violation that it seems only you can get away with.

 

[Swordsmyth]

They're basically in that position now, thanks to your Bush RINO-packed court limiting the donations of American citizens while allowing companies--even those owned by the very same foreigners you're scared to death might be voting--to enable candidates to buy all the repetitious amplified speech they want. Interesting you ignore that, offer no solutions to that, tacitly effectively approve of that, while screeching half-truths in multiple threads about my method of addressing it.

Got solutions? Or just a yen to turn half a dozen threads into platforms for libel? Or do you even consider it a problem that foreign business owners have more right to buy our candidates name recognition than U.S. citizens do?

As for your constant spam that I'm anti-speech, may I remind you I'm not talking about amplifying the speech of civilians, but of politicians? After all, campaign contributions don't speak for themselves (well, maybe so to speak), they enable the politicians to speak louder. What other part of the Bill of Rights do you figure is about guaranteeing the government and the politicians rights, rather than limiting their ability to interfere with us? Do you think guaranteeing the right of foreign-owned corporations to enable the amplification of the words of politicians--usually sitting politicians--is really the Original Intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights? Shall I take a page from your playbook and run around the forum posting in a dozen unrelated threads that you think the Bill of Rights should apply only to politicians and not to American civilians?

I guess I had better not try. That's yet another guideline violation that it seems only you can get away with.

And your solution is MORE government control?

As things stand ordinary Americans can band together in groups to buy ads to counter the corporations and politicians, you supported McCain-Feingold that would have limited that.

The answer to your concerns is LESS government, reduce campaign finance restrictions.

It is disgusting that you have the gall to come on a libertarian forum and call for government speech control.

 

[acptulsa]

And your solution is MORE government control?

It is disgusting that you have the gall to come on a libertarian forum and call for government speech control.

Government control of government is still a more libertarian position than out of control government.

What's disgusting is you coming here to say it's good if government and corporations have the power to shout down and drown out private American citizens. An incumbent's campaign is still government speech.

Now. How repetitive shall we make this conversation? Are you going to cut and paste previous posts--or the off topic and out of context posts you posted in those other half a dozen threads?

I find it amusing your behavior us so embarrassing that I can quote you in my sig and get it deleted by the mods.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Government control of government is still a more libertarian position than out of control government.

What's disgusting is you coming here to say it's good if government and corporations have the power to shout down and drown out private American citizens. An incumbent's campaign is still government speech.

Now. How repetitive shall we make this conversation? Are you going to cut and paste previous posts--or the off topic and out of context posts you posted in those other half a dozen threads?

I find it amusing your behavior us so embarrassing that I can quote you in my SIG and get it deleted by the mods.

Political speech is the most important kind of speech protected by the 1stA, you don't get to ban it just because you don't like some people, this thread is the perfect place for this conversation, you are taking aim at the 1stA for all to see and exposing that you are a progressive.

 

[acptulsa]

Deja vu all over again.

So Swordshyll thinks the Bill if Rights exists to give rights to politicians, and has no problem with apportioning greater rights to companies with zero U.S. stockholders than to U.S. citizens. Surprise, surprise.

...exposing that you are a progressive.

LOL. Because everyone who ever disagrees with the Bushes' SCOTUS RINOs is a prog, right? Well, I've heard stupider definitions. Just not often.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Deja vu all over again.

So Swordshyll thinks the Bill if Rights exists to give rights to politicians, and has no problem with apportioning greater rights to companies with zero U.S. stockholders than to U.S. citizens. Surprise, surprise.



LOL. Because everyone who ever disagrees with the Bushes' SCOTUS RINOs is a prog, right? Well, I've heard stupider definitions. Just not often.

"Everyone Tulsa doesn't like should be banned from speaking"

What other rights do you think people should need your permission to exercise?

 

[jmdrake]

There are two separate issues going on here. They are being framed in terms of Left v. Right, but that isn't the heart of the matter.

On the one hand, we have money and influence being used to silence speech. Electronic platforms silence dissent, and because they are corporate, not government, the First does not apply. But DARPA invented the net (or was it Al Gore? ), the CIA financed Facebook, and there is some question how much government involvement there actually is. Clearly if the net is in any way a government platform then any citizen has a right to express his or her political beliefs on any corner of it. This current round of censorship is unconstitutional in that case.

On the other hand we have money and influence being used to modify and magnify speech. Individual American stockholders in corporations clearly have constitutional rights, not because they're stockholders, but because they're citizens. But when they buy stock, does that transfer their rights to the corporation? If as individuals they are limited in the campaign contributions they can make, do their limited rights translate into unlimited rights for the corporation? Does their stock turn a corporation into a citizen? What turns a group of citizens with limited rights into a corporation with unlimited rights? Do these unlimited rights, combined with limited liability, turn stockholders into super-citizens--or is it only the corporate officers, who spend the "speech money" and commit the crimes they are not liable for who become these super-citizens?

And above all, is money really speech?

I, for one, am not impressed by the way these questions are being answered. And adding the quasi-"liberal v. conservative" noise to the conversation is only obscuring the real issues.

So.....RPF is wrong for banning Eduardo? 9/11 Truth threads shouldn't be relegated to Hot Topics? We are participating on a platform that doesn't allow everyone to post everything everywhere. Hmmmm.....

 

[acptulsa]

Swordshyll has nothing to add, but thinks whoever adds the last post wins.

So.....RPF is wrong for banning Eduardo? 9/11 Truth threads shouldn't be relegated to Hot Topics? We are participating on a platform that doesn't allow everyone to post everything everywhere. Hmmmm.....

Right you are. But at least we can say that the CIA didn't finance Josh and Bryan's startup.

Unlike Fedbook. So we're clearly not as dead wrong as Zuckerberg.