[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Sun Jan 24 13:32:34 CST 2010
I don't think I'm suggesting that all things are equal - just the opposite.
American business does with propaganda what more primitive totalitarian
societies did with prisons and the knout.
But the way to fight it is by talking to people and organizing, not by trying to
restrict what our enemies can say publicly! The cure for bad speech is more
speech, not less.
We complain about administrations that ignore the Constitution (as we should)
but then we're ready to throw out the First Amendment! As Chomsky says, if we
don't believe in free speech for people and ideas we despise, we don't believe
in it at all.
unionyes wrote:
> That is EXACTLEY the bottom line point John !
>
> I was going to respond to Carl's statement but you beat me to it.
>
> Yes Carl, I have always agreed and embraced your statement of " let a
> thousand flowers bloom " in regards to free speech.
>
> However, let's look at the cruel reality here in the U.S. instead of
> the theoretical all things being equal arguement.
>
> Things are not equal to even allow a thousand flowers to bloom, and this
> recent 5 - 4 Supreme Court ruling will only make things much worse than
> they already are.
>
> The American people are fed a 24-hour 365 day a year non-stop propoganda
> barrage of lies and disinformation on multiple channels that ALL bascily
> agree with each other in the " range of allowable debate ", as you so
> well describe.
>
> For the average American, especially those without the internet ( and
> there still are quite a large percentage ) there is NOTHING to counter
> the lies and disinformation.
> As Hitler's Propoganda minister Goebels stated " A lie repeated often
> enough will eventually become a truth to most people "
> This is as true today in corporate controlled America as it was in Nazi
> Germany.
>
> We have an iron curtain of disinformation in this country.
> Europeans and citizens of most other countries can access are media if
> they choose via cable T.V., but we cannot access their media via T.V..
> The BBC America does not count because it is an " American " version and
> not what is shown in the U.K..
> Only on the internet ( IF one knows where to search ) can an American
> find non-corporate and foreign news sources.
> And even the internet is under attack by corporate interests who want
> more control of what you can access.
> Free Speech T.V., Link T.V., is only available on DISH sattelite network
> and not available on DIRECT TV or Comcast or most other cable televison.
> And the corporate interests around the country have already begun a
> successful attack so far upon public access T.V..in many communities.
>
> Beyond the control of our media, the corporate interests in this country
> control our government. Our elected officials, our laws, and of
> course by extension the police, the courts, and the military which they
> can use and do use against us and other people of the world. As most of
> you know, they do this via the system of legalized bribery called "
> campaign contributions " and they further this via Lobbying,
> Congressional perks like speaking fee engagements and golf trips to the
> Carribean, etc. and then there is the " revolving door " of lucrative
> corporate jobs waiting for those elected officials who are good
> corporate team players.
>
> So with the above as our current reality, this latest Supreme Court
> ruling IS a blow to what little democracy we have left in this country.
> It is a step in the wrong directions and will only make things worse.
>
> Finally Corporations are NOT human beings or any living life form.
> They do NOT deserve free speech rights, especially considering the harm
> they have done to us alraedy as a result of their influence and control.
> Organizations of free associations of individuals that are 501c3's etc.
> are NOT the same as money making and profit taking entities and
> therefore should be allowed free speech. Unless it can be proven that
> they are a corporate front groups.
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
> So that is why I DO think this ruling is a disaster, which will ONLY
> make the situation in this
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 24, 2010 6:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> [I don't like this guy's politics much, but I think he may be
> right about why there has been so much weeping and gnashing of
> teeth about the SC decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The one
> clear if perhaps questionable contribution of the American 20th
> c. to human civilization since the Neolithic was PR; the fear of
> the NYT editorialists et al. is that this SC decision in its
> madly consequent way may upset the apple cart. OTOH with
> Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd c. CE, I say, "Let a hundred
> flowers bloom; let a thousand schools of thought contend." (I
> realize the image has been used by others.) --CGE]
>
>
> That isn't what happens with PR, Carl. No flowers are blooming when
> the corporate PR machine spins out lie upon lie upon lie.
>
> To me this decision equates "political speech" with "justice". In
> both cases, in the United States at least, you're entitled to as
> much speech and as much "justice" as you can afford to pay for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United
> by Brian Garst
>
> On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid
> liberal issue. First Amendment protections, considered
> sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified
> information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power.
> Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision. So why are
> prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?
>
> It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred
> for all things corporate. But is that enough to overcome what
> otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the
> ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially
> unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits
> the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the
> corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right,
> are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups
> that benefit from the ruling just the same. The net political
> impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t
> political in nature. Neither is it based on the merits. Rather,
> it is philosophical.
>
> Consider the following reactions to the decision from the left.
> The New York Times editorialized the decision as a “blow to
> democracy,” and a “disastrous 5-to-4 ruling” that “has thrust
> politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.”
> Talk about overwrought.
>
> President Obama decried the “stampede of special interest money”
> that will somehow “[undermine] the influence of average
> Americans.” Senator Patrick Leahy warned that the decision
> would “change the course of our democracy.” And the
> ever-contemptible Rep. Alan Grayson must have been
> hyperventilating when he declared that “this is the worst
> Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. It leads us
> all down the road to serfdom.”
>
> As if these politicians aren’t bad enough, the liberal
> blogosphere is even worse, as frantic left-wing bloggers and
> their readers have been busy declaring an end to democracy as we
> know it ever since the ruling came down.
> The apocalyptic – and not to mention apoplectic – nature of
> their criticism suggests an answer as to why the decision irks
> them so. Liberals think you are all idiots. American voters
> are simply too stupid to filter so much information and then
> reach the right decision. And as they well know, the right
> decision is unquestionably to adopt the liberal position. They,
> as the learned among us, know best and so ought to be the only
> ones allowed to tell you what you should think and why you
> should think it. That way you don’t get confused by all those
> other pesky views and opinions. One wonders how we ever
> survived as a nation before the great heroes John McCain and
> Russ Feingold came along to save us from ourselves.
>
> At the heart of the liberal philosophy of government is a belief
> that people are too stupid to fend for themselves, manage their
> own affairs or vote for the right candidates. Democracy itself
> will be destroyed because of a few extra ads targeting voters
> before elections? Voters, it seems, just aren’t sophisticated
> enough to handle that much information.
>
> Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution recognizes rights
> that all citizens have, regardless of how intelligent the
> editorial board of the New York Times thinks a person from
> Kansas really is. It turns out that “make no law” really means
> that “Congress shall make no law,” even if that law would
> advance the liberal agenda.
>
> http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
> and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list