An awful lot of this discussion (including my own posts) assume a level of clear-headedness that I'm not sure was possible at the time. Any time I start thinking about what might have happened or what Bush should have done I remember the media images of Afghan people celebrating 9/11 and I remind myself that there was a hysteria in country to do something, and anybody who called for a measured response was pretty much shouted down.

Oh you are absolutely spot on about that --

I still vividly remember a discussion shortly after 9/11 with a group of friends, most of whom I would call "clear-headed", most of who leaned left, and even one of whom had a masters in some international relations field and was, at the time, working for some foreign policy think tank... More just to think out loud/play devil's advocate - I brought up the idea of 'what can we really achieve' bombing the crap out of Afghanistan as a whole? You'd have thought I just Ward Churchill'ed the discussion with the craziest thing anyone ever heard.

The hysteria was so palpable - the need to just hit something, anything hard so real and omnipresent that I'm still a bit startled by it 10 years later... at the time, I just thought "huh, so THIS is real bloodlust".

I'm not sure it wouldn't have been any different under a President Gore, either... the one thing I guess I do believe (hope?) is that at least it would have been allowed to subside, rather than been used towards other foreign policy ends.

But yeah, even under a theoretical President Gandhi, we were going into Afghanistan....

The hysteria was so palpable - the need to just hit something, anything hard so real and omnipresent that I'm still a bit startled by it 10 years later... at the time, I just thought "huh, so THIS is real bloodlust".

I was bartending part-time after 9-11, and there was an old cranky drunk where I worked who, after a long diatribe about how evil all the Muslims were, proposed a solution: "One bomb," he said. "Take out the whole region, kill 'em all." When I pointed out there are a lot of Muslims in the world, and they don't all live next door to one another, without missing a beat, he revised his original proposal: "Ok, fine-- two bombs."

and wealthy people that want drugs have practically no problem getting them

I mean if the police really wanted to, how hard would it be to get a search warrant on Charlie Sheen's house?

You err in excepting Carter. The man authorized two black op helicopters to go get the Iranian hostages. The fact that a sandstorm took them apart before they got there doesn't mean Jimmy Carter was averse to decisive military action.

He picked the absolutely worst plan presented to him because it was the only plan that if everything went 100% right no one (Iranians included) were supposed to get killed*.


I cannot fathom the idea of Jimmy freaking Carter essentially ordering "hits" on people- what he ordered was a far cry from that.

I mean if the police really wanted to, how hard would it be to get a search warrant on Charlie Sheen's house?

Are you implying that there might be some manner of corruption in the execution of The War on Drugs? That would be shocking.

While I oppose that sort of thing, is it really a search? I think there's a reasonable argument that it isn't.

Really? How is that NOT a "search?"

and BTW the Constitution does not ban "searches" it ban unreasonable searches

I can see an argument that bringing a drug/bomb sniffing dog up to one's door is not an unreasonable search I do not think a reasonable argument can be made that it is not a "search"

I'm not sure it wouldn't have been any different under a President Gore, either...

It was Gore who kept pushing Clinton to bomb the Serbs.

And BTW I'm not exempting some contributors to equally phony liberal front groups, who also often keep anonymous.

That's the part of it that's the most vile. The concept of anonymous speech is plainly idiotic (everywhere except internet threads).

Not really seeing that this is a big deal. Vile speech is still speech. Speech by groups of people - or paid for by groups of people - is still speech If morons believe anonymous political ads, then they will believe them -- and in fact they probably believe what they want to believe anyway. The way to promote critical thinking is not to digest it for them. It's just like forcing people to wear helmets or not smoke marijuana or whatever... It's essentially concern trolling writ large.

Are these advertisements - these speeches - libelous or damaging (in the litigation sense)? Then they can be restricted by statue or civil action, otherwise NEW FLASH: TV Lies.

I think you're underestimating the public knowledge of Afghanistan. There was a Rambo movie about it.

Are these advertisements - these speeches - libelous or damaging (in the litigation sense)? Then they can be restricted by statue or civil action, otherwise NEW FLASH: TV Lies.

Television and radio spots are not speech. They're press, at best. There are two distinct clauses of first amendment protections for a reason. The rational debate is how the founders conceptions of a free press are best leveraged and advanced to deal with modern forms of media. Wrapping it all in a sacrosanct Baby Jesus cloth of "free speech" is stupid and unhelpful.

And BTW I'm not exempting some contributors to equally phony liberal front groups, who also often keep anonymous.

That's the part of it that's the most vile. The concept of anonymous speech is plainly idiotic (everywhere except internet threads).

Not really seeing that this is a big deal. Vile speech is still speech. Speech by groups of people - or paid for by groups of people - is still speech If morons believe anonymous political ads, then they will believe them -- and in fact they probably believe what they want to believe anyway. The way to promote critical thinking is not to digest it for them. It's just like forcing people to wear helmets or not smoke marijuana or whatever... It's essentially concern trolling writ large.

1. What's the actual harm of forcing disclosure of donors' names over (say) $2,000 or $10,000? The worst that's likely to happen is some retaliatory consumer boycotts, but that's little more than routine give and take, and hiding under a rock is equivalent to wanting to eat your cake and have it, too.

2. I think we can make a reasonable case that public discussion of issues that are going to be shaping the direction of our country for years to come is not going to be damaged or limited in any real way by requiring knowledge of who's financing those remarks, vile or otherwise. Even the Supreme Court recognizes the right of governments to make such disclosure requirements.

If money isn't speech, nothing beyond speaking quietly in a public park is.

And if a corporation is a person, you're Mila Jojovich.

Virtually every newspaper and book is published by a corporation. It would be an astounding proposition to hold that corporations aren't protected by the 1st Amendment. Like saying that the government could surpress a book because of its political content - which was the Obama adminsitration's position in Citizens United.

The Akin plot thickens...

One of the main proponents of the 'rape can't cause pregnancy because the female body has mechanisms to prevent it' is Dr. Jack Willke. My understanding is that he's a pretty big wheel in the pro-life movement.

He was quoted in the NYT just yesterday:

”This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

Now... in 2008 - Willke was an OFFICIAL Romney surrogate - from a Romney 2008 press release announcing Willke's endorsement of Romney:

“I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President.”

Willke has out in front defending Akin's comments - not good for Romney, but now Willke is claiming that he's met privately with Romney recently and is saying that they agree on 'almost everything' and he's met several times with Ryan and they agree on 'everything'.

I think I see the ads coming!

What's the actual harm of forcing disclosure of donors' names over (say) $2,000 or $10,000?

I think the issue is, what's the gain? That the electorate cannot be bothered or is intellectually unable to verify factual claims made on television irrespective of who is making them is a problem that cannot be solved through greater transparency.

Though I suppose you can rightly argue that forcing disclosure would make the jobs of those that can be bothered easier.

Television and radio spots are not speech. They're press, at best.

That's quite the novel interpretation, especially given that the general debate around these things in actual court circles is whether or not the press has additional freedoms, not fewer.

What's the actual harm of forcing disclosure of donors' names over (say) $2,000 or $10,000? The worst that's likely to happen is some retaliatory consumer boycotts, but that's little more than routine give and take, and hiding under a rock is equivalent to wanting to eat your cake and have it, too.

The same harm there is in forcing disclosure of previous sexual relationships to new sexual partners. Actually, one can argue that sexual disclosure is *more* important, nobody's likely to get HIV from a political ad that doesn't have some ridiculous talking head "I approve this ad" that nobody gives a #### about anyway. (I, of course, am against both these things).

Whether it's the Federalist Papers or Margaret McIntyre simply distributing pamphlets against an upcoming local referendum, anonymous speech is extremely important.

If I'm not mistaken (and I may be) the court hasn't directly dealt with the disclosure issue yet (and McIntyre was 7-2, with the Stevens opinion clearly outlining that the state interest in identifying speakers is essentially libel and fraud). But at the very least, the Supreme Court has clearly established anonymous speech as something worthy of protection from a simple shrug and a "what harm can it do?" from someone with a limited imagination for what harm it could do. I assume you take Alabama's side in NAACP v. Alabama?

Virtually every newspaper and book is published by a corporation.

So? That's press, not speech.

It would be an astounding proposition to hold that corporations aren't protected by the 1st Amendment.

I am full of astounding propositions. It's part of being light years more advanced than you yobs.

That's quite the novel interpretation, especially given that the general debate around these things in actual court circles is whether or not the press has additional freedoms, not fewer.

It is not my fault that court circles are generally full of like minded lemmings with no ability to think about things rationally.

I am full of astounding propositions. It's part of being light years more advanced than you yobs.

If you were light years more advanced than us, time dilation would have likely ensured that the rest of us on this mortal coil wouldn't have to suffer you.

And what about the ability to hide under a rock when it comes to disclosure? Does "speech" in the form of megabucks contributions to phony "non-profit" front groups have to be anonymous in order to be "free"?

There is a long tradition in this country of anonymous speech, going back to before the Federalist Papers, and more recently including successful efforts by the NAACP to resist disclosing it's membership & contributions in the face of state disclosure laws. If you want to ban anonymous speech, you'll have to amend the Constitution or appoint Supreme Court Justices who will render it meaningless. Pretty strange position for someone who used to own a bookstore.

If you were light years more advanced than us, time dilation would have likely ensured that the rest of us on this mortal coil wouldn't have to suffer you.

The gods do not suffer the constraints of your sad mortal forms, prole.

That's press, not speech.

They are related, you know.

Television and radio spots are not speech. They're press, at best. There are two distinct clauses of first amendment protections for a reason. The rational debate is how the founders conceptions of a free press are best leveraged and advanced to deal with modern forms of media. Wrapping it all in a sacrosanct Baby Jesus cloth of "free speech" is stupid and unhelpful

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So where's the problem? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" No matter how you define it, the Bill of Rights makes it pretty clear how the Constitution feels about the press (i.e. they get the same protection)

The gods do not suffer the constraints of your sad mortal forms, prole.

Hilarious that you told Jason Epstein he was "better than this" for posting the picture of Obama obscured by the teleprompter. Never figured you for such a blushing violet, but then again, it's a Democrat that's the butt of the joke this time.

So where's the problem? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" No matter how you define it, the Bill of Rights makes it pretty clear how the Constitution feels about the press (i.e. they get the same protection)

But that's infringing, not abridging! And with interfering, the right to peacefully assemble is even lower in the pantheon of freedom. Also, I'm developmentally disabled.

I feel like an idiot, but I truly forget how it goes. If the poorer folks specifically can't reach people and control speech, control the volume of the narrative the way the richer folks can, it's tough luck, yes? That's the position of campaign finance reform = 1st Amendment Death?

Sounds snarky, but am not sure of the better way to put the position, will gladly accept a more acceptable way, or a more accurate way.

I feel like an idiot, but I truly forget how it goes. If the poorer folks specifically can't reach people and control speech, control the volume of the narrative the way the richer folks can, it's tough luck, yes? That's the position of campaign finance reform = 1st Amendment Death?

If poor people really wanted to change things they'd just vote for it. After all, the Dems are always pointing out how many more of them there are than us.

note: the proceeding comment was a joke, not to be taken seriously as a literal statement or satire

I feel like an idiot, but I truly forget how it goes. If the poorer folks specifically can't reach people and control speech, control the volume of the narrative the way the richer folks can, it's tough luck, yes? That's the position of campaign finance reform = 1st Amendment Death?

Sounds snarky, but am not sure of the better way to put the position, will gladly accept a more acceptable way, or a more accurate way.

I've been around long enough to remember when the liberal position was that the 1st Amendment was essential to liberty and should be interpreted broadly to protect basic freedoms. There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that allows the government to suppress some speech to make it easier for others to be heard.

You know what's zany? Life isn't partisan.

I've been around long enough to remember when the liberal position was that the 1st Amendment was essential to liberty and should be interpreted broadly to protect basic freedoms. There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that allows the government to suppress some speech to make it easier for others to be heard.

So, the answer to my question is yes?

I'm not even sure I disagree, crazy as it seems, I'm just trying to be stark about.

They are related, you know.

I am related to my cousin. I am not my cousin.

So where's the problem? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" No matter how you define it, the Bill of Rights makes it pretty clear how the Constitution feels about the press (i.e. they get the same protection)

The open question is not if the press is protected, but if the media of the modern world are appropriately considered to be a "press."

Hilarious that you told Jason Epstein he was "better than this" for posting the picture of Obama obscured by the teleprompter.

I can't poke Epstein in the ribs from time to time? When did that happen?

Also, I'm developmentally disabled.

I always think of you as Corky from LA Law.

I can't remember if it was before or after we into Afghanistan but Bill Maher used to tell jokes about how pointless an invasion and bombing would be.

Bomb them back into the stone age? They're already in the stone age!


George Carlin had an HBO special after 9/11 and you can kind of tell that he didn't want to talk about it. He even said something about how he had to talk about the elephant in the room and get it out of the way. The comedy special felt a bit flat and even the audience didn't seem to be as jazzed up about his diatribes against the government and their wars. Carlin stayed true to himself but lost the audience a bit.

The open question is not if the press is protected, but if the media of the modern world are appropriately considered to be a "press."

OK, let's try a different tact since I doubt there's any way to convince you to define press as a distributor of information (a crude paraphrase of the generally acknowledged legal definition).

The freedom of speech and press was a reaction to the use of seditious libel by the English government to force any statement about the government to be vetted. So its pretty clear that the framers intentionally desired that the public would have the right to make un-vetted statements. All we're talking about here is a form of vetting.

The freedom of speech and press was a reaction to the use of seditious libel by the English government to force any statement about the government to be vetted. So its pretty clear that the framers intentionally desired that the public would have the right to make un-vetted statements. All we're talking about here is a form of vetting.

So there's no value at all in requiring speech to be related to truth?

So there's no value at all in requiring speech to be related to truth?

There are laws against libel, slander & defamation, but outside that the government doesn't have the power to punish political speech that may be less than truthful. If it did, Sam Hutchinson would be in jail.

What's the actual harm of forcing disclosure of donors' names over (say) $2,000 or $10,000? The worst that's likely to happen is some retaliatory consumer boycotts, but that's little more than routine give and take, and hiding under a rock is equivalent to wanting to eat your cake and have it, too.

The same harm there is in forcing disclosure of previous sexual relationships to new sexual partners. Actually, one can argue that sexual disclosure is *more* important, nobody's likely to get HIV from a political ad that doesn't have some ridiculous talking head "I approve this ad" that nobody gives a #### about anyway. (I, of course, am against both these things).

If a person transmits a sexual disease to an unknowing partner, and if the transmitter had prior knowledge that he or she was a carrier of that disease, I'd almost consider that grounds for justifiable homicide on the part of the unknowing victim, or at the very least grounds for a massive lawsuit.

Whether it's the Federalist Papers or Margaret McIntyre simply distributing pamphlets against an upcoming local referendum, anonymous speech is extremely important.

I make the distinction between anonymous pamphleteering of those types and anonymous multi-million dollar "educational" attack ads financed by anonymous people with unlimited deep pockets. Obviously you see no distinction between those two. I do.

If I'm not mistaken (and I may be) the court hasn't directly dealt with the disclosure issue yet (and McIntyre was 7-2, with the Stevens opinion clearly outlining that the state interest in identifying speakers is essentially libel and fraud). But at the very least, the Supreme Court has clearly established anonymous speech as something worthy of protection from a simple shrug and a "what harm can it do?" from someone with a limited imagination for what harm it could do.

And in turn I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that in Citizens United the Court indicated that they wouldn't look unfavorably on disclosure laws, at least on the state level.

I assume you take Alabama's side in NAACP v. Alabama?

No, and I don't think that RTCH groups should be forced to disclose their members' lists, either. I'm talking about the problem of anonymous Big Money distorting the dialogue through sheer volume. Again, there's (to me, at least) a clear substantive distinction there.

----------------------------

There is a long tradition in this country of anonymous speech, going back to before the Federalist Papers, and more recently including successful efforts by the NAACP to resist disclosing it's membership & contributions in the face of state disclosure laws. If you want to ban anonymous speech, you'll have to amend the Constitution or appoint Supreme Court Justices who will render it meaningless.

Yes, the sort of justices who controlled the Court before Citizens United. Like all Supreme Court decisions, CU has to be obeyed, but it can also be reversed at a later date, or frittered away at the edges by future courts, as was done in the many civil rights cases between Plessy and Brown. The scoreboard doesn't freeze permanently every time the Supreme Court issues a verdict.

Pretty strange position for someone who used to own a bookstore.

Not sure what the relationship is between owning a book shop and feeling sanguine about anonymous billionaires and multi-millionaires being able to flood the airwaves with ads that opposing groups and individuals simply can't afford to counter in kind. Don't kid yourself about 1st amendment principles here, since nobody's suggesting that these individuals have no right to speak, only that when they turn up the volume past a certain point we have a right to know who's controlling the sound system.

The latest from Ta-Nehisi Coates:

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, a doctoral candidate in economics at Harvard, is studying how racial animus may have cost Obama votes in 2008. First, Stephens-­Davidowitz ranked areas of the country according to how often people there typed racist search terms into Google. (The areas with the highest rates of racially charged search terms were West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York, and southern Mississippi.) Then he compared Obama’s voting results in those areas with John Kerry’s four years earlier...

You can guess where this goes. So what is it about the line from WVa to Buffalo that makes the region so "racially charged"?

Did someone already link to this?

So there's no value at all in requiring speech to be related to truth?

Sure, but the framers thought it was more important to provide an absolute defense to government intervention with speech.

edit for misremembrance also, being awake too long.

I make the distinction between anonymous pamphleteering of those types and anonymous multi-million dollar "educational" attack ads financed by anonymous people with unlimited deep pockets. Obviously you see no distinction between those two. I do.

I get it - a little speech is OK, but too much (and the government will decide what is too much) needs to restricted. Thank you, no.

So what is it about the line from WVa to Buffalo that makes the region so "racially charged"?

Well, my mom was from West Virginia and she didn't meet a minority until she went to college. I'm guessing the other areas are similar in that respect.

If it did, Sam Hutchinson would be in jail.

That would suck for that guy. I'll let him know if I ever meet him. He spells his name wrong too.

Sure, but the framers thought it was more important to provide an absolute defense to government intervention with speech was more important.

And if they were presented with the modern ability of the very wealthy to spread untruthful speech over the airwaves, do you assume they'd have made the same calculus?

So, Clapper, as per #3629 and previously - if one has the money to control the volume and narrative moreso than others, that's simply the way it has to be?

I understand the principle involved, I absolutely want to understand the reality of your (and Dan's) position better.

fun:

"The numbers came from a statistically significant sample of more than 100 African-American voters out of 1,000 total voters in the poll," NBC News senior political editor Mark Murray told Lean Forward. "Given the sample size of these African-American respondents, the margin of error is well within the 95 percent-5 percent split with which Obama won this group in 2008. "

In other words, none of the roughly 110 black respondents to this poll said they would support Romney. The poll should not be taken to mean that Romney has no African American supporters at all. However, at the very most, he has far fewer than Obama.

And if they were presented with the modern ability of the very wealthy to spread untruthful speech over the airwaves, do you assume they'd have made the same calculus?

Yes. Let's be realistic here. The damage that rich people could do by being allowed to buy more advertising than poor people is a) nothing new, there were rich people back then too; and b) nothing compared to the damage the government could do if the 1st Amendment begins to erode.

We're talking about the difference between people having to think critically about information about a political entity (which they should really do anyway) and taking a first step down a dangerous slope towards allowing the government oversight of political ads. Which one strikes you as the worst possible outcome? Anybody who doubts the government would abuse that power should remind themselves of the secrets that every single presidential regime has ever kept and be honest with themselves.

So, Clapper, as per #3629 and previously - if one has the money to control the volume and narrative moreso than others, that's simply the way it has to be?

The first amendment is about what the government cannot do and not about what people can do. There are a multitude of reasons people won't be able to take full advantage of their first amendment rights that have nothing to do with insufficient wealth.

I understand the principle involved, I absolutely want to understand the reality of your (and Dan's) position better.

SCOTUS may have said it best, the First Amendment grants you the right to talk, it does not grant the right to be heard.

if one has the money to control the volume and narrative moreso than others, that's simply the way it has to be?

Some people are more persuasive than others, too, would you try to restrict that? Most views that are at all popular, and some that aren't, are funded sufficiently to put them before the public. Lots of candidates lose elections even though they spend the most money, and it's the same for independent expenditures. No one really controls the volume in the sense that others are prevented from expressing contrary views. Robust public debate is far better than the speech police deciding that you've heard enough.

But yeah, even under a theoretical President Gandhi, we were going into Afghanistan....

There was ONE no vote in Congress, cast by my congresswoman at the time -- Barbara Lee (Oakland/Berkeley). Here is her short speech on the floor of congress from 9/14/2001, which I find remarkably courageous.

#3641 Framers arguments would carry more weight if you take a close look at the whole Aliens and Seditions controversy. Hamilton backed it, used it and came around to the notion of truth as an absolute defense only once he was out of power. Adams backed it and used it. Jefferson opposed it but did so primarily on States rights grounds (most specifically 10th amendment grounds -- though he did mention freedom of the press in passing). Madison grounded his opposition in both States rights and the first amendment.

Basically most of the FF who ended up in the Federalist camp (including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) were fine with some pretty severe restrictions on what the press say. Even Jefferson seems to have believed that a state could impose restrictions on free speech.

SCOTUS may have said it best, the First Amendment grants you the right to talk, it does not grant the right to be heard.

I actually vehemently disagree with that view.

In the old over the air broadcast model, nobody has the free right to be heard. The gov't licenses broadcasters and restricts the frequencies that can be used. Were the medium truly free, anyone could set up an antenna and broadcast away their political message. They can't, courtesy of the gov't. This makes the cost of broadcasting artifically high. Hence, since the gov't is already heavily weighing in on the medium, saying the speech is "free" is hypocritical. Given the model, it is already not free at square one. Paper media I'm less concerned with, since the barrier to entry presumably isn't there.

Another issue is campaign contributions. An anonymous political ad is a campaign contribution. It is quid pro quo, aka a bribe. I spend a million dollars helping you speak, you do something for me if you're elected. Every single political ad is made on behalf of a particular candidate or party. All of them.

If people want to run and appear in ads endorsing a particular candidate, I see no problem with that. That is their speech. The anonymous ads are not speech, they are campaign contributions.

SCOTUS may have said it best, the First Amendment grants you the right to talk, it does not grant the right to be heard.

So you are saying campaign finance laws are constitutional then? Since they are not a restriction on what people can say, but a regulation of means by which people can be heard. Glad we cleared that up then.

The idea that one can not advertise on political issues without disclosing your funding is inconsistent with the 1st Amendment and America's political history and practice. I can think of few things that would do more to suppress unpopular ideas.

[3646]

So, Clapper, as per #3629 and previously - if one has the money to control the volume and narrative moreso than others, that's simply the way it has to be?

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions? Unions seem to be inexplicably exempted from the (general) conversation about restrictions on corporations' speech.

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions? Unions seem to be inexplicably exempted from the (general) conversation about restrictions on corporations' speech.

Yes. Unions are always included, but are of relatively low importance due to the steady decline of union influence.

Once again, 1st amendment doesn't mean that you cannot restrict speech ever. Restrictions must be necessary and sufficient to promote a compelling interest. The avoidance of corruption and the appearance of corruption is a very compelling rationale for limiting campaign contributions and independent expenditure.

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions? Unions seem to be inexplicably exempted from the (general) conversation about restrictions on corporations' speech.

Of course not; content czars only have so many hours a day to guide the American people to truth. Though one suspects they'll make time for the unions once the Republicans regain power. Iron Law #6: Me today, you tomorrow.

The anonymous ads are not speech, they are campaign contributions.

Is it your contention that some forms of commercial speech are not really speech (such as Thomas Paine's anonymously published Common Sense)? I can certainly see why some would have a problem with anonymous, unfettered speech: one need only look at the nasty business it birthed in New England back in the day.

Is it your contention that some forms of commercial speech are not really speech (such as Thomas Paine's anonymously published Common Sense)? I can certainly see why some would have a problem with anonymous, unfettered speech: one need only look at the nasty business it birthed in New England back in the day.

My only knowledge of Paine comes from my MA which was on the reactions of the Anglican Clergy in England to the French Revolution. I suppose through almost any study you get more and more sympathetic with the group you are studying, but I came out of it with a pretty dim view of Paine and what his ideas inspired.

I can only imagine an American perspective is about 180 degrees from that.

Some people are more persuasive than others, too, would you try to restrict that?

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions?

I'm not playing "gotcha", why do you keep answering my question with questions? OHO UNIONS! And, duh. Yes, the answer, to you and jdkaput snarky self is yes.


No one really controls the volume in the sense that others are prevented from expressing contrary views.

This was never anyone's argument. If you contend that $300M dollars doesn't have greater volume, doesn't control the narrative more than $2M, I don't really know what to say. Advertising exists for a reason.

How about this?

Not yet a hurricane, Tropical Storm Isaac has already delivered shock waves from the Caribbean to Florida, postponing terror trial hearings in Cuba and posing a potential threat to next week's GOP convention in Tampa.
.
.
.
Possibly complicating matters, the convention site -- The Tampa Bay Times Forum -- is mandatory evacuation zone once storms reach 96 mph or a Category 2 hurricane, according to the Hillsborough County Hurricane Guide.

link

Looks like I'll be doing hurricane prep all weekend.

The idea that one can not advertise on political issues without disclosing your funding is inconsistent with the 1st Amendment and America's political history and practice.

Read Ron @3653. America's political history and practice is a lot more complex and murky than your blind faith in the absolute, unbending moral absolutism about 'free speech' would indicate. Your position takes the idea as an article of faith, reads the document as a holy text and decries anyone who would question or read it with complexity as an heretic. It's a fundamentally closed and unthinking position from which to enter debate.

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions? Unions seem to be inexplicably exempted from the (general) conversation about restrictions on corporations' speech.

An actual response from an actual, thinking liberal minded individual:

Yes. Unions are always included...

Imagined response of a "liberal" from a "conservative":

Of course not; content czars only have so many hours a day to guide the American people to truth...

This disconnect, and the fact that the "conservatives" will almost certainly continue responding to their nightmare shibboleths rather than the actual responses of real world liberal-minded individuals is why these debates never go anywhere but back to the start of the circle again.

Advertising exists for a reason.

Where's Kneepants when you need him?

Not yet a hurricane, Tropical Storm Isaac has already delivered shock waves from the Caribbean to Florida, postponing terror trial hearings in Cuba and posing a potential threat to next week's GOP convention in Tampa.
.
.
.
Possibly complicating matters, the convention site -- The Tampa Bay Times Forum -- is mandatory evacuation zone once storms reach 96 mph or a Category 2 hurricane, according to the Hillsborough County Hurricane Guide.

This could almost persuade me of the existence of a truly righteous Supreme Being. I wonder if Pat Robertson would blame it on the atheists.

This could almost persuade me of the existence of a truly righteous Supreme Being.

First, reporting on a hurricane is clearly an "ironic" way of sneaking in coverage of The Myth of Climate Change. Second, obviously the sentence is constructed explicitly to tie the GOP convention to terror trial "hearings" in Godless Cuba. This is obviously just another example of Liberal Media Bias at work.

This is obviously just another example of Liberal Media Bias at work.

And liberal weather bias.

Advertising exists for a reason.

But: As free and rational subjects, we all possess the capacities to resist its coercive effects. And for those whose who don't exercise or cultivate those faculties: survival of the fittest, b!tches!

But: As free and rational subjects, we all possess the capacities to resist its coercive effects.

Wrong.

This is obviously just another example of Liberal Media Bias at work.

As was this front page story in today's NY Times:

Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility

Of course the way this works is classic. If a unfavorable-to-Republicans story appears in the Times, the Kehoskies and the DiPernas say "What do you expect from that liberal rag?" And if a front page story like the above one appears, it's "even the liberal New York Times admits...." It's like holding up a fish in front of a trained seal.

Wrong.

Sarcasm, Rickey.

Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility

More of The Liberal Media trying to draw attention away from the 37% unemployment rate Obama caused...

Next?

Sarcasm, Rickey.

Sorry, Boss.

Oh Good Lord!

Judge warns of civil war if Obama is re-elected

An elected county judge in Texas is warning that the nation could descend into civil war if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and is calling for a trained, well-equipped force to battle the United Nations troops he says Obama would bring in.

Saying that as the county's emergency management coordinator he has to "think about the very worst thing that can happen and prepare for that and hope and pray for the best,"

I thought the "Democrat President will turn us over to the UN" nutjobs died out years ago.

More of The Liberal Media trying to draw attention away from the 37% unemployment rate Obama caused...

Not to mention suppressing the breaking news that George Bush killed Obama's father, Saddam Hussein.

An elected county judge in Texas is warning that the nation could descend into civil war if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and is calling for a trained, well-equipped force to battle the United Nations troops he says Obama would bring in.

Saying that as the county's emergency management coordinator he has to "think about the very worst thing that can happen and prepare for that and hope and pray for the best,"

I thought the "Democrat President will turn us over to the UN" nutjobs died out years ago.

Don't worry, Miserlou, if you read down a bit further you'll see that he's just another RINO that the Tea Party will take care of:

KJTV reported that the warning was linked to taxes. Head "indicates a tax increase is needed to shore up law enforcement to protect us,"

I mean if you've gotta choose between being enslaved by the UN or by the local IRS, it seems to me there's no contest. Just ask Ray or Nieporent.

I like this part:

"What makes it so sad is he is our elected county judge, who is in charge of a multi-million dollar budget. That is scary. It's like the light's on, but no one is home... I'd just like to think he's off his meds."

Hey, I thought only we get to say that.

The sheriff's concern is that he won't have the budget to keep law and order and control when the riots start because Obama steals an election in order to hand the US over to the UN. This is just Joe Arpaio written smaller. These sort of nutters are a dime a dozen outside of the urban cores. (This is why I never take seriously anyone who claims to talk about what the GOP/TP base is about while living in the NYC/NJ metro...)

What he's really saying is "If Obama is re-elected, I personally plan to commit treason."

[3661]

In addition to the rich and/or corporations, would you also restrict similar speech and related spending by unions?

I'm not playing "gotcha", why do you keep answering my question with questions? OHO UNIONS! And, duh. Yes, the answer, to you and jdkaput snarky self is yes.

Thank you. I asked a question to get an answer, because ISTM that:
Unions seem to be inexplicably exempted from the (general) conversation about restrictions on corporations' speech.

It's not like I wrote "OHO CORPORATIONS!" :)

Thank you. I asked a question to get an answer, because ISTM that:

I did, too, but all I got back was questions.

Once again, 1st amendment doesn't mean that you cannot restrict speech ever. Restrictions must be necessary and sufficient to promote a compelling interest. The avoidance of corruption and the appearance of corruption is a very compelling rationale for limiting campaign contributions and independent expenditure.

Exactly. The question is not whether or not money is speech. The question is whether donations of money to political campaigns are a form of speech that the government does not have a compelling interest in limiting. I think the compelling interest is clear, and the fact that about 10 individuals now have significant power over the Republican message and ticket is good evidence of the problem.

Again, things don't have to have changed-- the study cited, and your statistic about donations, suggest bias, but they don't establish it. There are countervailing factors intended specifically to constrain the agency of journalists. You're dismissing them because you think "socialization" is a meaningless term.

To the contrary, socialization is at the heart of their bias. Journalists are socialized at J-school and by their peers to be Democrats/liberals. People act according to their beliefs, and they believe as they've been conditioned to believe.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Fortunately, there are editorial standards, conservatively biased editors and owners, and a whole other host of factors that check their ability to assert their political beliefs. If there was fire here, it would be in the form of biased content. A lot of people have looked for it, and simply not found it.

They can't. And more to the point, when you're not lying to yourself or me, you know they can't. Your agreement with Sam in #3672 demonstrates as much.

Tons of people have found biased content. The fact that the media itself and its supporters on the left haven't is hardly dispositive. It's virtually impossible to make a man see what's in his best interest not to see. If it was just righties complaining, I'd find your argument persuasive; after all, lots of lefties insanely complain about right-wing media bias. But when combined with actual data that the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrats/liberals, the claims from the right have credence.

You don't read what I actually write-- I agree that 90% of 238 journalists voting Democrat in the 1980 election suggests there would be a liberal bias in the content those journalists produce. What I disagree with is the assertion, without reference to anything other than inductive reasoning, that this proves media bias. And when you introduce the factors specifically designed to limit the autonomy of journalists employed by media corporations, the case for drawing conclusions from this inference collapses.

So again; Why wouldn't those factors apply towards our hypothetical media made up of 90% KKK members? Or are you arguing that they do, and there would be no reason to worry that the KKK media would produce journalism biased against blacks/jews/whoever? I'm amused by the sudden shift from "suggests" to "proof" though. What would constitute "proof" to you?

It's the consensus in the field, from quantitative and qualitative analysis of both media content and media-content producing organizations. There's a whole field dedicated to studying this stuff in very specific contexts (I linked to a study on editorial endorsements and how those influence voting habits), and they study it in specific contexts because it has been impossible to find a systemic left or right bias in media content. You're focusing on the political leanings of the employees; the Editor and Publisher study McChesney cites focused on the Republican voting patterns of owners and editors. Your assumption that the employees of these news corporations have the power to circumvent the standards set by the owners and editors is a paranoid power fantasy, and it's simply not confirmed by any of the content analysis.

Consensus of whom? Humanities academics? Journalist schools? Lefties arguing on the internets? Where is their DATA? The McChesney study provided no evidence for its assertion that owners and editors were conservative, not even a link to their source. And even if we accept what they say, it doesn't change the fact that rational thought is the slave of our unconscious impulses and preferences. The presence of editors cannot and will not change what people believe or prevent those beliefs from emerging. Besides, for editors and owners to have the level of control you claim they do, they wouldn't even need journalists, they'd just do everything themselves. This is just more rationalization about how we should trust the people benefitting from the status quo. A survey of 10 out of 10 foxes assuring us that the henhouse is "Totally fine. Certainly not in need of any upgraded security. Maybe a BBQ sauce dispenser would be nice though."

There's nothing to negate-- journalists voting Democrat doesn't prove anything about the content they produce. But here's David Crouteau's study from 1998, which tracks more than just which lever journalists pulled:

Others have already explained why such a study is fatally flawed. You're asking us to accept what journalists SAY, but by looking at their political contributions, we can see what they DO. And what they do is give money to Democrats and liberal causes by an overwhelming majority.

My approach to limiting the power of money in politics is to redistribute the living #### out of it.
Couple that with educating people in critical thinking and reducing corporate welfare then who cares what lies they put on tv.


And Sam, did you just try to pull an originalist argument on me? You might want to lay off the sauce, you're losing your edge.

So again; Why wouldn't those factors apply towards our hypothetical media made up of 90% KKK members?

Because extremity is not an argument for equivalence.

Others have already explained why such a study is fatally flawed. You're asking us to accept what journalists SAY, but by looking at their political contributions, we can see what they DO. And what they do is give money to Democrats and liberal causes by an overwhelming majority.

So it doesn't matter what is in the columns, it'll always be biased?

To the contrary, socialization is at the heart of their bias. Journalists are socialized at J-school and by their peers to be Democrats/liberals. People act according to their beliefs, and they believe as they've been conditioned to believe.

Unsupported by evidence. J-schools are professionalization camps. Again, you can read up on this if you want-- the history of the discipline has been studied extensively.

Tons of people have found biased content. The fact that the media itself and its supporters on the left haven't is hardly dispositive.

Cite? You can find individual instances of bias going both ways. What you can't find is systematic evidence of bias toward one side or the other. Good content analysis is painstaking, meticulous, and, more importantly, peer reviewed by people who are sticklers for methodological soundness. What you're doing here is just calling the whole field ########, because that's the only way your unsupported hypothesis can stand up. People who think the media is biased conservatively have found plenty of pieces of isolated evidence supporting their claims, too. What no one has been able to prove is a systemic left/right bias.

But when combined with actual data that the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrats/liberals, the claims from the right have credence.

No. You're very selectively privileging one piece of data, to the exclusion of all other factors. It's willfully stupid reasoning. The owners and editors vote Republican--- in other words, the people who determine which content actually makes it to print and to the airwaves. You're assigning journalists gatekeeping powers they themselves don't actually have.

So again; Why wouldn't those factors apply towards our hypothetical media made up of 90% KKK members? Or are you arguing that they do, and there would be no reason to worry that the KKK media would produce journalism biased against blacks/jews/whoever? I'm amused by the sudden shift from "suggests" to "proof" though. What would constitute "proof" to you?

Your amusement implies that you don't understand your own thinking: "suggests" means just that. The stats on the voting records of journalists suggests there should be a systemic bias in content, absent other factors. You're denying those other factors, because they inconvenience your reductive and simplistic argument.

Consensus of whom? Humanities academics? Journalist schools? Lefties arguing on the internets?

J-schools aren't part of the Humanities. You have no idea what you're talking about here-- this is all just you using your ass to speak on a subject you know nothing about. Social scientists, sociologists, political scientists, and people in the actual field of journalism have all employed multiple methods to study the practice of newsmaking. But you've quite arrogantly decided that you know better, because journalists, like vote democrat. Stunning analysis here, Face.

The McChesney study provided no evidence for its assertion that owners and editors were conservative, not even a link to their source.

November 6th, 2000 article in Editor and Publisher.

And even if we accept what they say, it doesn't change the fact that rational thought is the slave of our unconscious impulses and preferences. The presence of editors cannot and will not change what people believe or prevent those beliefs from emerging. Besides, for editors and owners to have the level of control you claim they do, they wouldn't even need journalists, they'd just do everything themselves.

Again, this is willful ignorance about what actually goes on in newsrooms. The process has been broken down meticulously by people who actually do this for a living. True objectivity is impossible to achieve, but like science, journalistic reporting in the US has a method, and that method is aimed at the production of objectivity.

Others have already explained why such a study is fatally flawed. You're asking us to accept what journalists SAY, but by looking at their political contributions, we can see what they DO. And what they do is give money to Democrats and liberal causes by an overwhelming majority.

All research methods have flaws. That does not make those flaws fatal. The study Joe cited relied on self-reporting as well. And it's also why I suggested reading the details of the study, which look at the specific policy positions of journalists. Not that any of that matters, because, again, you're emphasizing low-level employees (not all journalists are Anderson Cooper (the Silver Fox!) or Wolf Blitzer (the Made-up Name!)) and claiming that they have the ability to dictate content, moreso than the editors, owners and publishers. And there's no evidence for this other than your own fevered, paranoid imagination.

The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.

The National Lampoon's got nothing on the National Review's sense of humor:

What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.

It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t hang out in college bars.

You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

It is time for Mitt Romney to get in touch with his inner rich guy.

Some Occupy Wall Street types, believing it to be the height of wit, have begun to spell Romney’s name “Rmoney.” But Romney can do better than that — put it in all caps: R-MONEY. Jay-Z can keep his puny little lowercase letters and the Maybach: R-MONEY doesn’t own a flashy car with rims, R-MONEY does billion-dollar deals with Keystone Automotive and Delphi. You want to make it rain? R-MONEY is going to make it storm, like biblical. Rappers boast about their fat stacks: R-MONEY’s fat stacks live in a beachfront house of their own in the Hamptons, and the bricks in that house are made from tightly bound hundred-dollar bills. You have a ton of money? R-MONEY has 200 metric tons of money if he decides to keep it in cash.

source

[edit] Also, check out the lead photo in the link. Is it just me, or is it really weird that all the children are essentially wearing the same outfit: orange checkered dresses for the girls and blue checkered shirts for the boys?

The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.

Absolutely right. It's probably the most obvious effect of liberal bias. Glad you're starting to see the obvious.

Re 3689, I read that article, and am some 80% certain it was meant to be funny, the thing is so many others (both left and right) have read it and think it was meant to be serious... is giving me pause.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4215818)

...liberal...

Drink!

Re 3689, I read that article, and am some 80% certain it was meant to be funny, the thing is so many others (both left and right) have read it and think it was meant to be serious... is giving me pause.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it was an attempt at humor ...

My only knowledge of Paine comes from my MA which was on the reactions of the Anglican Clergy in England to the French Revolution. I suppose through almost any study you get more and more sympathetic with the group you are studying, but I came out of it with a pretty dim view of Paine and what his ideas inspired.

I can only imagine an American perspective is about 180 degrees from that.

There's no question that Paine was a radical, even moreso than Jefferson, and a propagandist and polemicist to boot. That's much of what makes his brand of inflammatory, anonymous, populist rhetoric instructive, and why his latter-day descendents should have their rights defended.

I'm not playing "gotcha", why do you keep answering my question with questions? OHO UNIONS! And, duh. Yes, the answer, to you and jdkaput snarky self is yes.

On the off chance that we elect a collection of politicians who have less pure intentions than you, can you imagine that some might have a strong motivation to limit communications by one segment of the population but not another, particularly when livelihoods, subsidies, and pensions are at stake? After 60 years of the Fairness Doctrine, I'd contend that we have every right to be suspicious of attempts to control public speech.

The free speech of people is very important. The free speech of corporations does not worry me nearly so much. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe there is any philisophical difference between R and D regarding free speech (The R team is pumping CU because it is to their advantage).

Discussing bias in the media is very boring. Not really because it goes no where (this is the internet after all), but mostly because the people arguing never specify what they want. What does unbiased media look like? Are we really trying for "fair" or just leave my side alone?

Of course one question would be why are so many journalists liberal? Is it nature or nuture? Put another way are liberals (for some reason) predisposed to seek out journalism (or those who seek out journalism predisposed to be liberal), or does the training and then experience of journalism tend to make them more liberal?

Is bribery an exercise of free speech?

Speaking of free speech, have you gents acquainted yourselves with the case of one Brandon Raub?

Former Marine involuntarily detained for 30-day psychatric evaluation because of Facebook posts Big Brother didn't like

After 60 years of the Fairness Doctrine, I'd contend that we have every right to be suspicious of attempts to control public speech.

Spending $200M more than the other guy in a capitalist structure no framer could have possibly imagined is the attempt at controlling public speech I'm more concerned with, I freely admit.

Speaking of bias, Freddie deBoer has a good discussion of the concept of "bias", written in response to John Chait's column on bias in Hollywood:

You’ll note that conservatives would never undertake a similar project; you are not going to find a conservative writer concern trolling about the massive conservative bias in our military, or in our corporate world, despite the fact that both of these are vastly more powerful forces than Hollywood. Nor will you hear conservatives worrying aloud about the conservative bias of American Christianity, or sports media, or video games. The reason, of course, is that these biases are not seen as bias at all, but just the way things are. To conservatives and ostensibly liberal worriers like Chait, bias is only and ever liberal. Liberal bias in our African American studies programs is a problem to be solved. Conservative bias in the chambers of commerce? Hey, that’s life.

Spending $200M more than the other guy in a capitalist structure no framer could have possibly imagined is the attempt at controlling public speech I'm more concerned with, I freely admit.

Me too. Plutocrats buying elections and governments is a genuine and present threat.