How/why Liberals Attack Free Speech

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by article
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.

so... the point at which it's illegal to publish one's opinion is after one has already published his opinion? what a shame. at the risk of sounding like an anti-free-speech liberal, i think it isn't such a bad thing that only a certain amount of money may be spent for advertising on a candidate's behalf. if there were no limits at all, might it not simply become a matter of buying an elected office by out-advertising the opponent?

'course, it isn't always purely a matter of campaign spending. several years ago, a texas businessman named michael huffington came to california and spent a large sum of money (including somewhere between $25 million and $30 million out of his own pocket), trying to buy a seat in congress in a race against a local incumbent, and failed. i think that ill-conceived run for office might've been his wife's idea though, since he's rightly faded from the spotlight and she's been all over the television ever since. but god forbid such foolish examples of "free speech" be muzzled, or that they don't find loopholes around spending rules like slush and soft money.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@16 January 2004 - 20:59
Because I respect you J2, I read the article in it's entirety, although at several points I felt strong warning twinges.

Thomas G. West is a professor of politics at the University of Dallas, and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute

The Claremont Institute

Liberal author Fred Friendly

Fred Friendly

etc.,etc.

And your take on this article is?
I'm not interested in a cut-and-paste war here ( although there may be others who feel differently), your use of the article with no comment however, leads me to believe that you endorse the contents without reservation.
Yes?

I guess at this point what I'm most interested in is whether there is any agreement on the general point:

Is free speech being stifled, and; Are liberals behind the effort?

I continually get the idea from all, or almost all, here, that, yes-there is an attempt to stifle free speech, but it is the Republicans who are behind it.

For example:

I know I bang on at length on occasion about such things as abortion, vis a vis Planned Parenthood, etc., and my view that they seek a judicial silencing of opposing view-points, and that their efforts to do so thus constitute a circumventing of state's rights issues as well as any referendum that would allow the people's voice to be heard.

If, as many of you postulate, it is true that a solid majority of people favor an absolute and unconditional right to abortion, why shy from a referendum? Why the immediate and automatic rush to seek judicial remedy?

As to state's rights:

They still exist, at least constitutionally, yes?

Before the Supremes began to overstep (long, long ago, but for purposes here, let us say Roe v. Wade) the states would have retained the right to decide the issue themselves, with the effect of possibly creating a legal checkerboard of rights, and it may have come to pass that a citizen would have been responsible for keeping him-or herself apprised of what rights existed where they live, instead of the willy-nilly propagation of rights, which leads to the dis-or unengaged citizenry we currently have.

These are the seeds of ignorance.

If we agree on nothing else, may we agree most of the Tuesday lever-pullers are ignoramuses, or that to a large degree we have this condition to thank for the inexcusable voter-apathy in this country?

I find myself, in cynical moments, wishing voters could be means-tested, but please believe me when I say I wish people were not so conditioned by the system to a state of bovine ignorance they don't even know where their polling place is.

Now, I tip my hat to you, Clocker, as you are the only responder to my post who even claims to have read the whole post.

The others all make excuses; to this I would reply that you are in the WORLD EVENTS section, and this is not the place to brandish a lack of attention-span.

I fully realize the hardship (for lack of a better word) presented by the length of such a post, but there is a method to my madness, and I don't think, at this juncture, I should have to explain what it is.

It is analagous to another situation:

Many here who rail against the United States and what they regard as our greed and voracious consumerism suffer an absolute failure to understand any of the concepts, theories, or facts of capitalism.

There is a textbook on the subject; it appears in novel form:

"Atlas Shrugged", by the author Ayn Rand.

I've read it, and it is a definite bear to read; well over a thousand pages-a daunting task-and written in somewhat dense prose, but anyone who dares will come away with an understanding of capitalism, and those who merely think they know capitalism and it's reasoning and logic will certainly be relieved of their ignorance.

Bottom line, the Ayn Rand reader may not be convinced, but they would know whereof they speak, and also gain a much-needed understanding of the inherencies of the U.S.

I don't appreciate continually having to read tomes from a CRT myself, but as your token conservative, I have a felt need to make myself insufferable at times, as you well know.

If any of you are still reading, I will take a moment to apologize for the preceding rant (for that is what it was) and offer a blanket amnesty to all non-readers, much as our President has seen fit to commit a similar act of total and utter idiocy with regard to the flood-tide of immigrants from the south.

Anyway, developments such as those enumerated in my post will surely not aid in remedying any of the problems (politicians) facing us.

My sincere apologies to those apathetic souls who think everything is hunky-dory in the good old U.S. of A., And I hope my flagging popularity here doesn't suffer too badly in light of my ongoing, um.....prickliness.



Yes, I mean it sincerely!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+16 January 2004 - 22:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 16 January 2004 - 22:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 January 2004 - 09:05
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.

so... the point at which it&#39;s illegal to publish one&#39;s opinion is after one has already published his opinion? what a shame. at the risk of sounding like an anti-free-speech liberal, i think it isn&#39;t such a bad thing that only a certain amount of money may be spent for advertising on a candidate&#39;s behalf. if there were no limits at all, might it not simply become a matter of buying an elected office by out-advertising the opponent?

&#39;course, it isn&#39;t always purely a matter of campaign spending. several years ago, a texas businessman named michael huffington came to california and spent a large sum of money (including somewhere between &#036;25 million and &#036;30 million out of his own pocket), trying to buy a seat in congress in a race against a local incumbent, and failed. i think that ill-conceived run for office might&#39;ve been his wife&#39;s idea though, since he&#39;s rightly faded from the spotlight and she&#39;s been all over the television ever since. but god forbid such foolish examples of "free speech" be muzzled, or that they don&#39;t find loopholes around spending rules like slush and soft money. [/b][/quote]
Your last paragraph provides another lesson:

Let the spender beware&#33;

Money spend in aid of propagating ignorance is often a blessing.

[vidcc]

note to self...i must point out to J2 that i read every word of his posting just in case he takes me for someone that might debate a point of his without first reading it.
sorry j2 i didn&#39;t realise that i have to admit to this.

edit...why on earth did this come out twice?

[John91783]

GREAT POINT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; j2k4 I am a conservative and agreed with your article 100% good work

It&#39;s soooo important to spread this CRITICAL AWARENESS to the everyone&#33;&#33;



spreading knowledge +awareness help to fight for and protect our freedoms&#33;




(one error though)..... in the begining of ur article u accused Libertarians as having interests against fredom of speech&#33;&#33;&#33; this is so incorrect&#33;

Libertarians are strict conservaties(the most conservative minded party much more conservative than even the Republican Party. They fight for the freedoms established in the Constitution&#33;


LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT LIBERALS......they are the farthest appart ideologically... :angel2:

[Biggles]

J2

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that all who would seek to look to our "best interests" would do so as quickly and conveniently as possible. Consequently, broad debate and discussion never get a chance and "the law" or financial muscle are sought as first recourse in almost every case.

I think the comments made by Kilroy-Silk were at best unfortunate, but the knee jerk reaction and legal action action taken against him serves no one.

Likewise the knee jerk reaction in the US to a passing comment by one of the Dixie Chicks is likewise deplorable.

The good professor appears to have accidentally omitted the Committee for Un-American Activities in his brief history of the erosion of constitutional freedoms- shome mistake shurely

So, yes there are areas where we have tied ourselves in knots and whilst there have been major advances in many aspects of personal freedom (i.e. Oscar Wilde would not be sent to jail today but rather revered for his wit and genius) there are always those who would try to curtail what we say and do because they think they are right. The professor&#39;s own endorsement of an 18th century concept of "natural moral order" falls into the self same trap.

My own preference is for complete freedom of speech - even for those who disagree with my own own position and are therefore clearly misguided.

[j2k4]

Biggles, old buddy-

Your post is an exemplar of rationality, as ever, but:

Might I request you seek out a book (if you can find it where you are) called "Treason" by Ann Coulter?

I&#39;m very sure you will be appalled at her flaming rhetoric, but she has done an exhaustive job of recounting the true history of HUAC, Joe McCarthy, and that whole post-war period.

It deconstructs the entire mythology built up around McCarthy, and undoes much of the revisionism that has taken place in the intervening years.

I guarantee a nice ration of enlightenment.

John 91783-

Thank you, and good to have you aboard.

I think Libertarians and Conservatives have a few things in common, but while this may be the case, I find they have some strange ideas about free speech; in any case, they were not the thrust of my reason for posting that lengthy.....um.....post.

What I would really like is to have a Libertarian on board to provide the proper bona fides.

Do you know any?

I know one, but he is also, oddly enough, a bit of a Luddite-no computor.

[John91783]

j2k4 I am glad to hear that you are a conservative... thats great, but I suggest u learn the real facts about what the Libertarian party is all about&#33;

I am a Libertarian which means I am very conservative... :beerchug:
I oppose everything the liberals (left wingers) stand for.




As for the Libertarian view on freedom of speech:

We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. We recognize that full freedom of expression is possible only as part of a system of full property rights. The freedom to use one&#39;s own voice; the freedom to hire a hall; the freedom to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or a transmission cable; the freedom to host and publish information on the Internet; the freedom to wave or burn one&#39;s own flag; and similar property-based freedoms are precisely what constitute freedom of communication. At the same time, we recognize that freedom of communication does not extend to the use of other people&#39;s property to promote one&#39;s ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:


Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;


Reception and storage equipment, such as digital audio tape recorders and radar warning devices, and the manufacture of video terminals by telephone companies;


Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;


Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", file libraries, websites, and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom.

Commercial speech or advertising.
We oppose speech codes at all schools that are primarily tax funded. Language that is deemed offensive to certain groups is not a cause for legal action.

We favor the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission as we would provide for free market ownership of airwave frequencies, deserving of full First Amendment protection.

We oppose government ownership or subsidy of, or funding for, any communications organization.

We strongly oppose the government&#39;s burgeoning practice of invading newsrooms, or the premises of other innocent third parties, in the name of law enforcement. We further oppose court orders gagging news coverage of criminal proceedings -- the right to publish and broadcast must not be abridged merely for the convenience of the judicial system. We deplore any efforts to impose thought control on the media, either by the use of anti-trust laws, or by any other government action in the name of stopping "bias."

Removal of all of these regulations and practices throughout the communications media would open the way to diversity and innovation. We shall not be satisfied until the First Amendment is expanded to protect full, unconditional freedom of communication.




A Principled Stand Against Censorship :beerchug:


The Libertarian Party is the only political party in the United States with an explicit stand against censorship of computer communications in its platform. The Libertarian Party also opposes restrictions on the development and use of cryptography.




As a political party, the LP is the only anti-censorship organization that gives you a chance to vote for freedom of speech on Election Day -- by voting for Libertarian candidates for public office.

[j2k4]

Thank you for that comprehensive and excellent post; I know more now, certainly, than before.

But, as to our differences, minor though they might be:

I see a need to (and here is my difficulty: defining exact parameters)
manage certain types of information; i.e. pornography-there must be some mechanism to keep it out of certain hands (1); and (2), while I agree that restrictions on who can broadcast what be de-regulated, I see a need to manage the orderly assignment of broadcast frequencies (to avoid overcrowding) and oversee licensing to insure overconsolidation of control and ownership is not allowed to occur.

The FCC could do with a good bath to aid in shrinkage; it is much too top-heavy.

I am, as you are, opposed to government subsidy of any broadcast group-let them raise funds privately and broadcast as best they can.

I believe us to be very close on the overall issue.

You realize, of course, that your presence here will raise hackles?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by John91783@17 January 2004 - 21:58


Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;

John.
even though i don&#39;t really want to see pornography (honest it&#39;s true) i don&#39;t like the idea of being told i can&#39;t look at it if i wish, being well over the age of majority.
A direct question.
you oppose all censorship...would you include censoship of child porongraphy or would you draw the line there? because any party or individual that condones that sort of thing deserves to die a slow and painful death