Colbert Super PAC vs. Mitt

[Terr]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

How about a happy compromise, corporations are all limited to 5000 dollars like I am as a real fucking person. Simple.

Corporations are limited to 0 dollars - unlike you. Corporations are prohibited from direct contributions to federal campaigns. You aren't.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

How about a happy compromise, corporations are all limited to 5000 dollars like I am as a real fucking person. Simple.

I think you may have misunderstood what Citizens United is about.

I get the impression that you're referring to donations to political candidates since private individuals are limited to $5000 donations.

Citizens United didn't have anything to do with direct donations to political candidates in fact the judges made it clear that the decision DID not affect limits on the amount of donations to individual candidates.

What the decision did affect was the ability of people to agitate in favor or against political candidates for office.

Specifically what it dealt with was the FEC's decision to effectively ban a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton.

Thankfully the Justices decided that the government shouldn't be able to ban books or movies and struck down McCain-Feingold dealing a great blow for free speech.

Obviously, just as many have disagreed with SCOTUS rulings regarding flag-burning, hate speech, porn and other decisions many didn't like the ruling.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Terr

Did I say that? Did you read what I posted at all? Where in that post is there anything about "providing" anyone with money? Can you point out that sentence in my post?

I dunno, did you read what I said? The parenthetical was referring to my previous post. So do you think that limiting a person's ability to spend money on electioneering is the same thing as repealing the first amendment or were you being a bit hysterical there?

Originally Posted by Terr

No, that's not the issue. Note that the amendment doesn't say "people have a right to free speech". The amendment protects speech itself.

If you're claiming that the decision is based on other decisions that may be based on other decisions at the root of which is "corporate personhood" - you'd have to provide me with that chain of citations. Because I don't think that's correct.

Depends on how you look at it. Speech from juridical entities are not entitled to the same sort of protection as speech coming from an individual. And up until Citizen United, there was a line of cases that agreed that congress could limit speech based on the non-human nature of the speaker, the Supreme Court reversed itself for no good reason other than having changed its mind.

I'm not making a point about corporate personhood, I'm making a point that up until very recently the court distinguished between rights afforded to individuals and rights afforded to corporations. Citizens United has removed that distinction between corporations and individuals.

Originally Posted by Terr

There is no "right to free speech". There is a restriction on Congress to prevent it from abridging speech - whether the speech originates from a person, from a hundred-year-old book, from a group of people, from a corporate entity, or from outer space.

If the amendment wanted to create a "right to free speech", it would have said "the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed". It doesn't.

Of course there is a right to free speech, all the case law points to the right as an individual right, IOW if congress passed a law saying that you and only you cannot voice dissent against the government, then your right to free speech has been infringed. And that right up until very recently did not apply equally to individuals and corporations, still doesn't.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

So then does that mean I can spend as much money supporting a candidate for office that I like as Michael Moore did making Fahrenheit 911 attacking George Bush as well as the amount of money the Colbert Report does criticizing candidates Stephen Colbert doesn't like?

You seem to think that some sort of dual standard was being applied to Citizens United that was not applied to Michael Moore. The law would not have prevented Citizens United from showing its film if it had released it outside the 60 day window like Michael Moore did. The problem was that Citizens United wanted to show the film inside the 60 day window.

Stephen Colbert on the other hand is arguably the Press.

Originally Posted by Terr

In USSR, you could say whatever you wanted to a non-snitching friend, but God forbid you disseminated something in print that the state didn't approve. Pure freedom of speech, wouldn't you say?

Yes because passing laws that are designed to prevent from money from unduly affecting elections is police state communism.

Originally Posted by rogerbox

How about a happy compromise, corporations are all limited to 5000 dollars like I am as a real fucking person. Simple.

That would be $5000 more than they can donate today. The problem is a bit more subtle than that. Citizens United really had to do with a restriction on corporations from spending money on electioneering withing some number of day of an election. An individual on the other hand did not face a similar restriction.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Specifically what it dealt with was the FEC's decision to effectively ban a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton.

Thankfully the Justices decided that the government shouldn't be able to ban books or movies and struck down McCain-Feingold dealing a great blow for free speech.

You do realize that the FEC didn't BAN the movie, they didn't allow it to be played withing the restricted time period to prevent corporate electioneering. They could have played the movie all they wanted before and after the window.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I'm not making a point about corporate personhood, I'm making a point that up until very recently the court distinguished between rights afforded to individuals and rights afforded to corporations. Citizens United has removed that distinction between corporations and individuals.

Show me the language in the decision that stated this because I certainly don't remember it.

Of course there is a right to free speech, all the case law points to the right as an individual right, IOW if congress passed a law saying that you and only you cannot voice dissent against the government, then your right to free speech has been infringed. And that right up until very recently did not apply equally to individuals and corporations, still doesn't.

So then you're saying that if Congress passed a law forbidding EVERYONE from dissenting then they wouldn't have violated anyone's free speech?

You seem to think that some sort of dual standard was being applied to Citizens United that was not applied to Michael Moore. The law would not have prevented Citizens United from showing its film if it had released it outside the 60 day window like Michael Moore did. The problem was that Citizens United wanted to show the film inside the 60 day window.

You just destroyed your argument. Michael Moore's film was repeatedly shown within the 60 day window of multiple primaries including the general election.

By the standards you've set it should have been banned.

Stephen Colbert on the other hand is arguably the Press.

So then when you argued earlier that no one should have more right to free speech you weren't telling the truth then?

I ask because this statement seems to indicate that Stephen Colbert has rights that ordinary individuals don't have.

Moreover, the point is irrelevant because his show is produced by a corporation and according to the general consensus of this thread corporations don't have rights to free speech.

All that should matter is that he's(and the corporation he works for) is spending money to influence an election.

All, exactly how and why is "Comedy Central" "the press" but not "Citizens United"?

For that matter, why is Stephen Colbert the Press but not Michael Moore?

By your standards all a corporation has to do is declare itself part of the press and the laws you're supporting are useless.

You do realize that the FEC didn't BAN the movie, they didn't allow it to be played withing the restricted time period to prevent corporate electioneering. They could have played the movie all they wanted before and after the window.

You need to reread what I said. I didn't say that it BANNED the movie, I said that it "EFFECTIVELY" banned the movie.

Now, I'm sorry that you've chosen to throw your lot in with the book-burners of the world, and as a great man said, there are many ways to burn a book, but thankfully the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

That said, I will give you credit for making it clear you felt that Michael Moore's movie should also have been banned.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Depends on how you look at it. Speech from juridical entities are not entitled to the same sort of protection as speech coming from an individual.

The first amendment disagrees. It says "speech". It doesn't say "speech from anyone except juridical entities".

IOW if congress passed a law saying that you and only you cannot voice dissent against the government, then your right to free speech has been infringed.

... and if congress passed a law saying that corporations cannot voice dissent against the government, then that speech is being abridged. Which the first amendment prohibits.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyway, I have never once heard an explanation as to why people arguing that all niggers deserve to murdered should be protected by the First Amendment while people saying that Newt Gingrich sucks shouldn't.

I find it hard to believe that a person can get away with speech that can be proven to lead to people being killed. Maybe you are right but I hope not and if so that is wrong and the law should be changed. The government has, or ought to have, a duty to attempt to prevent murders.

Either it's constitutional for the government to punish people for trying to influence an election by agitating in favor or against a particular candidate or it's not.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing the law from recognizing that some forms of agitation are acceptable and some are not. The government has, or ought to have, a duty to prevent bribing politicians and buying elections.

People who publish books have other objectives other than just making money and it makes little sense to say that something that is "commercial" should be subjected to different regulations.

My point was not that books should be considered commercial speech (which I believe has less constitutional protection than political speech) but rather that people are generally trying to make money from them. As opposed to books that cost a lot of money designed to influence an election.

Beyond that, it is certainly good to meet someone who's upfront and proud about being a bookburner so congratulations.

I wouldn't advocate burning any books. "Regulating" in this case would mean, at most, limiting publication right before an election. And again, only if it can be proven that books actually do unduly influence elections. I'm pretty dubious. People have to go out and get a book to read it. It's not in your face like attack ads.

It's simply that most people ignore the fact that the core issue of Citizens United was whether or not the US government could prohibit the airing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton and also that under McCain-Feingold it would have been perfectly permissible to ban the movie Fahrenheit 911.

I'm also dubious about the electoral effect of movies. They don't require as much of an investment of time and attention as books but still, they aren't in your face either. And again, prohibiting something for a couple of months right before an election is not the same as banning it. Neither of these films would have been banned by McCain-Feingold.

[Crackrat]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Under the guidelines that most seem to be setting both Colbert's show as well as Stewart's should be regulated.

Yes, and so do Colbert and Stewart. But since they're NOT regulated, they're mocking as loudly as they can with the money in the SuperPAC.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

So then does that mean I can spend as much money supporting a candidate for office that I like as Michael Moore did making Fahrenheit 911 attacking George Bush as well as the amount of money the Colbert Report does criticizing candidates Stephen Colbert doesn't like?

Or, did they spend to much and as a result should be sanctioned by the government for spending too much?

My argument is that, in any given context, there is some number that is too much. What that number is I don't pretend to know.

Do you think Free Speech Zones and other rules about the manner and timing of speech are permissible under the constitution? If so, how do you answer the prima facie objection that they constitute abrogations of freedom of speech?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Crackrat

Yes, and so do Colbert and Stewart. But since they're NOT regulated, they're mocking as loudly as they can with the money in the SuperPAC.

You believe that the government should regulate The Colbert Report and the Daily Show?

Please explain.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

Hilarious. How about "you can say whatever you want but you cannot print it or put it on cable tv" - since that only limits how speech is disseminated, is it ok from 1st amendment perspective, you think?

No, I wouldn't be okay with a rule like that, would you? Do you think I've said something implying I should be? I haven't.

Do you think free speech zones and other government mandated rules about manner and timing of speech are constitutionally permissible? If so, how do you answer the prima facie objection that these rules constitute abrogations of freedom of speech?

It amazes me how the supposedly liberal types, when you scratch lightly, turn out to be hoary authoritarians.

The guy who advocates for a rule you don't like is the one who gets to be called an "authoritarian." The guy who advocates for a rule you like, however, is "preserving freedom." Don't get caught by the rhetoric. Let's figure out the truth, not what names we can slather over each other.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

My argument is that, in any given context, there is some number that is too much. What that number is I don't pretend to know.

Ok, but then are you saying that I can spend as much money as was made making, promoting and distributing Fahrenheit 911 on behalf of or against a candidate I don't like or do you think Michael Moore spent too much money and should have been sanctioned.

Answer that and I'll happily answer your question regarding the "free speech zones".

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Under the guidelines that most seem to be setting both Colbert's show as well as Stewart's should be regulated.

Yes, this is exactly Colbert's point. He is saying "I should not be permitted to do what I am doing. Why are you letting me do this? This is absurd!"

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyway, I have never once heard an explanation as to why people arguing that all niggers deserve to murdered should be protected by the First Amendment while people saying that Newt Gingrich sucks shouldn't.

The sanctions shouldn't depend just on the particular message, but on the message given its context.

If Rush Limbaugh says on the radio that all niggers should be murdered, then he should be sanctioned for that. If he says it to his wife at home, he shouldn't be sanctioned for that.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Ok, but then are you saying that I can spend as much money as was made making, promoting and distributing Fahrenheit 911 on behalf of or against a candidate I don't like or do you think Michael Moore spent too much money and should have been sanctioned.

I already told you, I don't have a number in mind. I don't know what it would be in any particular situation. I don't know how much Moore spent. I don't know if it was too much. This is a red herring. My argument is just that, given a particular situation, there is a number of dollars which, if spent in a particular way, buys "freedom of speech" for one person at the expense of others' freedom.

That is the correct answer to your question.

Answer that and I'll happily answer your question regarding the "free speech zones".

Are you interested in figuring out (or communicating) the truth of things, or are you interested in squirting statuses at people and hoping they stick?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

No, I wouldn't be okay with a rule like that, would you? Do you think I've said something implying I should be? I haven't.

I didn't ask you if you'd be ok. I asked you if this rule would violate the 1st amendment, in your opinion. You know, since you claimed that if you just limit the method of dissemination of speech, that's fine.

Do you think free speech zones and other government mandated rules about manner and timing of speech are constitutionally permissible? If so, how do you answer the prima facie objection that these rules constitute abrogations of freedom of speech?

The "free speech zone", ostensibly, is not about limiting the speech, but about not endangering lives. Just like the "fire in movie theater" restriction is. As long as it's about that, it is justified. Because there is a conflict between two rights, and one (right to life) trumps the other. If there is no danger to life, and it is used to restrict speech without the correct justification, yes, the "free speech zones" are unconstitutional.

The guy who advocates for a rule you don't like is the one who gets to be called an "authoritarian."

The only reason the first amendment violation can be justified is if it conflicts with another right. Since what you're advocating has no such justification that I can see, yes, that's authoritarianism.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

My argument is just that, given a particular situation, there is a number of dollars which, if spent in a particular way, buys "freedom of speech" for one person at the expense of others' freedom.

I'd like you to expand on this. First of all, freedom of speech is not "bought". If it was bought, it wouldn't be freedom. It would be a service.

You can say whatever you want. You cannot get other people to disseminate your speech for free, usually. And those people have no obligation to disseminate your speech, and if they refuse to do it, that is not abridging your speech. So - can you explain exactly how one person's freedom of speech can come at the expense of others' freedom? Describe a hypothetical situation, election-related if possible.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

I didn't ask you if you'd be ok. I asked you if this rule would violate the 1st amendment, in your opinion. You know, since you claimed that if you just limit the method of dissemination of speech, that's fine.

A poor summary of my post.

I said it is not unconstitutional to limit the method of dissemination. I did not say that all limits to methods of dissemination are "fine". Nor did I even say that all limits to methods of dissemination are constitutional. What I said was, in summary, that just because a limit is made to methods of dissemination, this doesn't by itself make for unconstitutionality.

My evidence tha tit's not unconstutional to limit the method of dissemination? The widespread legal and (for the most part) popular acceptance of regulations concerning when and how people may exercise their right to free speech.

My point in saying it's not unconstitutional? I am arguing that limits on campaign contributions and campaign ads etc are of a piece with limits to manner and place of speech. The rationale for limits to manner and place applies equally well to limits to funds spent on ads etc.

I don't know what the limits should be, just as I don't know where all the "free speech zones" should be. I'm simply pointing out that if you're okay with free speech zones and things like that, there's no reason you shouldn't be okay with monetary boundaries as well, in principle.

The "free speech zone", ostensibly, is not about limiting the speech, but about not endangering lives.

That's incorrect. That's one concern, but far from the only one. A big concern is making sure that this group's act of speech doesn't interfere with this other groups ability to enact speech. Public order is a necessary condition for the exercise of free speech. Speech acts unconducive to public order interfere with freedom of speech. Hence limits to manner and place.

Speech acts unconducive to broad public access to the means of communication also interfere with freedom of speech. Hence these acts also need to have limits imposed on them.

The only reason the first amendment violation can be justified is if it conflicts with another right. Since what you're advocating has no such justification that I can see, yes, that's authoritarianism.

Authorianism is hte view that the people with formal authority ought to be obeyed regardless of the correctness of their views. This has zero to do with anything being said in this thread. Everyone here is arguing about waht the correct view is, not about who should be obeyed.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

I'd like you to expand on this. First of all, freedom of speech is not "bought". If it was bought, it wouldn't be freedom. It would be a service.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, I think. I seem to recall (but I might be remembering something wrong here?) that there was a recent decision in which they explicitly said, in these actual words, that money is speech.

I can't understand the meaning of that phrase other than as a way of affirming that the freedom to speak can be bought.

You can say whatever you want.

But I cannot be heard by whoever may want to hear me if you shouting over me. Corporate-supported (and I here mean "corporate" in a broad sense--unions would be included for example) speech is the equivalent of shouting in the metaphor I just gestured at.

This is not to say that everyone should be able to be heard by everyone they want to hear them. But it is to say that the speech of each person should be reasonably available. The presence of corporate-sponsored speech makes most people's speech not reasonably available.

[Frylock]

(Note: I made several changes to the last couple of paragraphs of the above.)

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Yes, this is exactly Colbert's point. He is saying "I should not be permitted to do what I am doing. Why are you letting me do this? This is absurd!"

Huh?

When has either Colbert or Stewart ever suggested that the government should regulate the Colbert Report or the Daily Show?

Please provide the links.

f Rush Limbaugh says on the radio that all niggers should be murdered, then he should be sanctioned for that.

Huh?

You've never heard of Brandenburg V. Ohio?

People are very much allowed to say that without getting sanctioned.

Like I said, many white liberals who pushed for that decision protecting the KKK's right to call for genocide against black people suddenly think that the First Amendment while requiring minorities to put up with such crap are perfectly fine with the government fining people for saying mean things about Hillary Clinton.

In fact, countless prominent commentators have spewed forth hate speech against minorities without any call whatsoever amongst the liberal whites who piss in their pants at that thought of people being allowed to show documentaries criticizing Hillary Clinton are perfectly fine with nothing happening to other commentators calling for genocide or near genocide against minorities.

To give one obvious example to show how ludicrous your Rush Limbaugh example was. Ann Coulter repeatedly stated regarding Muslims "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

I have yet to hear a single prominent White American liberal argue that she should have been fined or prosecuted for saying this, which she's done in print publications, on the web, and on TV.

If you think I'm wrong then name a single well-known white liberal American political figure who's called for her being sanctioned by the government for saying such things.

Sorry, but like I said, white liberals have massive blind spot where hate speech and Citizens United are concerned.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I don't know what the limits should be, just as I don't know where all the "free speech zones" should be. I'm simply pointing out that if you're okay with free speech zones and things like that, there's no reason you shouldn't be okay with monetary boundaries as well, in principle.

As I pointed out, the only justification to violating 1st amendment would be if it conflicted with other rights. I don't see "monetary boundaries" as justified using that rule. There are no rights that conflict.

That's incorrect. That's one concern, but far from the only one. A big concern is making sure that this group's act of speech doesn't interfere with this other groups ability to enact speech.

See my "rule" above.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Huh?

When has either Colbert or Stewart ever suggested that the government should regulate the Colbert Report or the Daily Show?

Please provide the links.

It's the point of their joke. They don't say it--it's the implication of their joke. They say it by enacting the absurdity of its opposite.

What do you think their point is?!

[Huh?

You've never heard of Brandenburg V. Ohio?

People are very much allowed to say that without getting sanctioned.

I didn't say he's not allowed to--I said he should be sanctioned. I didn't say he would be, I said he should be.

But in any case, the case you mention makes an exception for speech which will imminently lead to the unlawful action being carried out--and though I didn't specify it, I did mean it to be assumed that if Limbaugh said "all niggers should be killed" on the radio, then of course, several black people would be killed as a direct result--no doubt immenently.

To give one obvious example to show how ludicrous your Rush Limbaugh example was. Ann Coulter repeatedly stated regarding Muslims "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

I don't see advocacy here for an illegal act. I'm not sure why you think this example is relevant tbh.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I already told you, I don't have a number in mind. I don't know what it would be in any particular situation. I don't know how much Moore spent. I don't know if it was too much. This is a red herring.

No, it's not a red herring?

I'm asking you to have the courage of your convictions.

Since you won't give any numbers, then let's say for the sake of argument that the corporation responsible for Fahrenheit 911 spent 100 million dollars to make, produce and distribute it.

In your opinion, did they spend too much and therefore deserve to be sanctioned or do you think it was fine of them to do so.

For myself, I'll be quite honest.

I think it's not only a clear violation of free speech but frankly unAmerican to suggest that the government should have sanctioned the Moore or the corporation that made the movie regardless of how much money was spent.

As all Ray Bradbury fans should know, book-burners are horrible and people who entertain the idea that movies and books should be censored by the government are morons.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, I think. I seem to recall (but I might be remembering something wrong here?) that there was a recent decision in which they explicitly said, in these actual words, that money is speech.

I can't understand the meaning of that phrase other than as a way of affirming that the freedom to speak can be bought.

Huh? Freedom to speak cannot be bought. What you can buy is the means to be more widely heard. But since there is no right to be heard, you're not buying any "right".

Money is speech in the sense that your political donation expresses your support for the candidate. There is no difference in principle between me buying $10,000 worth of advertising space and placing an ad for the candidate in it and me giving the $10K to the candidate so that he can do the same.

Corporate-supported (and I here mean "corporate" in a broad sense--unions would be included for example) speech is the equivalent of shouting in the metaphor I just gestured at.

Again, expand on that. How exactly is my spending megabucks on political speech abridging your freedom of speech?

This is not to say that everyone should be able to be heard by everyone they want to hear them. But it is to say that the speech of each person should be reasonably available.

I'd love to know what "reasonably available" means. I support candidate X. Should the newspaper provide free space in it for me to express that support? Should the TV network? Billboard company? Should the government buy a megaphone for me?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

As I pointed out, the only justification to violating 1st amendment would be if it conflicted with other rights. I don't see "monetary boundaries" as justified using that rule. There are no rights that conflict.
See my "rule" above.

There's no argument here, you've just restated your position. Moving along...

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

No, it's not a red herring?

I'm asking you to have the courage of your convictions.

Since you won't give any numbers, then let's say for the sake of argument that the corporation responsible for Fahrenheit 911 spent 100 million dollars to make, produce and distribute it.

In your opinion, did they spend too much and therefore deserve to be sanctioned or do you think it was fine of them to do so.

Dude, I do not know how much is too much. Why do you keep asking me? It has shit-all to do with the issue at hand.

I do not know if they should have been allowed to spend as much as they did. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

The correct answer to your question is I do not know. Isn't this the third time you've asked and I've answered?!

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

There's no argument here, you've just restated your position. Moving along...

I just answered your "free speech zone" argument. So try to find another one.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I don't see advocacy here for an illegal act. I'm not sure why you think this example is relevant tbh.

This is quite possibly one of the most moronic things I've actually read on this site.

You're actually arguing that you think that calling for the commission of genocide against Muslims is not "an illegal act".

That's certainly mighty white of you.

Now, if you honestly don't understand why a Muslim like myself would think that it's relevant to a discussion of hate speech a prominent conservative calling for the bombing of all Muslim nations, the killing of all Muslim leaders and the conversion of surviving Muslims to Christianity than all I can say is that you are completely clueless.

I certainly can't imagine any self-respecting black person continuing a discussion with someone who says they see nothing wrong with a call for mass lynchings so I'm done talking with you.

Good night.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

Huh? Freedom to speak cannot be bought. What you can buy is the means to be more widely heard. But since there is no right to be heard,

Actually there is. Now I do not know what courts have said about anything called a "right to be heard" but it is clear from logic and definitions that a right to speech without a right to be heard is meaningless--and I presume the right to speech is not supposed to be meaningless. Hence, there must be a right to be heard as well. (In other words, if there is a right to speech, then there is a duty to allow speech to be heard. And if there is a duty to allow speech to be heard, then there is a right to be heard.)

Again, expand on that. How exactly is my spending megabucks on political speech abridging your freedom of speech?

One way it happens is this: The megabuck-supported speech on the airwaves distorts and polarizes everyone's perceptions of the political situation is ways that make it literally impossible for me (or you) to be understood in any meaningful context no matter how clearly we communicate our views. If it is impossible for you to be understood, though you are communicating in a way that is, objectively speaking, perfectly clear, then it is impossible for you to speak in the "free speech" sense.

I'd love to know what "reasonably available" means.

You're right, it's an extremely important question--one which no one asks, but everyone should be asking. I don't have an answer for it, but people should be discussing it on the streets. Earnestly. As it is, the question is ignored.

What do you think it means for your speech to be reasonably available to others? How available does it need to be for you to feel your speech acts have had their proper effect--the effect you have a right to according to our constitution?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

This is quite possibly one of the most moronic things I've actually read on this site.

You're actually arguing that you think that calling for the commission of genocide against Muslims is not "an illegal act".

The quotation you gave says nothing about genocide. It says countries should be bombed, leaders killed, and people converted. I am not aware of a US law that makes the first and last inherently illegal. (If you or I did it, that'd be illegal. If the government does it, it's legal.)

There is, though, a US law against killing other nation's leaders, though--so you caught me there. I'd forgotten about that.

If Coulter's words were likely to lead immenently to the commissioning of that act, she shouldn't be allowed to say it. That's not just my opinion, that's actual law--under the very case you cited earlier.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

I just answered your "free speech zone" argument. So try to find another one.

No, all you said was you "don't see" monetary boundaries as "justified" under the rule I mentioned. Didn't give any argument that they're not justified. You just stated you "don't see" them justified. This is simply you stating your position without support.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Now, if you honestly don't understand why a Muslim like myself would think that it's relevant to a discussion of hate speech

Wait.

Who's having a discussion about hate speech?

Not me. Are you? I was trying to have a discussion about whether and when there can be legal limits to acts of speech. I mentioned advocacy for criminal acts which would lead to those acts being immenently carried out, as an example of speech which should be sanctioned. I wasn't thereby intending to make the conversation one 'about hate speech.' My arguments are all just about whether there can be rules about who can say what how and when under the constitution. I claim that there can be such rules.

I certainly can't imagine any self-respecting black person continuing a discussion with someone who says they see nothing wrong with a call for mass lynchings so I'm done talking with you.

Hahahahahaha oh you're serious. I was talking about legality. You're mischaracterizing me as saying something about what's "wrong" or "right." What an incredibly blatant and immediate falsehood you've just written! I thought you had to be joking. But you're not. I wonder what it is you're doing instead?

Good night.

I BID YOU GOOD DAY.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Frylock

What do you think it means for your speech to be reasonably available to others? How available does it need to be for you to feel your speech acts have had their proper effect--the effect you have a right to according to our constitution?

For example, I'm sure you'd think you didn't have freedom of speech if you were allowed to speak your mind only inside your house. But--you're allowed to say whatever you want in that case, aren't you? So why isn't your speech free?

Isn't it because in such a situation, your speech isn't reasonably available to others?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Actually there is. Now I do not know what courts have said about anything called a "right to be heard" but it is clear from logic and definitions that a right to speech without a right to be heard is meaningless

No it isn't. You have the right to speak. I have the right not to listen to you. You do not have the right to be heard.

One way it happens is this: The megabuck-supported speech on the airwaves distorts and polarizes everyone's perceptions of the political situation is ways that make it literally impossible for me (or you) to be understood in any meaningful context no matter how clearly we communicate our views.

See, you say "distorts and polarizes". I say "explains and educates". But you apparently want the government to be the arbiter of what "distorts and polarizes". And you don't see any problem with that?

You're right, it's an extremely important question--one which no one asks, but everyone should be asking. I don't have an answer for it, but people should be discussing it on the streets. Earnestly. As it is, the question is ignored.

The question is ignored because it is ridiculous to assert that you have the right to have your speech "reasonably available" to others. Others have an absolute right not to listen to you.

What do you think it means for your speech to be reasonably available to others? How available does it need to be for you to feel your speech acts have had their proper effect--the effect you have a right to according to our constitution?

Again, you are under an erroneous impression that the Constitution gives you some kind of right for your speech to have a "proper effect". That's a ridiculously false impression.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

No it isn't. You have the right to speak. I have the right not to listen to you. You do not have the right to be heard.
See, you say "distorts and polarizes". I say "explains and educates". But you apparently want the government to be the arbiter of what "distorts and polarizes". And you don't see any problem with that?
The question is ignored because it is ridiculous to assert that you have the right to have your speech "reasonably available" to others. Others have an absolute right not to listen to you.
Again, you are under an erroneous impression that the Constitution gives you some kind of right for your speech to have a "proper effect". That's a ridiculously false impression.

Pursuant to everything you said above, I'm most interested in hearing what you'd say in answer to my later post, quoted below:

For example, I'm sure you'd think you didn't have freedom of speech if you were allowed to speak your mind only inside your house. But--you're allowed to say whatever you want in that case, aren't you? So why isn't your speech free?

Isn't it because in such a situation, your speech isn't reasonably available to others?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

For example, I'm sure you'd think you didn't have freedom of speech if you were allowed to speak your mind only inside your house. But--you're allowed to say whatever you want in that case, aren't you? So why isn't your speech free?

Isn't it because in such a situation, your speech isn't reasonably available to others?

No, because such a situation would violate the first amendment.

The constitution protects your speech from Congress' laws. But - it does not require anyone (ANYONE at all) to listen to what you say. It also does not require anyone (ANYONE at all) to promote your speech or disseminate it. That ANYONE includes both government and private citizens.

And - if you speak but no one listens, your speech is not "reasonably available" to anyone. Probably because of the quality of that speech. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

See, you say "distorts and polarizes". I say "explains and educates". But you apparently want the government to be the arbiter of what "distorts and polarizes". And you don't see any problem with that?

A. I'm really surprised--genuinely--if you actually think there is corporate-sponsored political speech out there which genuinely explains anything or educates anyone. But I've been surprised many times before...

B. More importantly, no I have not said hte gov't should arbitrate what distorts and polarized. I have rather advocated for a rule (enforced by gov't) as to how much can be spent on speech. Having the limit in place does not arbitrate anything, unless you think that certain points of view literally cannot be expressed if there is a limit to how much can be spent to express them. The current system distorts and polarizes--a system with monetary limits would be one in which education and explanation could happen without interference. If money and power do not affect which reasoning gets heard, then the best reasoning will have the opportunity to win out over time. But if money and power affect which reasoning gets heard, then the best reasoning will not be heard and will have no opportunity to win out.

[Ibn Warraq]

Sigh, I guess I'll do one last little bit of fisking.

Originally Posted by Frylock

The quotation you gave says nothing about genocide.

You've never read up on the legal definition of genocide have you.

t's the point of their joke. They don't say it--it's the implication of their joke. They say it by enacting the absurdity of its opposite.

You honestly think that John Stewart thinks that the Daily Show should be sanctioned for criticizing political candidates?

Please give me a clip of him saying anything remotely like that.

But in any case, the case you mention makes an exception for speech which will imminently lead to the unlawful action being carried out--and though I didn't specify it, I did mean it to be assumed that if Limbaugh said "all niggers should be killed" on the radio, then of course, several black people would be killed as a direct result--no doubt immenently.

You clearly misunderstand the decision. The speaker must know that as a result of his speech lawless activity will immediately occur. I.E. a mafia don ordering his men to "fire" at someone.

If what you say were true then Bill O'Reilly could get in trouble with the government if following one of his rants regarding "Tiller the baby-killer" someone killed George Tiller, but in actuality he could only get in trouble if he KNEW that saying those words would lead to that result.

That being said, as I said before I can't imagine any black person continuing to talk with someone who thinks calls for mass lynchings are perfectly fine and doesn't understand why they're being brought up in a discussion of hate speech so I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who wonders why I bring up how prominent white people who call for mass murder against Muslims, the bombing of all Muslim countries, and the conversion of the survivors to Christianity.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

No, because such a situation would violate the first amendment.

But I do not understand why that is so, unless I have a right to be heard.

If I do not have a right to be heard, then Congress can make a law that says I can speak my views only in my own home. That wouldn't violate my right to free speech--because they have allowed me to say whatever I want.

But of course, it does violate my right to free speech. Why? If I am allowed to say whatever I want? Because limiting my speech to my home makes that speech unavailable to others. In this way, we can see that the right to be heard is part of the right to free speech.

If you don't think that it's this--the fact that the speech would be unavailable to others--which makes the proposed rule an abrogation of first amendment rights, then what else is it? Is it the fact htat a limit has been placed on where I may speak? But that can't be it--we already know that such limits can be placed perfectly constitutionally. So--if it's not the placing of limits, and if it's not the interference with the availability of my speech, then what is it? What is it about the proposed rule that makes it wrong according to the first amendment? Why is it an example of abrogating your freedom of speech?

And - if you speak but no one listens, your speech is not "reasonably available" to anyone.

Of course it is. The availability of something does not entail its actually being taken up by anyone.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

A. I'm really surprised--genuinely--if you actually think there is corporate-sponsored political speech out there which genuinely explains anything or educates anyone. But I've been surprised many times before...

It's a matter of opinion. I don't think the government should be the arbiter of that.

B. More importantly, no I have not said hte gov't should arbitrate what distorts and polarized. I have rather advocated for a rule (enforced by gov't) as to how much can be spent on speech.

Because, as you argue, too much speech "distorts and polarizes". So you DO want the government to arbitrate what distorts and polarizes.

The current system distorts and polarizes

Or "educates and explains".

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

A. I'm really surprised--genuinely--if you actually think there is corporate-sponsored political speech out there which genuinely explains anything or educates anyone. But I've been surprised many times before....

Ah... fuck it, this is way to juicy a line to let go.

You've never read any books on politics that were informative?

You've never read any newspaper articles that were informative?

Hell, you think Cecil Adams' columns don't "educate anyone"?

You realize that those are all examples of "corporate-sponsored political speech" don't you.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

But I do not understand why that is so, unless I have a right to be heard.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Nothing there about any right to be heard. Hope this makes you understand why that is so.

If I do not have a right to be heard, then Congress can make a law that says I can speak my views only in my own home. That wouldn't violate my right to free speech--because they have allowed me to say whatever I want.

They abridged your speech out in public.

But of course, it does violate my right to free speech. Why? If I am allowed to say whatever I want? Because limiting my speech to my home makes that speech unavailable to others.

No. Because they abridged your speech out in public. You seem to have some kind of mental block there.

Is it the fact htat a limit has been placed on where I may speak? But that can't be it--we already know that such limits can be placed perfectly constitutionally.

Only if lack of such limit violates someone else's right. Prohibiting you from speaking in public has nothing to do with violation of someone else's rights.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

B. More importantly, no I have not said hte gov't should arbitrate what distorts and polarized. I have rather advocated for a rule (enforced by gov't) as to how much can be spent on speech.

Again, far too juicy to let go.

So then you're saying the government should be able to regulate how much the New York Times can spend broadcasting their views on upcoming elections, right?

Similarly, you think the government can regulate how much money Saturday Night Live can spend doing skits on the election right?

After all, both are example of "corporately funded political speech".

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Sigh, I guess I'll do one last little bit of fisking.



You've never read up on the legal definition of genocide have you.

Why don't you provide a freaking link? Be constructive.

I looked it up. You're right--she advocated killing the leaders with the intent to destroy (at least in part) a religious group. (This intent is illustrated by her comment about conversion. Conversion itself isn't a genocidal act, but I'd stipulate that her conversion comment shows what her intention is, and her intention was in fact genocidal.)

Under international law, she advocated genocide, and she should be prosecuted. Absolutely.

What was your point again? (Thanks for bringing the legalities of it to my attention but Jesus Christ, man, be more constructive about it. Bring the definitions to the table. Most people won't be as earnest with you as I have been. Put some effort into the truth-seeking if you're actually serious about it.)

You honestly think that John Stewart thinks that the Daily Show should be sanctioned for criticizing political candidates?

Please give me a clip of him saying anything remotely like that.

Didn't I already address this? His joke is intended as an illustration of this very view--he's saying there should be a law against hte kind of behavior he is engaging in. That's the point of his joke. Again--what did you think his point was?

You clearly misunderstand the decision. The speaker must know that as a result of his speech lawless activity will immediately occur. I.E. a mafia don ordering his men to "fire" at someone.

Rush knows if he says "all niggers should be killed" then lawless activity will immediately occur. If he doesn't know it, he should, and I know there are "reasonable knowledge" standards that tend to apply in cases like this.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Didn't I already address this? His joke is intended as an illustration of this very view--he's saying there should be a law against hte kind of behavior he is engaging in.

No. His joke is intended to express his opinion that there should be a law against such SuperPACs. But the logic posted here by you and others would require him to shut down his show (SHOW, not the PAC) because he (Stewart, Colbert) has too much speech, which violates other people's "right to be heard", and "distorts and polarizes" (to borrow your phrasing).

Are either Stewart or Colbert advocating shutting down their shows?

[Frylock]

Ok Terr, that's a nice point--the limit to the house goes further than simply defending others' rights. So it's unconstitutionality doesn't rest on a right to be heard.

Now, the following situation would be horrible in many ways, but I want to ask very specifically whether you think it interferes with the first amendment right to free speech.

Suppose someone invented a kind of "cloaking device" for sound, and they placed the device on my person without my consent, and whenever they heard me beginning to talk politics, they turned the device on.

Now, I can continue talking--the device doesn't keep me from making sounds. It simply keeps the sound from getting further than about two inches from my mouth.

Okay, clearly a lot of illegal things have happened here. But the question I'm interested in is, has the person, by using this device, interfered with my free speech rights?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Terr

No. His joke is intended to express his opinion that there should be a law against such SuperPACs. But the logic posted here by you and others would require him to shut down his show (SHOW, not the PAC) because he (Stewart, Colbert) has too much speech, which violates other people's "right to be heard", and "distorts and polarizes" (to borrow your phrasing).

Are either Stewart or Colbert advocating shutting down their shows?

Ok, I understand now.

Yeah, I'm open to the idea that the correct limit could be one which would cause their shows to have to shut down. Sure. Why would you think I wouldn't be open to that possibility?

Of course, as you guys have already pointed out, things get hairy when it comes to definitions of "political speech." I have in mind more directly election-advocacy related speech, if only for the sake of having lines as clean as possible to deal with. But sure, the issue's not a simple one.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Didn't I already address this? His joke is intended as an illustration of this very view--he's saying there should be a law against hte kind of behavior he is engaging in. That's the point of his joke. Again--what did you think his point was?

I'm sorry but I think you missed my point(which is at least partly my fault). I'm not talking about the Superpac ad, I'm talking about the SHOW called The Colbert Report hosted by Stephen Colbert and the show called The Daily Show hosted by John Stewart.

Based on the standards you've set, they should be regulated.

You don't think that John Stewart actually thinks the Daily Show should be regulated do you?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I'm sorry but I think you missed my point(which is at least partly my fault). I'm not talking about the Superpac ad, I'm talking about the SHOW called The Colbert Report hosted by Stephen Colbert and the show called The Daily Show hosted by John Stewart.

Based on the standards you've set, they should be regulated.

You don't think that John Stewart actually thinks the Daily Show should be regulated do you?

See above, Terr helped clarify this for me. I don't know what Stewart thinks (nor do I much care when it comes to this particular issue) but I am certainly open to the possibility that the correct limit would be one htat makes it impossible for him to run his show.

But see my prior post--there are of course a lot of thorny definitional issues that'd have to be hashed out here about what constitutes "political speech" and which "political speech" should have monetary limits etc. That's fine--as I've said I don't pretend to have any detailed ideas about how this can be worked out. I'm just arguing that there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about htere being some such limit.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Ok Terr, that's a nice point--the limit to the house goes further than simply defending others' rights. So it's unconstitutionality doesn't rest on a right to be heard.

Now, the following situation would be horrible in many ways, but I want to ask very specifically whether you think it interferes with the first amendment right to free speech.

Suppose someone invented a kind of "cloaking device" for sound, and they placed the device on my person without my consent, and whenever they heard me beginning to talk politics, they turned the device on.

Now, I can continue talking--the device doesn't keep me from making sounds. It simply keeps the sound from getting further than about two inches from my mouth.

Okay, clearly a lot of illegal things have happened here. But the question I'm interested in is, has the person, by using this device, interfered with my free speech rights?

Since there are "clearly a lot of illegal things" happening here, I would say clear those things first, then worry about free speech. Just the fact that you cannot come up with an example without making up a complete fantasy that involves a lot of illegal things destroys the argument right there.

This would not be a first amendment issue. First amendment issues arise when the government abridges someone's speech. That's not the case in your example.