Colbert Super PAC vs. Mitt

Politics & Elections
161

That’s pretty much it. I gotta sleep.

I think I’ve explained my points as well as I can for anyone reading this conversation. I think my last post basically shows to any such readers that free speech does involve a right to be heard (hearable). The argument that this means there’s something wrong with corporate monopolization of means of communication–that’s probably not so well established but hopefully I’ve made it plausible.

Thanks for keeping it up with me, Ibn and Terr. I think it was largely constructive.

162

There is no right to be heard. There is a right to make the speech. By blocking it once it is out but before it has a chance to reach anyone you’re violating that right. That would be equivalent, for example, to confiscating all the newspapers in which the ad is placed before they are distributed. To burning the books before they go to stores. To cutting the cable signal before the ad that is placed there is about to play. All examples of abridging the freedom of speech.

Yet my NOT providing you a megaphone (ad space, billboard, etc) is not abridging your freedom of speech. You don’t have the “right” to any of these things. You don’t have the right to be heard. But you do have the right to speak. Hope this makes it clearer for you.

163

Because the speech that was made was blocked.

Do you understand the difference between blocking something and not disseminating something? The two are very different.

164

I only know of PACs from Te Daily Show. It does indeed seem silly, the non-cooperating bit. But I don’t really understand PACs. What are they? (Wikipedia is down) Why is it that they can’t cooperate to begin with? What harm would that cause?

165

Well, obviously the concentrations of both Insight and The Funny are dangerously high on their shows, which constitutes both a danger to the environment and wholly unfair competition. This monopoly on American laughs ought to be broken down and re-distributed to such individuals as John Letterman or Jay Leno, who haven’t been even slightly amusing in decades.

166

Here you go.

The idea is that it would be wrong for you to just hand a ton of money to a candidate – that’d be perilously close to bribing a public official – but it’d also be wrong to stop you from independently spending your money when expressing your opinion of the guy in newspaper ads and television commercials and so on.

But since you’re not running for office, it’s not bribery for other people – or even corporations – to give you money, right? They just want to help you express your opinion in radio ads and on billboards, is all. And everything I just said about “you” of course likewise applies to “a committee you’re a part of,” since, hey, committees sometimes need a little help expressing their opinions too, right?

167

“Citizens United has removed that distinction between corporations and individuals.”

It was the decision. Corporations were previously unable to do something people were able to do and now as a result of CU they are. That distinction has been removed, or did you think I said ALL distinctions between corporations and individuals had been removed?

No I was trying to highlight how the first amendment conveys an individual right to free speech and not merely a generalized prohibition on the restriction of free speech.

If they met the definition of electioneering by a corporation and they showed the film within the time window then you are right. The FEC dropped the ball.

So what? Are you trying to prove partisan enforcement of these ruels? Remember the FEC is made up of 50% Republican appointees and 50% Democrat appointees.

Your form of argument seems designed to piss people off. Implying someone is a liar is poor form.

Stephen Colbert has no more right to say what he wants than you or I do. In what way does he have more freedom of speech than a billionaire? He simply has more of a right than other corporations by virture of freedom of the press.

See freedom of the press.

Up until very recently the supreme court disagreed with you.

First of all, I doubt Colbert falls under the definition of electioneering and “the press” has been defined by the courts.

How does a limited restriction EFFECTIVELY ban the movie? Or are you saying that the movie no longer serves its purpose if it cannot be aired immediately preceding an election?

In what way am I burning books? The Supreme court has only agreed with you recently and hopefully not for very long.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this. This was not a case of first impression. There was a body of existing aw having to do with the intersection of free speech and elections that the supreme court reversed.

Elections in a democracy are a pretty big public policy concern that probably justify reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech.

And which right conflicts with my right to yell fire in a crowded theatre? Almost all rights have restrictions that are not based on conflict with other rights but rather on public policy concerns.

Freedom of the Press.

The NCRA and the FEC I thought.

Because you want to regulate content not time, manner and venue.

Hehe yeah, crystal clear.

168

While you’ve avoided using the word “liar,” accusations of dishonesty are not welcome in this forum. I’m pretty sure you have been informed of this before.

While the tenor of this thread has improved a bit in the last page, I would like to see a lot more substance on the issues and fewer accusations that other posters want to destroy the First Amendment or hate freedom.

169

Because the Hillary movie wasn’t going to be shown frame by frame on a million consecutive billboards. I thought we were talking about Citizens United?

And way to go, take one issue in my post that you didn’t like, invent a strawman (just because you accused me of it doesn’t make you innocent of the act), and respond to that and ignore the rest of the post.

Public airwaves do not belong to any one entity. They are leased with agreed restrictions from the government, who doesn’t own it but control it by virtue of being the government

170

The government already DOES regulate them both, in any number of ways. But most relevant to the current discussion, there are a wide variety of things that Stewart/Colbert might hypothetically say on air that would cause later sanction, including:
-libel
-invasion of privacy
-fighting words
-revealing confidential information
-immediate incitement to committing crimintal acts (ie, not “we should steal all the money from the banks” but “we should all steal the money from the Bank of America on elm street tomorrow at 7 a.m.”

My point is, there are, and always have been, plenty of restrictions on free speech without that somehow instantly destroying the first amendment, which is at odds with the “so you think X, that must mean you also thing super-extreme-extension-of-X” tone you’ve adopted this entire debate.

171

You’re correct it was very poorly worded.

When I said what he’d said before wasn’t true I didn’t mean that he’d lied but made a statement that was false.

I.E. if I say “Chocolate ice cream is my favorite” and later say “Nothing tastes better than chocolate chip ice cream”(something I’ve seen done) and someone says, “so your first statement wasn’t true” they’re not saying I lied, they’re saying I made an impulsive statement I hadn’t thought through.

Secondly nobody’s been accused of “hating freedom”.

However yes, IMHO, people who are arguing that “the FEC dropped the ball” by not banning the showing or distribution of Faherheit 911 from roughly September of 2003 till after November of 2004 are in fact making a mockery of the First Amendment.

I don’t see how that’s different then saying that supporting the Patriot Act makes a mockery of due process rights.

Several people on this thread have advanced the first argument and I have not called them “stupid” or “idiots” nor do I think they are. I simply think they’re wrong.

By contrast, it has been aggressively asserted that people who support Citizens United “are idiots” repeatedly and no one has suggested they be cautioned or are being intemperate.

It seems pretty clear to me which side has been more aggressive.

172

Irrelevant. The examples I posted and asked your opinion about had nothing to do with public airwaves. Neither did the Citizens United decision - the film in question was going to be shown on cable channels.

173

Ibn, how long have you been in the US, if you are indeed in the US? You’re Muslim, and presumably not born here or grew up here, right? There is a thing called satire. I know, its kind of a foreign concept to someone from your part of the world where criticizing leaders can get you killed, but really, its ok here, we do it all the time!

Now a satirist is kind of a joke maker. He makes fun of the absurdities in society, speaks truth to power in a roundabout, comedic way. Some people who joke around are simply comedians, but some people, such as Stewart and Colbert, do so in the political realm, wielding their comedic squeaky hammers in the sphere that includes Congress, the President, or your local YMCA club director.

Now a bad satirist is blatant, I think, and tells you how things should be. A good satirist shows you and through intricate wordplay, contrasting images, or puppets with hands up their asses, and does so well enough that you get what they are saying. That’s what Frylock is trying to tell you.

Stewart, and especially Colbert, will NEVER say outright that the Super PAC (and lets be clear, they are talking about the Super PACs, not their shows) should be censored, or regulated in so many words. Instead, they show you how absurd this new type of political bribery is, and expect you to get it. When Colbert transfers the Super PAC powers to Stewart by holding hands and shining a green light on them, that’s satire. They are mocking transfer of legal powers by contrasting it with transfer of superpowers done in comic books, like the Wonder Twins. When Colbert talks about how he cannot coordinate with Stewart, yet can basically tell him what to do through his show, that’s satire.

What the audience takes from that is that there is little difference in allowing Super PACs to function as they are because the transference of power and the inability to coordinate is so easily skirted, and so it makes the law ineffective, even stupid. If enough people get that, they might be moved to do something about it, make laws, vote representative into office that can change the status quo. That’s the point of Colbert and his Super PAC. They are not going to tell you what to think, they expect that you are smart enough to get the joke and what constructive action will flow from that

And this is why many liberals find that hilarious, because there are people like you and Terr out there who, despite the silly lights, comic book power transfers, and blatant loopholes, you still don’t get it. That’s hilarious. Its also a bit sad because you went through like 50 posts with Frylock and you’re still demanding him to cite you an actual statement from Stewart and Colbert as if you’re an alien from another planet and don’t understand the concept of a joke

Cable channels don’t use airwaves?

174

In general you’re allowed to insult groups of people, but not individual posters or groups of them. The “idiots” comment is in the second post in the thread (originally the OP of a separate thread). If it had been made in response to someone saying he supported the Citizens United decision I would have said something. In that circumstance it might be a banned insult.

It was a sarcastic paraphase. I didn’t want to go back through the thread to quote the examples where posters were accused of promoting the destruction of the First Amendment and democracy and so forth.

175

Correct. Thus the “cable” part.

176

No they don’t. That’s why they can have graphic sex, swearing and nudity on HBO’s True Blood or The Wire but not on say Lost or Hawaii-5-0.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html

177

Is it any less an abridgement of freedom of speech simply because a public good is being used?

I mean why is it any more acceptable to let people promote genocide against muslims than it is to permit people to show boobies on TV? And this is purely a content issue.

178

That’s actually really interesting, you learn something new everyday I guess.

But you missed this part where it talks about this:

And the last paragraph:

The first one deals precisely with what we’re talking about: even if you think they can’t, there are provisions in Federal law that regulates even private entities. Generally, they are done for the public good. You can’t, for example, say that you are allowed to murder on your own property. If you own your own station, you can’t broadcast state secrets or snuff films. To say that the government has no right to regulate that is false. I’ll admit that I had thought these channels had more to do with public airwaves, but it doesn’t have to really. Plus, like the last paragraph says, there are workarounds and indirect ways to regulate channels, some of them I support and some of them I don’t. Restricting electioneering happens to be something I support, and with good reason

Now, how about answering the electioneering questions in post #81? So what if the laws restrict speech in some instances? There are worse things to a democracy than telling a group they can’t air the Hillary movie during a specific period. Telling home owners they can’t electioneer in their own homes, for instance, seems far worse. I suspect its because in one case, you need a corporation and large sums of money to make it effective.

179

I think you’re not following the conversation.

I wasn’t expressing an opinion regarding the FCC or the constitutionality of its regulating TV and radio stations.

Yog made the understandable mistake of thinking that cable TV used the airwaves and I corrected him.

180

And I am making the point that the FCC is an agency of the federal government and yet here they are making a big dEal about some boobies when the federal government seems to be perfectly fine letting people preach genocide against Muslims.