How the hell do you know how white I am? You’ve never seen me dance.
Yes, I am cognizant of the irony here, but could you flesh that out some, please?
You don’t really think you’ll get away with that one, do you?
White skin privilege? Oh noes! We’ve been found out! We’re going to have to get a black person to make him answer the question. I’ll call Herman Cain!
It makes perfect sense that I’d distinguish between a purely politically motivated group and a for-profit corporation that just happens to tilt one way politically. Especially since the majority of the people in Ford, for example, are probably Union-supporting Democrats while management is the opposite. On the contrary, I can say with near certainty that everyone in the KKK probably thinks the same about minorities
Take it from a Chinese guy asking you then. So what is your answer to the question?
I ask you because from your statements, you don’t strike me as having thought out the answer, which is why I suspect you refuse to give an answer and would rather dance around the issue. You strike me as someone who, while professing to want to be an ardent defender of the 1st Amendement, feels that there is some small part of you, some unexplainable bit, that knows that money vastly affects how free a man is but you are holding out hope that someone will articulate an answer you can get behind. Because as it stands, you know that money affects political power, and you are against this inequality. But something’s holding you back because you are afraid that equalizing the use of money will lead to worst results, or unforseen ones, that will make things less fair for your cherished 1st Amendment. You don’t have to respond to this speculation, I’m just thinking out loud here, but that’s why I believe you refuse to answer the question. You know you’d be wrong and would have nothing to hide behind, and you simply don’t want to go there
But political speech can be restricted. If I worked for the government, maybe in the military, and ran an active compaign against whatever current president we have, that would be grounds for court martial. If I were on staff for a Senator, and publically spoke out against him, he could fire me. To claim or infer that there are no restrictions and no punishment for political speech is false and a simplification. Its like saying all humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. In a normal sense, yes, but there are always exceptions.
There are exceptions to political speech. Calling for the violent overthrow of the government is 100% political, but I can be arrested. There’s laws against espionage and treason, though rarely enforced, they are still the law. Sure, most of it has to do with material support, but like the recent killing of the American born Al-Qaeda member shows, even if you just make speeches for an organization, you can be targeted. Now don’t try to spin off his death into a right or wrong question, the point is that there are widely held exceptions; the correctness of his killing shouldn’t overshadow the fact that it happened.
So no, Kennedy was either speaking generally or using semantics to refer to some specific case. He knows as well as I do, as well as you should, that political speech can be restricted, as the Supreme Court decision showed in the trial. 4 out of the 9 justices agreed with that, a not insignificant number.
So? People can push for all kinds of dumb shit, legal and illegal.
Why do that when there are already laws that restrict it? To encode it into the Constitution? No need for that when its easier and faster to do it through the courts
Or you are substituting your own definition in order to make a point. What part about my distinction between a for-profit organization like Sony and the KKK is incorrect?
Nitpick, this is no 1st Amendment violation. Getting fired from a job not punishment, and certainly understandable given your example. You could critize the Senator all you want, you just don’t get to be paid for it.
I know, true censorship cannot come from anything except the government, but in practical terms, it matters little if I’m being fined by City Hall or fired from my job.
I used the example of a Senator because he’s part of the government, I’d be out of a government job, the punishment would come from a government entity, but technically it would not be backed by the United States government. Though my speech is protected, I’m not protected from the consequences of exercising it even from a government entity
I see the Citizens United as a larger version of anti-electioneering laws. Here in LA, we have laws that ban electioneering a certain number of feet from a polling place, and from the election department’s offices. I wonder if Ibn would consider that an affront to the 1st Amendment as well.
It still goes to the heart of the matter that Ibn refuses to address: that money provides unfair political power to those who have it. Is that right? I don’t think so, many here don’t. Ibn obviously argues for the opposition but he’s failed to address what his beliefs are, probably knowing that it’d be picked apart if he does. Does he believe in equality and think money has no power? Or that money has power but its more equal to let people fend for themselves? Or does he not believe in fairness and think that it doesn’t matter if money confers political power?
I didn’t really have an issue with the ruling. As I see it, if the government can stop advocacy groups from getting their message out effectively within a window before the election, but the media/news corporations can blare whatever message they want up until the election, the government is picking who is protected by the 1st Amendment and who isn’t. I’m uncomfortable with the idea that only a handpicked group of big corporations can project any message any time they want while a corporation founded to effectively get out a message that some citizens feel strongly about is blacked out.
Certainly.
For several decades now, the vast majority of free speech issues that have come up are not ones where whites as a group and particularly white males weren’t adversely affected.
Whites, with obvious exceptions, aren’t affected by Islamophobic demagogues stirring up hatred so when they oppose laws banning hate speech, they’re not really making any sort of sacrifice.
Similarly, white males aren’t adversely affected by pornography or the way the sexualization of images of women has led to an epidemic of eating disorders in the US, so when they oppose bans on pornography or limiting sexualized images of women, they’re not making any sacrifices.
The same is true of a number of other issues, such as violent video games or laws restricting the demonization of abortion providers.
Most of the whites standing on the side of “free speech” against those who argue for “the public good” are arguing for allowing something they don’t feel threatened by.
In fact, the very language used by advocates of free speech. They love to quote Voltaire’s “I’ll disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it” or Alan Dershowitz saying the true test of a free speech advocate was to defend the rights of people saying things you personally are offend by.
What they never recognized was that people arguing for such laws weren’t doing so because they “disagreed with” or “were offended by” those making such statements, but because they felt threatened by them.
Now, of course we have an issue where many of the people telling Muslims to put up with Islamophobic bigots or African-Americans to put up with the KKK suddenly feel threatened and their commitment to the idea of free speech goes out the door.
Beyond that, the “privilege” I was talking about is that those who defend the right of bigots to spread their hate are never asked to explain if they understand the pain, suffering, fear and sometimes death or victimization that’s a consequence of allowing such speech.
By contrast, I’ve had countless people demand that I answer questions about the alleged power that wealthy people have.
Whites who argue for allowing the Nazis to march through black neighborhoods aren’t subjected to demands to prove they’re not racist and that they’re sensitive to the concerns of minorities, while on this issue, I’ve had people repeatedly demand that I prove my sensitivity and understanding of the power wealthy people supposedly exercise.
There’s a fairly obvious double standard there.
I’ve never stated my beliefs on those matters because they’re not relevant as to whether or not private individuals by themselves or working together can be prevented by the government from advocating on behalf or against a political candidate.
To use a comparable example, does allow bigoted preachers spreading hatred and fear about gays and Muslims make society better or worse?
Does allowing demagogues to proclaim abortion is murder to demonize abortion providers create a climate in which some abortion doctors will be murdered?
Perhaps in both cases the answer is yes or perhaps in both the answer is no, but the answer is irrelevant.
If the First Amendment guarantees the right of bigots to spread their hatred then they get to spread their hatred and damn the consequences.
Similarly, if the First Amendment prevents the government from stopping individuals from advocating for or against political candidates than they can do that and damn the consequences.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the effort you went to to provide it.
I can’t honestly say that I’m persuaded by your arguments, but they do provide me with some perspective.
You’re welcome.
As far as I’m concerned, electioneering should basically stop for all third parties except the candidates themselves. The trial wasn’t about stopping a specific group or viewpoint, it was about the larger issue of money and influence. If money can be concentrated as in a corporation or advocacy group, and that group has unlimited access to spread its influence, democracy suffers. Better to eliminate all corporate personhood with regards to free speech and simply make individuals be forced to speak out if they want to
Such a blanket statement has no place here.
Well no, its the Pit, not GD. But you’re wrong
I think its quite a stretch to say that games and abortion does not affect white males. Many of them play games. As far as abortion goes, there are plenty white males who are touched indirectly by the act, and public opinion seems pretty evenly split on the issue so its a bad example to use to say that its not something people demand explanations of. Plenty of people demand of a white male his reasoning and intent if he makes his position known
Some things have been pretty clearly settled by history and only the stupid would seek to use tired arguments already confuted a hundred years ago. This inequity in wealth in a democratic government, not a monarchy, is relatively new to the world. That’s why the arguments and fights are being made now. A hundred years ago, people accepted as normal the children could work in factories and bosses could work you to death.
That’s a cop out. Of course its relevant. It speaks to your character why you supoort something as heinous as the continued inequality of wealth and power. There’s a difference between manslaughter and Murder 1, and each case has to be approached differently. I am not white, so your assertion that its got a racial component is out of line. I ask strictly as a part of the discussion
Your understanding of the 1st Amendment is horribly misleading and simplistic. There are restrictions on speech within both of those examples. Abortion demonizers cannot advocate violence, their picketing is restricted, and they cannot physically block entrances, just to name a few regulations on their rights.
Bigotry can also cover incitement to violence. A KKK member burning a cross in a black guy’s yard isn’t cited for improper fires, he can be charged with a hate crime. I think those things make our society better. Consequences are considered all the time.
I’ve never said I supported those.
You’re making moronic assumptions based on your own stupidity and ignorance of the law.
Assuming that the ACLU supports “the continued inequality of wealth and power”(which you must unless you’re even dumber than I thought) would be like me accusing you of supporting bigotry for supporting the right of Nazis to march through black neighborhoods.
That said, since you’re hurling unwarranted accusations at me I’ll assume that you’re bigoted against Muslims and blacks and based on your logic, I’m correct.
He’s probably Dutch. Those people are like that.
Of course you support the inequality and the ACLU doesn’t. They have a history of equal opportunity defense. You don’t. I don’t assume based on anything except your own words
If you want to play games and pretend to be the victim of some racial crime, go for it. It won’t make your argument any better. Or you can go ahead and answer the question about how you personally feel.
Yup, I was afraid of this. You’re even stupider than I thought.
You assume that I “support wealth inequality” based solely on the fact that I support the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United but apparently don’t think the same of the ACLU despite the fact that they pushed for the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
You do realize that Floyd Abrams was the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case don’t you?
Now, I understand that you believe that it would have been perfectly justifiable for the US government to ban* Fahrenheit 911* during the 2004 Presidential election, and that those of us who object to it being banned support the vast wealth disparities within the US and support protecting the rich from the rabble, but most of us disagree with you.
BTW, the above was dead serious. I really do assume you feel that Fahrenheit 911 should have been banned or “banned during the 2004 election(for the pedants)” and those who object to that are supporters of Louis XIV. If not, well, again, you’re even dumber than I thought.
Its interesting that you still so easily descend into a blithering idiot whenever one of your asinine attacks fail to hit its mark. I suppose when you’re born a moron, no amount of pretending will make you look otherwise.
Listen, and I’m going to speak slowly to you: Nobody is talking about any made up fictional universe in which Moore’s documentary is banned. Indeed, one would have to pretend the arguments were made and decisions rendered in order to use this fantasy as an example of a real life case, but I suspect your hold on the line between real and fake is tenuous at best. Make up whatever parallel dimension bullshit you want about that case, its irrelevant, as are your arguments.
The only thing here matters is the reasons for the very real Citizens United case, whose position you’ve so far utterly failed to defend. You’re like a child trying to sit at the grownups table, stomping your feet and crying about how big you are and why you deserve to sit there, but when asked why, all you can do is pee your pants.
Of course I’m going to ask you again, why do you support the inequity in power that wealth provides? Its an untenable and evil position, and you strike me more as ignorant that malicious. That’s your only saving grace, I suggest you hold on to it. The ACLU has defended positions I disagree with, but they are consistent as far as I’ve known them, and they have a history that one can look to easily see that they are not coming from some position of racial supremacy. You, however, get hurt and claim a racial bias in some thread about money and politics, tell me that doesn’t rattle oddly in your pea brain. But blind as you are, I’m willing to give you another chance to answer, if only to help educate you. If you drop the childish tantrum on race, you can come to the adult’s table and talk about money and politics. Or just pee your pants and cuss, whatever