The left hates free speech

[BrainGlutton]

@cornopean

Do you deny that universities are overwhelming leftist?

I do. Most university departments are completely apolitical, and just about every campus has a conservative presence.

[Ravenman]

@cornopean

what was the slur? and calling someone a racial slur is stupid but not a free speech violation.

“Macaca,” and you have previously been complaining about people being “shouted down” for holding differing views. In that case, Senator Allen shouted down someone by insulting their race simply because that person was filming Senator Allen at a public event.

what does this prove? one guy goes to a university and isn’t assaulted so…that proves??

It proves that people shouldn’t take your words very seriously. You said that leftist speakers don’t need bodyguards at universities… but neither do right-wing speakers, either.

Anyway, it really isn’t worth debating this with you. You hold such a ridiculously partisan view, your arguments aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, you flip-flop your principles depending on what is most convenient for you to argue at the moment, and it’s clear your only purpose here was to make “the left” into a boogeyman that you can beat like a two dollar mule. There isn’t really any debate here, it’s just an attempt at a provocative show.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Hank_Beecher

Let’s talk about this idea of yours that you get to decide what Bob’s “personal freedom” is, and on this basis limit the way he and others collectively express themselves, limiting them to individually shouting on the street corner.

Better idea: let’s not talking about this stupid fuckin idea you’re attributing falsely to me.

@Hank_Beecher

Yes I have. I reject the idea that the government should get to decide who constitutes “The Press”, and who is thus excluded from the restrictions to political speech.

Well don’t you deserve a cookie. You asked about the editorial page of the NYT, which was a stupid question, given the amendment’s text.

[Revtim]

@cornopean

Do you deny that universities are overwhelming leftist?

I was denying that two incidences at one university represents “the left”.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@cornopean

Marxists believe that the govt is the answer to all of society’s ills.

Are you shitting me? The same Karl Marx that wanted to dissolve the state after a revolution into a worker’s classless and nearly anarchist utopia?

Read a book, dude.

[Falchion]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Did you read the amendment?

Why wouldn’t the amendment prevent the New York Times from endorsing a candidate?

Section One says that 1st amendment rights only apply to natural persons and, emphatically not to for-profit corporations. Section two says regulations cannot infringement the freedom of the press (a right we just clarified applies only to natural persons and not to for profit corporations). Section three bans expenditures.

Why wouldn’t printing an endorsement (an expenditure) by the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) violate Section Three since it can’t claim protection for the freedom of the press which (per Section 1) it lacks.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Falchion

Section two says regulations cannot infringement the freedom of the press (a right we just clarified applies only to natural persons and not to for profit corporations).

This is a tortured misreading of the amendment, and I’m almost certain you know that.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Falchion

Why wouldn’t the amendment prevent the New York Times from endorsing a candidate?

Section One says that 1st amendment rights only apply to natural persons and, emphatically not to for-profit corporations. Section two says regulations cannot infringement the freedom of the press (a right we just clarified applies only to natural persons and not to for profit corporations). Section three bans expenditures.

Why wouldn’t printing an endorsement (an expenditure) by the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) violate Section Three since it can’t claim protection for the freedom of the press which (per Section 1) it lacks.

This is an exemption on the restriction to political speech for entities determined by the government to constitute “The Press”.

[Voyager]

@Hank_Beecher

Only when it suited your interests.

Byrd saw the light. I believe it is possible to be saved from the dark side, but then I used to be a Republican, and a conservative one at that. At least for the 1960s and '70s - I’d be a pinko today with those beliefs.

[BrainGlutton]

The right hates free speech. The left hates expensive speech.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@cornopean

Do you deny that universities are overwhelming leftist?

I certainly do. Prove it.

@cornopean

Marxists believe that the govt is the answer to all of society’s ills.

I’d call this the worst butchering of Marx I’ve ever seen, but almost nobody you see on forums like this from the right knows what any of the following terms means: marxist, socialist, communist, fascist - so I guess I’ll just settle for “read a book” along with Dorkness.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@cornopean

what does this prove? one guy goes to a university and isn’t assaulted so…that proves??

Presumably, it proves the converse of whatever this guy “proved” in the OP. His name looks awfully familiar.

@cornopean

Notice how the left is blocking free speech on the campus of Brown univ. Brown University censorship: Ray Kelly speech provokes dissidence.
and actually, speech codes are springing up all over the place on university campuses which are supposed to be bastions of free speech. The reason is simple…the left is in control of all the universities and the left does not protect those who are saying things they don’t like.

Is this original? 'Cause I’m totally stealing it.

@BrainGlutton

The right hates free speech. The left hates expensive speech.

[Ludovic]

@cornopean

uhh…I have a little trouble with your assumption that the KKK is to be identified with the right. Furthermore, I was referring to our own time. not 1964.

No, please continue, governor. Tell me more about those KKK liberals.

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is this original? 'Cause I’m totally stealing it.

Mine. Steal.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Ludovic

No, please continue, governor. Tell me more about those KKK liberals.

You can tell them by the Birkenstocks under their robes. They also get their crosses from Trader Joe’s and burn them using peanut oil.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hank_Beecher

Trains cost more than radio transmitters.

But tickets cost less than airtime.

[Little_Nemo]

@cornopean

but the KKK was largely supported by democrats.

True. And it is largely supported by Republicans.

[Little_Nemo]

@cornopean

Let’s not forget that it is the left that supports this the Fairness Doctrine.

Aren’t you asking for something like the Fairness Doctrine in your OP? You said you want universities to present both sides. That’s what the Fairness Doctrine did.

[cornopean]

@TonySinclair

The most important free expression in a democracy is the vote. Which side is trying to limit that expression? Which side mandates massive, carelessly compiled voter roll purges that typically disenfranchise many, many legally eligible and registered voters? Which side restricts early and Sunday voting, which have nothing to do with voter id?

I don’t know what law you are referring to. But it is the democrats who in the name of campaign finance reform made it certain that only the very richest people can run for office. More to the point, it limits people’s speech by limiting the amount of money you can give.

[BrainGlutton]

@cornopean

I don’t know what law you are referring to. But it is the democrats who in the name of campaign finance reform made it certain that only the very richest people can run for office. More to the point, it limits people’s speech by limiting the amount of money you can give.

But it’s half-assed. What we need to do is make it not merely difficult but impossible for anybody (including the candidates themselves) to affect the outcome of any election by spending money on it. Our only alternatives are that and a de facto plutocracy, which is what we’ve got now. The 1% have more than enough economic power, without allowing them to wield political power out of proportion to their numbers on top of that.

And I say we do not need to scrap or even amend the First Amendment to do it (though I might well support a constitutional amendment to effect this, if strictly necessary, and depending on the wording). We need only get a SCOTUS in place that will accept the plain fact that money is not speech and will overturn such contrary decisions as Buckley v. Valeo.

From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.”

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.”

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

From the same book, pp. 311-313:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

N.B.: This relates only to advertising, not editorializing. Media outlets would remain free to editorialize, Fox News and MSNBC would be free to continue politicizing the news each in its own way, etc. The Equal-Time Rule and the Fairness Doctrine are topics for a different debate; in any case, their scope is limited to airwave-broadcast media, not print, cable, or Internet media.

Bear in mind that there are other democracies, such as France, where every candidate in an election gets an equal ration of free air time and no other political advertising is allowed, and we over here still tend to think of those countries as “free countries.” However, as Terr points out, France has a lot of speech-related laws that would be considered unacceptable here. Be that as it may, I think CFR is a topic distinguishable from criticizing public policy/officials.

“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.

FWIW, some Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:

Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.

We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).

You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform

Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).

[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).

We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).

The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905).

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).