From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Dec 13 2003 - 22:34:27 GMT
Hi Platt,
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Intellectual domination of society is strengthened when ideas are
>>>> weighed on their intellectual quality rather than the amount of money
>>>> supporting their spread. So I see MOQ justification in limiting
>>>> impact of "voice" based on wealth because it may make room for
>>>> "voice" based on intellectual quality. So, what you've called
>>>> intellect's attack on free speech may be seen as a triumph of power
>>>> based on intellectual quality over power based on wealth.
>>
>> Platt asked:
>>> Am I correct in assuming that you think there's an inverse ratio
>>> between money and intellectual quality, that is, a voice based on
>>> wealth is prima facie evidence that the intellectual quality of that
>>> voice is low? If so, what evidence would you cite?
>>
>> Steve:
>> No, I don't assume that, nor do I assume that there is a direct
>> relationship between money and intellectual quality. I think there is
>> likely to be only a weak correlation, which is why I think selecting
>> ideas to spread based on financial backing is not the sort of
>> marketplace of ideas that we should foster.
Platt said:
> Since both political parties are amply supplied with funds, and since
> both would claim their views to be of high intellectual quality, I
> don't see the problem.
Steve:
Perhaps you are right (though campaign managers on either side of every
campaign probably don't feel amply supplied with funds.) There may be no
problem or rather, there may be no solution to the impact of money on
politics.
>>> Also I wonder who you would suggest as judges to establish the
>>> "intellectual quality" of a political ad, or any speech for that
>>> matter?
>>
>> I would suggest that individuals judge for themselves as I assume you
>> would. I don't understand why you asked.
>
> You say it's good for intellect to dominate society by weighing the
> intellectual quality of campaign ads, so I'm just wondering you would
> nominate among the intellectual elite to judge an ad's quality? After
> all, intellect cannot dominate, control or have power over society
> without laws to back up its views as to what's intellectually best.
I still don't understand what you're getting at. There must be something
about the law that I don't understand.
>> I'm interested in what you thought of my take on replacing equating
>> speech and money with relating money and "voice" if you'd care to
>> comment.
>
> The power of government to limit any "voice," whether based on that
> "voice's" wealth, association, occupation, race, age, sex, political
> views, ethnic background, religious belief of whatever category you can
> think of is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Once you open
> the door to the idea that restrictions should be placed on wealthy
> voices, what's to stop placing restrictions on other types of voices as
> well?
Remember that I've used "voice" to mean power to be heard whereas you seem
to be using it to mean "individual." I don't see this law as limiting what
people can say, so as I understand it, this isn't a limitation on free
speech.
As for limitations based on wealth, race, occupation, sex, etc, I can see
none. The law doesn't discriminate. Rich and poor people alike are limited
in what they can donate. I don't see this law as "placing restrictions
on...types of voices" (read as types of individuals) but rather specifying a
maximum volume per individual allowing for more individuals to be heard.
> Further, I don't buy the notion that the loudest voice is the most
> influential.
Agreed. But I still think that money has a strong influence on political
campaigns.
> I agree with Justice Scalia who in his dissent from the
> Court's ruling wrote, "The premise of the First Amendment is that the
> American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of
> considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its
> proximate and ultimate source."
>
> I would guess that statement also reflects your belief that
> "individuals can judge for themselves." Which is why I'm puzzled by
> your support of restrictions on free speech.
Again, I still can't see this as a free speech issue.
There is a lot of truth to this quote, but there is also some truth to the
notion that to control the media is to control public opinion. That's why
conservatives are always complaining about a perceived liberal bias in the
media. Why would conservatives need to be concerned if "people are neither
sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance
of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source"?
The "proximate and ultimate source" part sounds significant. Does that
refer to requiring candidates to attach their names to their negative adds?
That sounds like a good idea to me.
There are probably other aspects of the law that I don't know about. I
summarized what I know about it earlier (and Scott made an important
correction). If there is something else I should know please tell me.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 22:34:32 GMT