From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 16:27:09 GMT
DMB, Scott, Matt, Steve, All:
> Scalia said:
> "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."
>
> dmb says:
> I don't buy it. This is clever, because it paints those who would object to
> deceptive political ads as elitist snobs who think Americans are foolish
> sheep. But the truth is that very few Americans have the time or
> inclination to investigate the veracity of political ads - or any kind of
> ad.
The truth is DMB is one of those elites who thinks Americans are a bunch
of ninnies who swallow TV ads hook, line and sinker and are thus easily
manipulated by evil corporations and political parties, especially the
Republican party.
> And even if they did, politicians and advertisers have become very,
> very good at what they do. For example, because of the millions spent on
> advertisers and public relations agencies, the Bush Administration managed
> to convince 70% of the American public that Iraq's government was connected
> to the attacks on 9/11. And for a more general and long term example, since
> 1980 the candidate with the most money has won the nomination. To suggest
> that the American public is immune to the effects of political money and
> the advertising it can buy simply defies the facts. Of course people are
> persuaded. If they weren't, advertising and public relations wouldn't be a
> multi-billion dollar industry.
See what I mean? Those dumb Americans are so gullible that big brother
government must step into to protect them from their own stupidity.
> Scott wrote:
> I agree with Steve that the Supreme Court ruling is an attempt to control
> the influence of money on politics, and not an attack on free speech. ...
> What the bill does that has the ACLU and National Rifle Association in bed
> together is restrict how much so-called soft money they can use to
> influence a campaign, so the bill is a restriction on the use of money by
> special interests, ...
The bill places numerous restrictions on the right of both individuals and
groups to access the "public square," the market place of ideas. While it
doesn't specifically limit what people can say, it does limit people's
ability to reach others with their ideas--a restriction on the right of
free speech no matter how you slice it. In fact, in Matt's explanation of
the finance reform bill that the court upheld, he used the word
"restriction" at least 15 times in addition to the words "disallow,"
"prohibition," and "ban."
In case some of our European friends are wondering what the argument is
about, the First Amendment to our Constitution expressly forbids Congress
from passing ANY law "abridging the freedom of speech." If I'm coerced
into complying with a law passed by Congress that prevents me (or a group
that represents my views) from placing a TV ad on issues of public import
in the months closest to an election on fear of fine or imprisonment, my
free speech rights have been abridged.
As Justice Kennedy wrote in his dissent:"Our precedents teach, above all,
that government cannot be trusted to moderate its own rules for
suppression of speech. The dangers posed by speech regulations have led
the court to insist upon principled constitutional lines and a rigorous
standard of review. The majority now abandons these distinctions and
limitations."
There can be little doubt that the reform bill engages in "speech
regulations" and thus on its face, threatens free speech rights.
DMB:
> It's only an attempt to make things more fair in
> the market place of ideas. As I understand it, money and power ought not be
> allowed to control the free exchange of ideas becasue that is a matter of
> social levels values controling intellectual level ideas, which is a minor
> form of evil.
What is evil in the MOQ is for "fairness," a social pattern, to devour
"free speech," and intellectual pattern. The free exchange of ideas, an
intellectual value, is hampered by social value laws placing curbs on the
free market, that wonderful Dynamic institution that Pirsig praises for
reasons that harmonize so beautifully with his MOQ that gives freedom top
billing in the moral hierarchy.
Platt
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 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 16:27:00 GMT