you dont need to make false statments to entice children to do something. For an adult yes maybe but even that is not compleatly true. Do you know why parent and health organisations want junk food advertising banned? Its not that they are lying for the most part its that they are manipulative to kids who dont have the ability and training to analise them. Then they spend the next whatever amount of time "pestering" the parents. Even the supermarkets know this which is why they have been forced to have confec free registers
Do You Believe in Free Speech?
- Thread starter Cellar_Door
- Start date
As I said, political speech should be the most protected. I might be convinced to tolerate some regulations regarding advertising specifically aimed at children.
Harm, courtesy, and worthlessness
Indeed. So let's get rid of restrictions on fraud. And let's get rid of that stupid Clear and Present Danger standard, since it was enacted by judicial fiat.
The purpose of such limitations on speech is to protect the value of speech that demanded the First Amendment. In this case, what you're asking for is that free speech should take on a new definition: Free, as in no value.
I sometimes tell a story about a Lutheran preacher who got so angry with his confirmation class that he started throwing Bibles and knocking over furniture. You know what we did to make him so angry? He was trying to make a point about the Pentecost, of all things, and told us to cover our ears, close our eyes, and start shouting at one another. It's not that anyone mouthed off to him. We all just sort of sat there, looked at each other, looked at him, and then looked at each other again, and then he was off on his riot.
When the point or effect of "free speech" is to silence other people and thus denigrate their own right to free speech, a question arises. This is a particularly pointed version of it.
That doesn't reconcile with your later answer:
Now, in the first place, free speech is a right, not a privilege. But more importantly, if free speech isn't a privilege for the economically empowered, how can you agree that "money is speech"?
So if the court ever overturns the "error" of Santa Clara, will you complain about judicial activism?
And yet you're advocating that the court help an organization hide the money.
Remember that the original issue in Citizens United wasn't about speech. It was about corporate money.
Yet you seem to support the activism of the Roberts court attempting to inflate the issue into a test of McCain-Feingold.
Well, personhood is the basis of a corporation's right to free speech.
You don't support the outcome, but you support the process that leads to the outcome? Okay, we'll come back to that in a moment.
I always thought the justices asked the questions during oral arguments, not answered them.
And yet you're still arguing on behalf of corporations having special privileges. And the effective reservation of free speech as a privilege of the economically empowered.
Well, you don't support the outcome, but can one not support the process that leads to the outcome? Causing a panic could certainly be construed as an artistic endeavor. Brutal, savage art, to be certain. But one could certainly argue that public and private good could come from such a situation if people actually learn something about group behavioral dynamics, or if the public authority retools its emergency plans to cover gaps exposed by such a ruse.
I don't think it's a good or proper way to go about it, but you are the one who introduced the argument of not supporting the outcome while supporting the process.
Politics has a tremendous effect on people's lives. Let us consider that in the context of your next point:
Now, as I would expect you're aware—especially since we had one of these people in our community recently—there are plenty of pedophiles out there who don't think it's wrong. And, yes, there are plenty of children who will say yes. Indeed, there are places in the world where what you and I would consider child pornography is legal to produce. In fact, I could go out on the net and within a matter of a few minutes, download one of these videos for free, as in the people who produced it get no money for my possession and viewing of the file. Presuming that the child consented, and that it was legally produced under the prevailing laws where it was made, why should that be illegal?
Obviously, I have my answers for that, and so do you. Sure, I'm interested in yours, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.
The line that we draw has to do with harm. There was the case in Germany where the guy volunteered to be killed. He even tried to consume part of his own penis before he was killed. His killer had consent to perform the deed.
So why is it illegal? Because, to put it bluntly, it's insanely harmful.
The difference between the propriety or impropriety on a limitation of free speech—the German killing, although I've never seen it, was, as I recall, recorded for posterity—is the harm it causes.
Now let us go back to politics, because politics has a tremendous effect on people's lives.
Stacking the deck for the privilege of wealth is harmful to our political system, and I would hope after the Iraqi Bush Disaster you could see that it's also harmful to people's lives. Perhaps the civil rights of a donut-puncher aren't important to you, but a war?
And, to be certain, only a couple weeks ago, you advocated a restriction on free speech as "a simple courtesy":
Just because I'm curious, and since conservatives aren't really addressing the issue, Do you support the practice of entrapment?
And it should also be noted that those twentysomethings had to break laws in order to accomplish their entrapment.
I don't pretend it's nearly so simple. It's competition, with a free-market attitude about it. And, as Marx pointed out, exploitation is inevitable under such circumstances. Competition, we're told, is healthy. And to a certain degree it is. But it also results in cutting corners, dishonest schemes to boost returns, and, so on. Blaming the laws for the dishonest people who seek ways around them and harm society isn't exactly a good argument. Are you pretending that dishonest people would suddenly become honest if we got rid of all the laws?
Make you a deal. I'll say "nothing" if you never again criticize special interests and monied influence in politics. I'll do you the favor of pretending you have a point if you promise you will never prove yourself a hypocrite about it.
Unfortunately, the change you're asking for will close things up a bit.
However, I'll make my own proposition here: Review boards with a broad and flexible mandate to consider campaign advertisements. When controversial claims are made—such as, say, "Corporate entities trying to ply advantage with money are bad enough, but ACORN is seeking formal, legalized and legitimized access into the halls of power", come up (see? I didn't use one of yours this time), the board investigates the facts and sources, and if a political argument is found to be fraudulent, that agent is suspended from participating in the campaign cycle and subject to increased scrutiny against recidivism in future campaigns. Of course, that would have buried the RNC in '04. And Palin in '08. But if we can be reasonably assured of integrity, I don't really care how much money anybody spends.
Madanthonywayne said:
Indeed. So let's get rid of restrictions on fraud. And let's get rid of that stupid Clear and Present Danger standard, since it was enacted by judicial fiat.
The purpose of such limitations on speech is to protect the value of speech that demanded the First Amendment. In this case, what you're asking for is that free speech should take on a new definition: Free, as in no value.
I sometimes tell a story about a Lutheran preacher who got so angry with his confirmation class that he started throwing Bibles and knocking over furniture. You know what we did to make him so angry? He was trying to make a point about the Pentecost, of all things, and told us to cover our ears, close our eyes, and start shouting at one another. It's not that anyone mouthed off to him. We all just sort of sat there, looked at each other, looked at him, and then looked at each other again, and then he was off on his riot.
When the point or effect of "free speech" is to silence other people and thus denigrate their own right to free speech, a question arises. This is a particularly pointed version of it.
That doesn't reconcile with your later answer:
Tiassa: Is free speech a privilege for the economically empowered? Again, just so we're clear here, I want your sincere answer to that question.
Madanthonywayne: Of course not. It is a priviledge that all should enjoy.
Madanthonywayne: Of course not. It is a priviledge that all should enjoy.
Now, in the first place, free speech is a right, not a privilege. But more importantly, if free speech isn't a privilege for the economically empowered, how can you agree that "money is speech"?
So if the court ever overturns the "error" of Santa Clara, will you complain about judicial activism?
And yet you're advocating that the court help an organization hide the money.
Remember that the original issue in Citizens United wasn't about speech. It was about corporate money.
Yet you seem to support the activism of the Roberts court attempting to inflate the issue into a test of McCain-Feingold.
Well, personhood is the basis of a corporation's right to free speech.
You don't support the outcome, but you support the process that leads to the outcome? Okay, we'll come back to that in a moment.
I always thought the justices asked the questions during oral arguments, not answered them.
And yet you're still arguing on behalf of corporations having special privileges. And the effective reservation of free speech as a privilege of the economically empowered.
Well, you don't support the outcome, but can one not support the process that leads to the outcome? Causing a panic could certainly be construed as an artistic endeavor. Brutal, savage art, to be certain. But one could certainly argue that public and private good could come from such a situation if people actually learn something about group behavioral dynamics, or if the public authority retools its emergency plans to cover gaps exposed by such a ruse.
I don't think it's a good or proper way to go about it, but you are the one who introduced the argument of not supporting the outcome while supporting the process.
Politics has a tremendous effect on people's lives. Let us consider that in the context of your next point:
Now, as I would expect you're aware—especially since we had one of these people in our community recently—there are plenty of pedophiles out there who don't think it's wrong. And, yes, there are plenty of children who will say yes. Indeed, there are places in the world where what you and I would consider child pornography is legal to produce. In fact, I could go out on the net and within a matter of a few minutes, download one of these videos for free, as in the people who produced it get no money for my possession and viewing of the file. Presuming that the child consented, and that it was legally produced under the prevailing laws where it was made, why should that be illegal?
Obviously, I have my answers for that, and so do you. Sure, I'm interested in yours, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.
The line that we draw has to do with harm. There was the case in Germany where the guy volunteered to be killed. He even tried to consume part of his own penis before he was killed. His killer had consent to perform the deed.
So why is it illegal? Because, to put it bluntly, it's insanely harmful.
The difference between the propriety or impropriety on a limitation of free speech—the German killing, although I've never seen it, was, as I recall, recorded for posterity—is the harm it causes.
Now let us go back to politics, because politics has a tremendous effect on people's lives.
Stacking the deck for the privilege of wealth is harmful to our political system, and I would hope after the Iraqi Bush Disaster you could see that it's also harmful to people's lives. Perhaps the civil rights of a donut-puncher aren't important to you, but a war?
And, to be certain, only a couple weeks ago, you advocated a restriction on free speech as "a simple courtesy":
"The purpose of policies regarding not showing dead soldiers is to protect the family of the soldier(s) from seeing horrific images of their loved ones blown to shit. It's a simple courtesy and the least we can do for families that have already given the life of a loved one for their country."
Just because I'm curious, and since conservatives aren't really addressing the issue, Do you support the practice of entrapment?
And it should also be noted that those twentysomethings had to break laws in order to accomplish their entrapment.
I don't pretend it's nearly so simple. It's competition, with a free-market attitude about it. And, as Marx pointed out, exploitation is inevitable under such circumstances. Competition, we're told, is healthy. And to a certain degree it is. But it also results in cutting corners, dishonest schemes to boost returns, and, so on. Blaming the laws for the dishonest people who seek ways around them and harm society isn't exactly a good argument. Are you pretending that dishonest people would suddenly become honest if we got rid of all the laws?
Make you a deal. I'll say "nothing" if you never again criticize special interests and monied influence in politics. I'll do you the favor of pretending you have a point if you promise you will never prove yourself a hypocrite about it.
Unfortunately, the change you're asking for will close things up a bit.
However, I'll make my own proposition here: Review boards with a broad and flexible mandate to consider campaign advertisements. When controversial claims are made—such as, say, "Corporate entities trying to ply advantage with money are bad enough, but ACORN is seeking formal, legalized and legitimized access into the halls of power", come up (see? I didn't use one of yours this time), the board investigates the facts and sources, and if a political argument is found to be fraudulent, that agent is suspended from participating in the campaign cycle and subject to increased scrutiny against recidivism in future campaigns. Of course, that would have buried the RNC in '04. And Palin in '08. But if we can be reasonably assured of integrity, I don't really care how much money anybody spends.