The answer would be that, yes, any country can do so, and several have. The following countries have declared that they have the authority to prosecute those who violate certain of their laws, no matter where the crime is committed: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
I can picture the hill country from the movie 'Deliverance'. A black car pulls up to the gas pumps, guy gets out, pumps some gas, pays for it, and starts talking to the inbred bunch of hillbillies loitering around. They're talking about something that "just ain't right" - taxes, or a black president, or the price of tobacco seed - whatever. So, the smooth talking guy from the black car thinks he's found a "live one", and goads them into badmouthing the president, or government in general. Pretty soon, he has one of them really mouthing off, so he offers to put them in touch with "some people I know".
Of course, the problem with that scenario is that in the real world, at least one of those guys would be a moonshiner (or friends with a moonshiner), so they would notice the government plates on the car.
Just because news can benefit a particular candidate, does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement....
Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.
More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?
I say 3500 BC because that is what the article this thread is talking about said. However, that date is consistent with what I have found from other sources. Wikipedia says the following: "Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the mid 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia, the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle remains unresolved and under debate.
The earliest well-dated depiction of a wheeled vehicle, is on the Bronocice pot, a ca. 3500–3350 BC clay pot excavated in a Funnelbeaker culture settlement in southern Poland."
So, I think the answer is, "Yes, there is evidence of that."
Democracy is advocated on the belief that all individuals have an inalienable right to a degree of self-determination; to participate in the maintanance of the system that governs them. It is about being fundamentally free, not correct.
This is so well said that I used this quote on another forum when this article came up there.
The Citizens United case was about a corporation that created a movie about Hillary Clinton (a negatvie one) that was told it could not show this movie on cable TV within 60 days of the primaries because it violated campaign finance laws. Yet, the NYT is allowed to publish anything it wants about candidates up until and including the day of the election. For that matter, CNN could produce and broadcast a documentary about a candidate in the same time period. That is the "exemption" I am talking about. The NYT and CNN can endorse or denounce a candidate at any time, yet Citizens United was regulated to not being able to do so within a certain time period of the election.
Eliminate the electoral college system so that voters outside of Iowa, California, and Florida get to decide national elections.
Right, that way the only voters that would matter would be the ones in New York, California and Texas (Ok, there would be about three more states on that list, but I did not feel like going to Wikipedia to see what states would be the six or so most populous).
The problem is that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution attempted to create a hybrid of a democracy and an aristocracy (with the balance of power leaning toward the democratic element), but there is no term for that. As a result, people use the expression of contrasting a republican form of government with a democratic form of government.
That is because public education is designed from its very core to indoctrinate students to not accept their parents values. All aspects of public education (and the education discipline in general) grow from this basic assumption: that the purpose of education is to eradicate the values of the parents.
Because historically, cultures with the wheel overwhelmed and displaced neighboring cultures that did not have the wheel. The Japanese do not have the same perception of their civilization being descended from an earlier "first to civilize" civilization. In the U.S., there is a perception of civilization developing in Egypt/Sumeria spreading to Greece, then Rome to Western Europe and Western Europe to the Americas. While it is generally understood that civilization developed somewhat independently in areas along that migration, it is believed (with significant validity) that our culture developed along that line of descent.
To put that another way, Americans tend to think of their culture as tracing back a line of development from the early Middle Eastern Civilizations, whereas the Japanese tend to think of their culture as having sprung fully formed in Japan. Both are aware to some degree that this is an inaccurate description of their cultures origins, but it is the mindset they approach thinking about the historical significance of things like the wheel.
Actually, you hit on the problem with this thesis. The accepted reason that the peoples of the new world did not invent the wheel is because they did not have a domesticated beast of burden. That is there was no animal large enough to make a good beast of burden equivalent to the horse (the horses in the Americas went extinct before man began domesticating animals). If the wheel does not become practical until after the domestication of a large animal that is suitable as a beast of burden, than the "late" invention of the wheel in about 3500 BC makes sense. The horse was domesticated somewhere between 4000 BC and 3500 BC. The wheel was invented sometime after the horse was domesticated in the same general area as where the horse was first domesticated.
I am not particularly interested in the government working at more than a very basic level (enforcing contract law, forcing people to respect basic property rights). Our government is currently involved in many more aspects of the lives of its citizens than I think is good.
Have you noticed that whenever you see anyone say "turn that camera off" you can sense a deep underlying fear in them?
There scared cause there conscious isn't clear
That is not entirely true. I have seen times where someone has been saying "turn that camera off" because they know that the person (or the organization behind the person) cannot be trusted to present what is recorded in context. As an example, someone says, "When he said, 'I don't have to do obey the law.' I told him that he did indeed." Some untrustworthy sources have cut that to show that someone saying, "I don't have to obey the law."
However, you are correct that most of the time when someone says "turn that camera off" it is because they do not want a record of what they are going to do.
From the perspective of the law in the U.S., it is the same congress. I am more interested in government working in a way that strictly limits its powers than I am in government working in a way that is "practical". Totalitarian governments are very practical.
Because if you use the words according to changes in the definition over time, you no longer have a document that provides for a government that is by rule of law, because politicians, and others, will distort the meanings of words so as to allow them to do what they want rather than being limited by a set of rules. One of the intents of the Framers of the Constitution was to create a document which limited the power of government. I heartily approve of that intention because when the government does not have strictly limited powers, the people do not have any rights, even if the government pretends to give them some for a period of time. If the government gives you "rights", they are not rights, they are privileges that the government may revoke at any time.
Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?
Well, if you go to IMDB you discover that the movie being discussed in the Citizens United case does have a writer, actually it has three. They are Alan Peterson, who is also the director, Lee Troxler, and Michale Wright. Additionally, if one looks at the cast, one discovers a list of cast members, many of whom are known for writing political opinion columns. So, guess what, the Citizens United case was about a place where individual people were speaking, just as much as individual people are speaking in the pages of the NYT.
And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding.
So, the NYT corporation does not provide the funding for publication and distribution of the speech of its writers? Speech which frequently and consistently expresses a political view, especially as one approaches election. How is the NYT corporation providing the funding for the distribution of the political views of its writers different than Citizens United providing funding for the distribution of the political views of the people involved with Hillary: The Movie?
It really does not matter whether you think congress would give the FCC a productive answer. Congress is the only group that can clarify whether or not they gave the FCC the authority to take the types of actions they are contemplating. The failure of Congress to answer the question should be interpreted as a no.
Personally, this move by the FCC strikes me as an attempt to garner public support for an expansion of federal power. That is, the FCC knows that it does not have the statutory authority to insert itself into this, but it is trying to drum up a large enough group of people that are calling for it to do so that Congress will be hesitant to explicitly restate that it does not have the authority and that the courts may choose to defer to the public sentiment on the issue.
The FCC is asking the wrong people. If they are unsure if they have the authority over the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks, the very first step should be to ask Congress. The FCC only has the authority that Congress has given it. So, the first step is to ask Congress if Congress believes that the laws that Congress has passed give the FCC this authority. If Congress' answer is no, that is the end of the discussion. If Congress' answer is yes, the next step is to determine whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks. That is a more complicated question and more difficult one to answer, but if Congress has not delegated anyone the authority to do so, we do not need to examine the question of whether or not they have the authority to do so.
A more difficult question is whether or not local and state governments have the legal authority to take down cellular networks, and if so, under what circumstances. However, the answer to that is independent of whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate if and when they do so.
Don't they deserve the same voice in the process even if they choose to be wholly uninformed and vote party or anti-incumbent or whatever they do?
Those idiots have the right to vote and if they will take the effort to go to the registrar's office and register and then go to the polling place to actually vote on the day of the election, they will be able to do so. However, encouraging them to register to vote every time they interact with government officials and attempting to make it easier for them to cast a vote, even if they can't be bothered to keep track of when the election is, or where the polling station is, does not do anybody any good (except for corrupt politicians). The majority of the people who object to programs to make it easier to vote do not do so because the people vote for the "wrong" things, but because those people often vote on the basis of things which have no relevance to the election (such as a County Commissioner's opinion on the federal gasoline tax).
I certainly want informed voters, but does that mean that encouraging uninformed voters to vote is a bad idea?
Encouraging people who are too lazy to make any special effort in order to be able to vote is a bad idea. If the individual does not value voting enough to make at least some effort in order to do so, they do not value voting enough to make an effort to vote for the best candidate (whether I agree with their interpretation of what constitutes the best candidate or not).
That is because only one or two people have answered the question. If we are going to discuss the issue of corporate speech, we need to recognize that most of our news media is composed of corporations. What gives those corporations different rights regarding freedom of expression than other corporations? For that matter is it a good thing if those news media corporations have different rights regarding freedom of expression from other corporations? I would contend that it is a bad thing for the government to decide that certain corporations have a right to freedom of expression, but other corporations do not. Because once the government starts making that distinction, it will not be long until those corporations that are deemed to have a right to "freedom of expression" are only those who use it to support the positions of those in power.
Why should the government be allowed to restrict Citizens United corporation's speech differently than it restricts the New York Times' speech? How does the government deciding which corporations qualify for "freedom of speech" not damage democracy even more than what you are complaining about (not without merit)?
The law in question in the Citizens United case had special exemptions in place for "media" companies. Why should it matter if I own a "media" company or not as to what I can publish?
I should check that we agree that movies/tv shows/music/internet blogs are protected under the First Amendment by the combination of the "speech" clause and the "press" clause (the latter which refers to printing press, not "news media"). Is this correct?
If freedom of the press applies to the New York Times Corporation, it applies to Citizens United Corporation (or any other corporation for that matter).
So, if Citizens United had bought a newspaper company than you would accept that they had the right to distribute their movie about Hillary Clinton right up until election day?
Citizens United existed solely for the purpose of creating a movie about Hillary Clinton, not to promote someone's candidacy, but to oppose someone's candidacy.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer would be that, yes, any country can do so, and several have. The following countries have declared that they have the authority to prosecute those who violate certain of their laws, no matter where the crime is committed: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
I can picture the hill country from the movie 'Deliverance'. A black car pulls up to the gas pumps, guy gets out, pumps some gas, pays for it, and starts talking to the inbred bunch of hillbillies loitering around. They're talking about something that "just ain't right" - taxes, or a black president, or the price of tobacco seed - whatever. So, the smooth talking guy from the black car thinks he's found a "live one", and goads them into badmouthing the president, or government in general. Pretty soon, he has one of them really mouthing off, so he offers to put them in touch with "some people I know".
Of course, the problem with that scenario is that in the real world, at least one of those guys would be a moonshiner (or friends with a moonshiner), so they would notice the government plates on the car.
Just because news can benefit a particular candidate, does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement....
Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.
More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?
I say 3500 BC because that is what the article this thread is talking about said. However, that date is consistent with what I have found from other sources. Wikipedia says the following: "Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the mid 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia, the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle remains unresolved and under debate.
The earliest well-dated depiction of a wheeled vehicle, is on the Bronocice pot, a ca. 3500–3350 BC clay pot excavated in a Funnelbeaker culture settlement in southern Poland."
So, I think the answer is, "Yes, there is evidence of that."
There's a very big difference from reporting a story and running a campaign advertisement.
That would explain why Evan Thomas said the news media was worth 5-10 points for Obama in 2008.
Democracy is advocated on the belief that all individuals have an inalienable right to a degree of self-determination; to participate in the maintanance of the system that governs them. It is about being fundamentally free, not correct.
This is so well said that I used this quote on another forum when this article came up there.
The Citizens United case was about a corporation that created a movie about Hillary Clinton (a negatvie one) that was told it could not show this movie on cable TV within 60 days of the primaries because it violated campaign finance laws. Yet, the NYT is allowed to publish anything it wants about candidates up until and including the day of the election. For that matter, CNN could produce and broadcast a documentary about a candidate in the same time period. That is the "exemption" I am talking about. The NYT and CNN can endorse or denounce a candidate at any time, yet Citizens United was regulated to not being able to do so within a certain time period of the election.
Eliminate the electoral college system so that voters outside of Iowa, California, and Florida get to decide national elections.
Right, that way the only voters that would matter would be the ones in New York, California and Texas (Ok, there would be about three more states on that list, but I did not feel like going to Wikipedia to see what states would be the six or so most populous).
The problem is that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution attempted to create a hybrid of a democracy and an aristocracy (with the balance of power leaning toward the democratic element), but there is no term for that. As a result, people use the expression of contrasting a republican form of government with a democratic form of government.
That is because public education is designed from its very core to indoctrinate students to not accept their parents values. All aspects of public education (and the education discipline in general) grow from this basic assumption: that the purpose of education is to eradicate the values of the parents.
Why is the wheel considered so important?
Because historically, cultures with the wheel overwhelmed and displaced neighboring cultures that did not have the wheel. The Japanese do not have the same perception of their civilization being descended from an earlier "first to civilize" civilization. In the U.S., there is a perception of civilization developing in Egypt/Sumeria spreading to Greece, then Rome to Western Europe and Western Europe to the Americas. While it is generally understood that civilization developed somewhat independently in areas along that migration, it is believed (with significant validity) that our culture developed along that line of descent.
To put that another way, Americans tend to think of their culture as tracing back a line of development from the early Middle Eastern Civilizations, whereas the Japanese tend to think of their culture as having sprung fully formed in Japan. Both are aware to some degree that this is an inaccurate description of their cultures origins, but it is the mindset they approach thinking about the historical significance of things like the wheel.
Actually, you hit on the problem with this thesis. The accepted reason that the peoples of the new world did not invent the wheel is because they did not have a domesticated beast of burden. That is there was no animal large enough to make a good beast of burden equivalent to the horse (the horses in the Americas went extinct before man began domesticating animals). If the wheel does not become practical until after the domestication of a large animal that is suitable as a beast of burden, than the "late" invention of the wheel in about 3500 BC makes sense. The horse was domesticated somewhere between 4000 BC and 3500 BC. The wheel was invented sometime after the horse was domesticated in the same general area as where the horse was first domesticated.
Yes, just because most people want the government to run other people's lives does not mean that it is good for the government to run people's lives.
I am not particularly interested in the government working at more than a very basic level (enforcing contract law, forcing people to respect basic property rights). Our government is currently involved in many more aspects of the lives of its citizens than I think is good.
Have you noticed that whenever you see anyone say "turn that camera off" you can sense a deep underlying fear in them?
There scared cause there conscious isn't clear
That is not entirely true. I have seen times where someone has been saying "turn that camera off" because they know that the person (or the organization behind the person) cannot be trusted to present what is recorded in context. As an example, someone says, "When he said, 'I don't have to do obey the law.' I told him that he did indeed." Some untrustworthy sources have cut that to show that someone saying, "I don't have to obey the law."
However, you are correct that most of the time when someone says "turn that camera off" it is because they do not want a record of what they are going to do.
From the perspective of the law in the U.S., it is the same congress. I am more interested in government working in a way that strictly limits its powers than I am in government working in a way that is "practical". Totalitarian governments are very practical.
Because if you use the words according to changes in the definition over time, you no longer have a document that provides for a government that is by rule of law, because politicians, and others, will distort the meanings of words so as to allow them to do what they want rather than being limited by a set of rules. One of the intents of the Framers of the Constitution was to create a document which limited the power of government. I heartily approve of that intention because when the government does not have strictly limited powers, the people do not have any rights, even if the government pretends to give them some for a period of time. If the government gives you "rights", they are not rights, they are privileges that the government may revoke at any time.
Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?
Well, if you go to IMDB you discover that the movie being discussed in the Citizens United case does have a writer, actually it has three. They are Alan Peterson, who is also the director, Lee Troxler, and Michale Wright. Additionally, if one looks at the cast, one discovers a list of cast members, many of whom are known for writing political opinion columns. So, guess what, the Citizens United case was about a place where individual people were speaking, just as much as individual people are speaking in the pages of the NYT.
And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding.
So, the NYT corporation does not provide the funding for publication and distribution of the speech of its writers? Speech which frequently and consistently expresses a political view, especially as one approaches election. How is the NYT corporation providing the funding for the distribution of the political views of its writers different than Citizens United providing funding for the distribution of the political views of the people involved with Hillary: The Movie?
It really does not matter whether you think congress would give the FCC a productive answer. Congress is the only group that can clarify whether or not they gave the FCC the authority to take the types of actions they are contemplating. The failure of Congress to answer the question should be interpreted as a no.
Personally, this move by the FCC strikes me as an attempt to garner public support for an expansion of federal power. That is, the FCC knows that it does not have the statutory authority to insert itself into this, but it is trying to drum up a large enough group of people that are calling for it to do so that Congress will be hesitant to explicitly restate that it does not have the authority and that the courts may choose to defer to the public sentiment on the issue.
The FCC is asking the wrong people. If they are unsure if they have the authority over the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks, the very first step should be to ask Congress. The FCC only has the authority that Congress has given it. So, the first step is to ask Congress if Congress believes that the laws that Congress has passed give the FCC this authority. If Congress' answer is no, that is the end of the discussion. If Congress' answer is yes, the next step is to determine whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks. That is a more complicated question and more difficult one to answer, but if Congress has not delegated anyone the authority to do so, we do not need to examine the question of whether or not they have the authority to do so.
A more difficult question is whether or not local and state governments have the legal authority to take down cellular networks, and if so, under what circumstances. However, the answer to that is independent of whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate if and when they do so.
Don't they deserve the same voice in the process even if they choose to be wholly uninformed and vote party or anti-incumbent or whatever they do?
Those idiots have the right to vote and if they will take the effort to go to the registrar's office and register and then go to the polling place to actually vote on the day of the election, they will be able to do so. However, encouraging them to register to vote every time they interact with government officials and attempting to make it easier for them to cast a vote, even if they can't be bothered to keep track of when the election is, or where the polling station is, does not do anybody any good (except for corrupt politicians). The majority of the people who object to programs to make it easier to vote do not do so because the people vote for the "wrong" things, but because those people often vote on the basis of things which have no relevance to the election (such as a County Commissioner's opinion on the federal gasoline tax).
I certainly want informed voters, but does that mean that encouraging uninformed voters to vote is a bad idea?
Encouraging people who are too lazy to make any special effort in order to be able to vote is a bad idea. If the individual does not value voting enough to make at least some effort in order to do so, they do not value voting enough to make an effort to vote for the best candidate (whether I agree with their interpretation of what constitutes the best candidate or not).
That is because only one or two people have answered the question. If we are going to discuss the issue of corporate speech, we need to recognize that most of our news media is composed of corporations. What gives those corporations different rights regarding freedom of expression than other corporations? For that matter is it a good thing if those news media corporations have different rights regarding freedom of expression from other corporations? I would contend that it is a bad thing for the government to decide that certain corporations have a right to freedom of expression, but other corporations do not. Because once the government starts making that distinction, it will not be long until those corporations that are deemed to have a right to "freedom of expression" are only those who use it to support the positions of those in power.
Why should the government be allowed to restrict Citizens United corporation's speech differently than it restricts the New York Times' speech? How does the government deciding which corporations qualify for "freedom of speech" not damage democracy even more than what you are complaining about (not without merit)?
The law in question in the Citizens United case had special exemptions in place for "media" companies. Why should it matter if I own a "media" company or not as to what I can publish?
I should check that we agree that movies/tv shows/music/internet blogs are protected under the First Amendment by the combination of the "speech" clause and the "press" clause (the latter which refers to printing press, not "news media"). Is this correct?
If freedom of the press applies to the New York Times Corporation, it applies to Citizens United Corporation (or any other corporation for that matter).
So, if Citizens United had bought a newspaper company than you would accept that they had the right to distribute their movie about Hillary Clinton right up until election day?
Citizens United existed solely for the purpose of creating a movie about Hillary Clinton, not to promote someone's candidacy, but to oppose someone's candidacy.