I'm familiar with, and intensely dislike, Chomsky. Have yet to see Manufacturing Consent; will have to look for it.
I don't follow how any of the rest of your comment bears on the question of campaign finance law or freedom of speech. But at least so far the government hasn't decided that you aren't a legitimate journalist and therefore not free to make such a comment...
I repeat -- if you think the first amendment needs further amending to make room for economic exceptions, then by all means work to amend it. Until such an amendment passes, it says what it says. This is not a question of assuming that my interpretation is the only valid one. This is a fairly straightforward reading of the actual language of the document.
This is not meaningless. We're talking about the very basis of law in this country. I am all for the rule of law. All law in this country is empowered only by authority of the Constitution. If it says Congress shall make no law about something, then by gumbo, Congress should make no law. If what it says can't be relied upon to mean what it says, then having a Constitution is pointless, and the whole framework of our laws crumbles, and "the rule of law" is what becomes meaningless.
I am not "de facto censoring" anyone. Neither are the people with more money than you have. You are free to speak. My views as a libertarian are hardly the mainstream, and I am free to speak, even though I don't have millions of dollars to support me. Do I have the money to take out huge campaign ads for my candidates? No. Does this mean that I am somehow less free to speak? Don't be absurd. Does my freedom of speech guarantee that my views will be persuasive? Of course not. Does my freedom of speech guarantee that others will even hear me? Of course not. But I strenuously object to campaign finance laws that enable the sitting government to decide on any basis who will and who will not get the freedom to speak -- precisely because my minority views, unsupported by money or power, will be the first to get silenced.
No one ever said that you were guaranteed success at persuasion. I said you are free to persuade. If you can't find enough people to support your view, then how likely is it that your view will win democratic support?
I know what I'm talking about. I'm a libertarian. I know that this is a politically unpopular point of view, and even seen by many as a lunatic fringe. All the same, I am free to continue to persuade people. The first amendment guarantees me that freedom.
However, under campaign finance reform laws as they currently stand, my freedom to do so is curtailed, not enhanced as you seem to suppose. If the government gets to decide that I am not voicing my opinions by means of whateve they choose to define as a "press", then my freedom to promote my views and espouse my candidates is de facto removed. If I had millions of dollars to promote my views and espouse my candidates, but I am the only one who supports them, then under campaign finance reform laws as they currently stand, my freedom of speech does not exist.
What part of Congress shall make no law don't you people understand?
As any GPL fan will tell you, it isn't about "freedom to", it is about "freedom from".
"Freedom of speech", to my ears, sounds a lot more like "freedom TO speak" than "freedom FROM speaking", or even than "freedom FROM other people's speaking."
Likewise, "freedom of the press" would seem to be a lot closer in my mind to "freedom TO run a press" then "freedom FROM those running the press".
And given the (admittedly imperfect) freedom of opportunity in the U.S. (that's a freedom TO opportunity, not a freedom FROM opportunity), if you want to buy bigger ads than the opponent, then you are free to earn/beg/raise enough money to do so.
Of course, if we did away with the artificially-created entities known as "corporations", and realized again that only individual citizens, not mythical on-paper aggregations of them, have rights, that would go a long way toward equalizing that freedom of opportunity, and would make a lot of the campaign finance laws unnecessary in the first place. But that's a whole nother kettle of fish.
Furthermore, politicians should have their advertising budgets capped and paid for by the government.
Speaking as a libertarian, I agree. Every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation, experience, competence, degree of insanity, or number of tinfoil hats, should be eligible to fill out a form and get a check (the exact same amount for every one of 'em) covering all possible campaign expenses. And the money to fund this should come out of the pockets of every person who ever spoke in favor of campaign finance reform in any way. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Me, I'll continue giving my (very limited) political donations to the candidates I support, and keep insisting that it's my absolute right to do so.
I absolutely agree that the decision to treat corporations legally as people was a stupid one, and should be reversed, for a whole slew of reasons -- not least among them the resulting absurd fiction that an entity that exists entirely on paper has any kind of "rights", including a "right" to freedom of speech. On this we are in total agreement.
However, if you lack the money to stump for your candidate, feel free to persuade someone (or a large group of someones) who has it to do so. Or change professions and earn the money yourself.
As I responded to another comment in this thread, if you think the first amendment needs amending to cover an economic exception, then by all means, set about amending it. But until it's amended, it says what it says, and should be adhered to altogether strictly.
The airwaves are (artificially, by government fiat) limited resource, and as such, restrictions on how much someone can monopolize them to stump for a particular candidate might be justifiable.
But the fact that someone has more time/energy/money/passion/wind to promote a particular candidate, party, position, point of view, or brand of toothpaste is completely irrelevant to what the Constitution says.
If you think that the wording of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" needs to be amended to prevent abuses, you are welcome to initiate and pass a new amendment. I don't think so, myself, so be prepared to face at least one person's worth of opposition.
Regardless, until the Constitution is amended, "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law" -- and that includes campaign finance reform laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of speech applies to political speech. Campaign finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional. This ruling is offensive because it implies that only established and recognized "press" entities qualify -- and the government, whose interest is markedly not neutral, gets to decide who is and isn't "press".
I don't think that he meant "Muslim". I think he meant "Islamist." There is a difference.
"Muslim" == "adherent of Islam"
From the Wikipedia entry on Islamism: "Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state."
One woman always said, "Hey that's a nice shirt... are you gay!?"
Heh. I am gay, and I don't get asked that. Instead, I had one guy -- a customer -- ask once, "You always dress so nice. Are you English?" (We're in Ohio.)
Sure, when dealing with clients face to face it's important, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but there are those who would argue that your co-workers are "clients" too, and their perception of you matters.
Having said that, I wear whatever I feel like to work. Some days it's jeans and T-shirt and sneaks. Some days it's a tie and a suede vest over a silk shirt. Some days it's my cleanest already-worn khakis and whatever shirt doesn't look too much like it's been lying crumpled in a heap in the corner.
If you open a restaurant, do you get a monopoly for running a restaurant in your area? Isn't it wrong for someone to open a restaurant in a new community, build a customer base for years and then have some whipper-snapper open a new restaurant across the street and steal your customers?
It sounds absurd, but in some jurisdictions there are actually people attempting (with varying degrees of success) to put restrictions in place that would have this kind of effect. They are generally zoning laws, not trademark protections, but very often existing businesses support them for exactly the same reasons Lego was trying to slap down Mega Bloks: to stifle potential competition. Thus some communities limit the number of fast food joints, factories, "adult entertainment" businesses, etc. And the idiots who run the existing fast food joints, factories, and strip joints in those communities support these limitations as being in their short-term interest -- and then are baffled and annoyed when the now-all-powerful zoning board denies their requests to, say, open a second burger franchise across town, or build a new warehouse on land already owned by the factory, or take over the lot next door to add new parking for the happy-hour striptease junkies.
True, it's not trademark law. But it is, like a lot of trademark litigation, the abuse of the entire concept of property law in a short-sighted attempt to stifle competition.
Er... there are plant cholesterols, you know. Loads of them. Almost anything that has fats/oils has at least trace amounts of cholesterols. What's more, dietary cholesterol has very little to do with metabolic cholesterol levels.
When caffeine wears off, it gives me migraines and heart palpitations. The caffeine itself may not be bad for me (although it does elevate my blood pressure, too, which when I have a sister who had a stroke in her 40's is not a good thing). But clearly the withdrawal from caffeine is not good for me. Of course, most people don't seem to have this reaction to it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you need a different Google hack for that.
I'm familiar with, and intensely dislike, Chomsky. Have yet to see Manufacturing Consent; will have to look for it.
...
I don't follow how any of the rest of your comment bears on the question of campaign finance law or freedom of speech. But at least so far the government hasn't decided that you aren't a legitimate journalist and therefore not free to make such a comment
I repeat -- if you think the first amendment needs further amending to make room for economic exceptions, then by all means work to amend it. Until such an amendment passes, it says what it says. This is not a question of assuming that my interpretation is the only valid one. This is a fairly straightforward reading of the actual language of the document.
This is not meaningless. We're talking about the very basis of law in this country. I am all for the rule of law. All law in this country is empowered only by authority of the Constitution. If it says Congress shall make no law about something, then by gumbo, Congress should make no law. If what it says can't be relied upon to mean what it says, then having a Constitution is pointless, and the whole framework of our laws crumbles, and "the rule of law" is what becomes meaningless.
I am not "de facto censoring" anyone. Neither are the people with more money than you have. You are free to speak. My views as a libertarian are hardly the mainstream, and I am free to speak, even though I don't have millions of dollars to support me. Do I have the money to take out huge campaign ads for my candidates? No. Does this mean that I am somehow less free to speak? Don't be absurd. Does my freedom of speech guarantee that my views will be persuasive? Of course not. Does my freedom of speech guarantee that others will even hear me? Of course not. But I strenuously object to campaign finance laws that enable the sitting government to decide on any basis who will and who will not get the freedom to speak -- precisely because my minority views, unsupported by money or power, will be the first to get silenced.
No one ever said that you were guaranteed success at persuasion. I said you are free to persuade. If you can't find enough people to support your view, then how likely is it that your view will win democratic support?
I know what I'm talking about. I'm a libertarian. I know that this is a politically unpopular point of view, and even seen by many as a lunatic fringe. All the same, I am free to continue to persuade people. The first amendment guarantees me that freedom.
However, under campaign finance reform laws as they currently stand, my freedom to do so is curtailed, not enhanced as you seem to suppose. If the government gets to decide that I am not voicing my opinions by means of whateve they choose to define as a "press", then my freedom to promote my views and espouse my candidates is de facto removed. If I had millions of dollars to promote my views and espouse my candidates, but I am the only one who supports them, then under campaign finance reform laws as they currently stand, my freedom of speech does not exist.
What part of Congress shall make no law don't you people understand?
Nah, it's "All-you-can-eat sushi."
But where's Andy Kaufman when you need him?
As any GPL fan will tell you, it isn't about "freedom to", it is about "freedom from".
"Freedom of speech", to my ears, sounds a lot more like "freedom TO speak" than "freedom FROM speaking", or even than "freedom FROM other people's speaking."
Likewise, "freedom of the press" would seem to be a lot closer in my mind to "freedom TO run a press" then "freedom FROM those running the press".
And given the (admittedly imperfect) freedom of opportunity in the U.S. (that's a freedom TO opportunity, not a freedom FROM opportunity), if you want to buy bigger ads than the opponent, then you are free to earn/beg/raise enough money to do so.
Of course, if we did away with the artificially-created entities known as "corporations", and realized again that only individual citizens, not mythical on-paper aggregations of them, have rights, that would go a long way toward equalizing that freedom of opportunity, and would make a lot of the campaign finance laws unnecessary in the first place. But that's a whole nother kettle of fish.
Furthermore, politicians should have their advertising budgets capped and paid for by the government.
Speaking as a libertarian, I agree. Every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation, experience, competence, degree of insanity, or number of tinfoil hats, should be eligible to fill out a form and get a check (the exact same amount for every one of 'em) covering all possible campaign expenses. And the money to fund this should come out of the pockets of every person who ever spoke in favor of campaign finance reform in any way. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Me, I'll continue giving my (very limited) political donations to the candidates I support, and keep insisting that it's my absolute right to do so.
Thanks :-) ... don't remember where I first heard it.
I absolutely agree that the decision to treat corporations legally as people was a stupid one, and should be reversed, for a whole slew of reasons -- not least among them the resulting absurd fiction that an entity that exists entirely on paper has any kind of "rights", including a "right" to freedom of speech. On this we are in total agreement.
However, if you lack the money to stump for your candidate, feel free to persuade someone (or a large group of someones) who has it to do so. Or change professions and earn the money yourself.
As I responded to another comment in this thread, if you think the first amendment needs amending to cover an economic exception, then by all means, set about amending it. But until it's amended, it says what it says, and should be adhered to altogether strictly.
The airwaves are (artificially, by government fiat) limited resource, and as such, restrictions on how much someone can monopolize them to stump for a particular candidate might be justifiable. But the fact that someone has more time/energy/money/passion/wind to promote a particular candidate, party, position, point of view, or brand of toothpaste is completely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. If you think that the wording of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" needs to be amended to prevent abuses, you are welcome to initiate and pass a new amendment. I don't think so, myself, so be prepared to face at least one person's worth of opposition.
Regardless, until the Constitution is amended, "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law" -- and that includes campaign finance reform laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of speech applies to political speech. Campaign finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional. This ruling is offensive because it implies that only established and recognized "press" entities qualify -- and the government, whose interest is markedly not neutral, gets to decide who is and isn't "press".
... was the prior art in JPEG format?
... that sprinkles holy water on orange groves in an attempt to retard freezing.
Hey, at least the orange groves will be safe from Bunnicula!
I don't think that he meant "Muslim". I think he meant "Islamist." There is a difference.
"Muslim" == "adherent of Islam"
From the Wikipedia entry on Islamism: "Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state."
I'm pretty sure the GP meant what it said.
I tried that, but the computer kept short-circuiting.
"Always dress for the position you strive for, not for the one you are in" -Some Middle Management Suck Up
Swim trunks and sunscreen. Got it. Should I carry around the little coconut glass, or does that not fall under the category of "dress"... ?
One woman always said, "Hey that's a nice shirt... are you gay!?"
Heh. I am gay, and I don't get asked that. Instead, I had one guy -- a customer -- ask once, "You always dress so nice. Are you English?" (We're in Ohio.)
Sure, when dealing with clients face to face it's important, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but there are those who would argue that your co-workers are "clients" too, and their perception of you matters.
Having said that, I wear whatever I feel like to work. Some days it's jeans and T-shirt and sneaks. Some days it's a tie and a suede vest over a silk shirt. Some days it's my cleanest already-worn khakis and whatever shirt doesn't look too much like it's been lying crumpled in a heap in the corner.
You guys just crack me up! Really, I'm falling to pieces here ...
If you open a restaurant, do you get a monopoly for running a restaurant in your area? Isn't it wrong for someone to open a restaurant in a new community, build a customer base for years and then have some whipper-snapper open a new restaurant across the street and steal your customers?
It sounds absurd, but in some jurisdictions there are actually people attempting (with varying degrees of success) to put restrictions in place that would have this kind of effect. They are generally zoning laws, not trademark protections, but very often existing businesses support them for exactly the same reasons Lego was trying to slap down Mega Bloks: to stifle potential competition. Thus some communities limit the number of fast food joints, factories, "adult entertainment" businesses, etc. And the idiots who run the existing fast food joints, factories, and strip joints in those communities support these limitations as being in their short-term interest -- and then are baffled and annoyed when the now-all-powerful zoning board denies their requests to, say, open a second burger franchise across town, or build a new warehouse on land already owned by the factory, or take over the lot next door to add new parking for the happy-hour striptease junkies.
True, it's not trademark law. But it is, like a lot of trademark litigation, the abuse of the entire concept of property law in a short-sighted attempt to stifle competition.
I don't think you have long to wait. Look at my ID.
Of course, it could be that gazing at the naval personnel, not materiel, is what floats your boat: http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/002567.html
Maybe he's also only three feet (~1m) tall.
Er ... there are plant cholesterols, you know. Loads of them. Almost anything that has fats/oils has at least trace amounts of cholesterols. What's more, dietary cholesterol has very little to do with metabolic cholesterol levels.
When caffeine wears off, it gives me migraines and heart palpitations. The caffeine itself may not be bad for me (although it does elevate my blood pressure, too, which when I have a sister who had a stroke in her 40's is not a good thing). But clearly the withdrawal from caffeine is not good for me. Of course, most people don't seem to have this reaction to it.