VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:07:13 01/23/10 Sat
Author: Ned
Author Host/IP: 75.106.170.218
Subject: Bill - do read Stevens's dissent....
In reply to: Bill 's message, "Re: Kiss democracy good-bye...." on 21:30:42 01/22/10 Fri

... it is long and complicated, but it's also clear and well-documented - well worth reading.

He explains in detail the many exceptions our laws already make (and we accept) to the imaginary concept of absolute "free speech," that we have applied without becoming a dictatorship.

I see the dilemma of dissenting shareholders and union members as being cut from the same cloth - you say shareholders can just "vote" by selling their stock, but that may mean sacrificing a benefit every bit as lucrative and valuable as union membership. The argument that the will of the corporation in such matters will ride roughshod over the will and opinions of dissenting stakeholders is a good one (and one Stevens makes) as to why corporations shouldn't have the same free speech rights that individual citizens (human beings).

Not - please note clearly, because this was the straw-man Kennedy dragged in and tried to set fire to - that Corporations would ever be "banned" from any exercise of speech; simply that in instances where their resources could throw the debate wildly out of balance at a crtitical juncture, there should be some small restrictions.

These restrictions should apply to all corporations, whether private or N-F-P, but should not (and as they existed before this decision did not) restrict individuals of like mind within or across such entities, from setting up PACs or other vehicles to express their opinions and contribute to the democratic debate.

Interesting that you say the media got "very one-sided" during the period these laws were in force (from the mid 70s to the present) - but you don't specify what "side" that was? Liberals tend to argue the the Faux News/WSJ/RupertM bias has spread like and insidious infection through all of American Media, while fans of Rush, Glenn et al. argue that it's the other way around, with the "liberal Media" (I guess the Times Corp is the symbol for that?) dominating the debate.

While I see fewer and fewer alternative voices on any side - Neo-Con media all pretty much all parrot the same "talking points," and the so-called "liberal media" (which in my opinion is a gross misnomer for the NYT) do much the same. What we've lost - through endless legally sanctioned consolidation, is the multiplicity of ideas and voices on all sides we used to hear in this country.

To me, that's the key - again, government imposed restrictions (much discussed and largely approved by our Founding Fathers) to prevent "special interests" from taking control of the debate and the political process.

In the Founders' day, those were primarily hereditary fortunes and the forerunners of modern corporations that had arisen in England in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries - mainly as associations of wealthy aristocrats - to corner markets and manipulate commodities - with often disastrous results for the economy!

In our day the most dangerous example is multi-national corporations - perhaps controlled by foreigners through dummy US companies - that can now pour unlimited amounts of money into elections in support of interests that may not reflect - may even be directly opposed to - those of any US Citizen.

This decision is one more step toward giving monied interests a large and larger measure of control of our political process, and taking it out of the of "The People."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.