Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
People are not concerned with corporate news media.
Click to expand...

So... large commercial corporations should be given more speech rights than an assembly of concerned citizens?

Wow. That's a strange line of argument for you to be taking.

As it is, pure propaganda masquerading as news is tolerated in this country in spite of the distorting effect on the election process.
Click to expand...

The first amendment doesn't protect news, it protect free speech. Why have you confused the two?

It is the unlimited financial power of a corporation
Click to expand...

No corporation has unlimited financial power.

to directly influence elections that should and does concern more than half (aka the majority of) the people in this country.
Click to expand...

And that excuses an unconstitutional restriction of free speech... how? Because last time I checked, the first amendment didn't have a clause allowing for exceptions if the majority is "concerned". In fact, the entire premise of the bill of rights is to protect rights against the majority. Your casual disregard for such liberal principles is disappointing, but not surprising.

Plus, of course, your own logic is internally inconsistent. If a large majority is really against such speech, then how is it that this speech can manage to win elections?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Care to square this with legal bans on certain cigarette ads?
Click to expand...
That's commercial speech, which is actually exempt from the 1st Amendment.

You wish to regulate political speech, which is pretty freaking scary because it ought to be the sacred cow of free speech.

Skeptic Ginger said:
People are not concerned with corporate news media. If they were then Fox News would be off the air. As it is, pure propaganda masquerading as news is tolerated in this country in spite of the distorting effect on the election process.

It is the unlimited financial power of a corporation to directly influence elections that should and does concern more than half (aka the majority of) the people in this country.
Click to expand...
And that's why President Bachmann and her Tea Party Congress can create the Department of Fairness and Balance (DoFaB) whose job it will be to regulate political speech in corporate-owned media.

Do you see the problem with your position?
 
Last edited:
Iran has announced its intent to sue the United States, citing arrests of Occupy Wall Street protestors as human rights violations.

Wow, OWS - you've got an entire nation's government backing you up now. Get down with your bad selves.
 
WildCat said:
:confused:

That the 1st Amendment does not apply to corporations isn't just one argument against the Citizens United decision, it's pretty much the only one I've ever heard.

Go ahead, find an argument against it that doesn't stem from the claim that corporations have no 1st Amendment rights. In fact, it's what the government lawyers argued at the oral arguments before the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

So you haven't found an example of people saying that freedom of the press only applies to individuals then?
 
Nazis call for support of OWS demonstrators;

IF the “movement” wasn’t so PATHETIC it would be OUT THERE – LEADING these protests! The fact that its these “lefties” as you call them, who are picking up the ball and running with it – only shows how much more in tune THEY are with the fed up masses of White Workers, than the fossilized, reactionary “right-wing”. WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO therefore do WN need to FIGHT? My heart is right there with these people
Click to expand...

http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement/

Makes sense. What's the difference between a socialist and a Nazi?

Socialist: Bleh bleh bleh bankers.

Nazi: Bleh bleh bleh Jewish bankers.
 
Virus said:
What's the difference between a socialist and a Nazi?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? They are both part of "the 99%", as are the KKK and NAMBLA. The only bad people are those that have a lot money.
 
More sexual deviancy:

A man accused of exposing himself to children at least five times across Seattle was arrested early Tuesday morning.

Officers had been given a composite sketch of the suspect and detectives learned he had been at Westlake Park taking part in the Occupy Seattle protests.
Click to expand...

Suggested chant for Occupy Seattle:

"Show me what your penis looks like!"
"This is what my penis looks like!"
 
Mobyseven said:
So you haven't found an example of people saying that freedom of the press only applies to individuals then?
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that freedom of speech only applies to individuals, but freedom of the press applies to both individuals and corporations? They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

Do you understand what the word "press" means in the Constitution? It means a printing press, to make it clear that not only is spoken speech protected under the 1st Amendment but also printed speech. This has been subsequently extended to broadcast speech, digitally transmitted speech, recorded speech, etc. The word "press" in the Constitution was not synonymous with "news media", though news media certainly enjoys freedom of the press.

Brief Amicus Curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Appellant

...Conclusion

Many editors would choose not to run the type of commentary seen in Hillary: The Movie for a variety of reasons – its political viewpoint, its length, or its tone, for example. These editorial decisions, though, cannot create legally meaningful distinctions without forcing the courts to “sit as superior editors of the press.” See Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200, 229 (1998).

Justice Thomas in McConnell warned of the risk that overbroad campaign finance regulations pose to the news media, saying that would-be censors of the press “need only argue that the press ‘capacity to manipulate popular opinion’ gives rise to an ‘appearance of corruption,’” and that “laws regulating media outlets in their issuance of editorials would be upheld under the” Court’s opinion in McConnell. 540 U.S. at 285 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court below has made this a reality, directly suppressing the type of political commentary that has long been the right and responsibility of the news media. For this reason, that application of the BCRA to Hillary: The Movie is an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech and of the press.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ersComttforFreedomofthePress.authcheckdam.pdf
 
Last edited:
It boggles the mind. Some people in this thread believe billionaires who own television broadcast corporations are not a threat to democracy should they choose to use that power to influence people with carefully crafted propaganda, but any regulation of that political speech to keep the playing field level and make sure all individuals have an equal voice is a threat to democracy.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Some people in this thread believe billionaires who own television broadcast corporations are not a threat to democracy...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Is there evidence that democracy in the U.S. has been weakened since the Citizens United SCOTUS decision?[/quote]
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It boggles the mind. Some people in this thread believe billionaires who own television broadcast corporations are not a threat to democracy should they choose to use that power to influence people with carefully crafted propaganda, but any regulation of that political speech to keep the playing field level and make sure all individuals have an equal voice is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...

Aren't OWS trying to influence people? Are they a threat to democracy that must have their speech regulated?
 
Virus said:
Aren't OWS trying to influence people? Are they a threat to democracy that must have their speech regulated?
Click to expand...
You are so missing the key point in my post. How can you be that blind? It boggles the mind.


Does the OWS have an unfair advantage of billions of dollars and their own broadcast corporation? Do they have a grossly disproportionate access and influence on government and on the other media outlets (except the Net, our potential saving grace during this brief window before the largest corporate powers that be take tighter control)?


How did you miss that key point? I've read my post several times over and I fail to see how you could possibly have missed such a blatantly key point. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Aren't OWS trying to influence people? Are they a threat to democracy that must have their speech regulated?

Skeptic Ginger said:
You are so missing the key point in my post. How can you be that blind? It boggles the mind.

Does the OWS have an unfair advantage of billions of dollars and their own broadcast corporation? Do they have a grossly disproportionate access and influence on government and on the other media outlets (except the Net, our potential saving grace during this brief window before the largest corporate powers that be take tighter control)?


How did you miss that key point? I've read my post several times over and I fail to see how you could possibly have missed such a blatantly key point. :eek:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The following video explains very well why money is such a powerful and corrupting influence. I happen to believe that free speech and democracy will swing our way in the long run but I'd like to see more regulation and perhaps publicly funded elections. (a different video BTW). :)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom