Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[JihadJane]

Occupy Portland protests shrinking in size

Thanks for the link, Unfortunately, it doesn't contain any any information about whether or not the Occupy movement is thriving and growing.

 

[stokes234]

Yes it is. But I'm afraid all your example illustrates is your own ignorance of constitutional law. What you refer to is a content-neutral restriction. As such, it must meet a much lower threshold for restrictions than non-content-neutral restrictions. And on top of that, the extent of the restriction is much, much, MUCH lower than what we're discussing here. It does not prevent you from conveying whatever message you have to whomever you want to convey it to. So the fact that such a restriction is constitutional, while the non-content-neutral restriction specifically on political speech (the kind of speech which deserves the MOST protection) which DOES prevent people from getting their message out to the public is unconstitutional.

But the restriction is not on people getting their message out to the public, the restriction is on pushing your message on the public using financial means.

What qualifies as harm? Who gets to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful? Would you dare to empower anyone to make that decision in regards to political speech?

Why on earth do you think that it would be safe to cede such vast power to any authority?

I'm perfectly happy to allow a court system to have the power to decide when a group is trying to pervert the course of an election by funnelling large amounts of money into one side of it, if that's what you're asking.

No, that's not clear at all. You have described one aspect, and one aspect alone. You haven't specified what else is in play. What about the backing of media organizations? Hell, what about the simple willingness of media to cover (or not cover) your campaign? The fact is, the media will never be fair in how much coverage it gives, and without coverage or the ability to finance advertising (which you've ruled out), a candidate is dead in the water. Hell, you can't even objectively define "fairness", nor is that necessarily even preferable. The media probably shouldn't spend much time covering all the thousands of people who would like to run for president. They don't, and they never will. So whoever gets the media's attention already has an unfair advantage. But who gets the media's attention? Well, quite possibly exactly the same people who currently get financial backing. But even if not, there's no reason to think that this group will be any more "democratic". Hell, they could even be less democratic, because now there's no way to circumvent the media. And if you don't think money influences media, well, you're kidding yourself. You haven't prevented rich people from getting more influence, you've just handed that influence to the rich people who own the media, and locked out everyone else. Just think about the influence Rupert Murdoch would have under your supposedly more democratic system.

There are two main points to make here. Firstly, there is a difference between using money to go out and actively promote one side of an election, and putting something up for sale which contains a promotion for one side of an election. In one case, the case I think should be prevented such as leafletting or advertisement billboards, you're not giving people much of a conscious decision to ask you for information, you're pushing the information on them. In the case of media advertising, people have made the decision to come to you for information, and therefore don't need to be as protected from you then pushing propaganda on them.

Secondly, to me the idea that the correct balance to superrich media organisations is ordinary people banding together to counteract their money is pure high fantasy. Do you genuinely, truly believe that ordinary people have enough spare money lying around to try to fund an election campaign to an extent that can compete with the superrich media barons like murdoch? We're in the middle of a financial mess where pretty much the only people doing well are murdoch and his ilk, while everyone else is pretty much living payday to payday. You take these people, the city bankers and big business directors and media barons, and put them on a start line next to ordinary people and say "go!", who do you think is going to start piling tens of millions into their favoured party faster?

So the solution to the fact that they can be outspent is to... keep them from getting out their message at all? Sorry, that's no form of improvement.

Yes, that's exactly the solution. Take people who are being massively outspent, and prevent them from being outspent by preventing both sides from spending.

You don't get it. This wasn't some hypothetical situation. That was exactly what happened to Citizens United. They were trying to do what you claimed they wouldn't have reason to do. But they did. Except that the government stepped in and stopped them, via an unconstitutional restriction on their speech.

Yes, I know it wasn't a hypothetical situation. I was comparing it to the much, much more money available to very rich people.

 

[Kay]

But the restriction is not on people getting their message out to the public, the restriction is on pushing your message on the public using financial means.

I'd argue that's semantics, because at the end of the day, money is necessary to help in pushing out the message. I don't have a source, but I remember reading about Citizens United that Roberts asked the government that since pretty much any campaign literature is going to need finances, wouldn't the government be allowed to shut down any literature it wants with those financial rules? And the government representative pretty much admitted yes.

There are two main points to make here. Firstly, there is a difference between using money to go out and actively promote one side of an election, and putting something up for sale which contains a promotion for one side of an election. In one case, the case I think should be prevented such as leafletting or advertisement billboards, you're not giving people much of a conscious decision to ask you for information, you're pushing the information on them. In the case of media advertising, people have made the decision to come to you for information, and therefore don't need to be as protected from you then pushing propaganda on them.

...............So, creating leaflets and posting advertisements on TV or billboards is bad, but Fox News is okay? That's a policy that blatantly favors the rich people who own Fox News and control the media, but hurts the people who can go out and pay for leaflets.

The difference I see is that you see two groups : ordinary people and rich people. I see three groups: ordinary people (me), rich people who don't influence the media ( Michael Jordan as an example), and those who do (Murdoch).

Under your policy, I'm screwed in getting my voice out, and so is a rich guy like Jordan. But Murdoch's just fine. He's got Fox News, and that's not going to ever get shut down. So congrats, now he has a disproportionate voice compared to before.

 

[TjW]

Occupy Portland protests shrinking in size

Doesn't really surprise me. My occupier shrinks when it's cold and not getting attention.

 

[stokes234]

...............So, creating leaflets and posting advertisements on TV or billboards is bad, but Fox News is okay? That's a policy that blatantly favors the rich people who own Fox News and control the media, but hurts the people who can go out and pay for leaflets.

The difference I see is that you see two groups : ordinary people and rich people. I see three groups: ordinary people (me), rich people who don't influence the media ( Michael Jordan as an example), and those who do (Murdoch).

Under your policy, I'm screwed in getting my voice out, and so is a rich guy like Jordan. But Murdoch's just fine. He's got Fox News, and that's not going to ever get shut down. So congrats, now he has a disproportionate voice compared to before.

Fox news isn't ok, fox news is bad because it's basically political propaganda. But you can't limit everything. I think where you and I disagree is that you think that if ordinary people are allowed to give out leaflets, they'll somehow be able to do so on a large enough scale to counter fox news, whereas I suspect if a group of ordinary people got together to try as you suggest, they'd have trouble reaching 1% of the influence the Koch brothers could put out.

Fox news already has a disproportionate voice in america. Giving the people who run fox news more methods with which to pervert the democratic system just seems like a bad idea. At the end of the day, I just don't think poor people have as much money as rich people do to put towards furthering their political interests.

It's worth noting though, that in the UK you're not completely prevented from leafletting - you're prevented from leafletting/advertising over a certain budget, in favour of one party, during an election campaign, if you have any links to that party. And this is what I support, I don't support a total ban.

 

[WildCat]

It's worth noting though, that in the UK you're not completely prevented from leafletting - you're prevented from leafletting/advertising over a certain budget, in favour of one party, during an election campaign, if you have any links to that party. And this is what I support, I don't support a total ban.

So you support your speech being abridged.

Here that requires a Constitutional Amendment, which doesn't have a prayer because most Americans do not want political speech to be regulated by the government. That's against the principles this country was founded on and hold dear to this day, and has served us well for over 220 years. You fear freedom of speech, I don't.

 

[stokes234]

So you support your speech being abridged.

Here that requires a Constitutional Amendment, which doesn't have a prayer because most Americans do not want political speech to be regulated by the government. That's against the principles this country was founded on and hold dear to this day, and has served us well for over 220 years. You fear freedom of speech, I don't.

If you're happy with your political system requiring people to have huge amounts of money behind them in order to be relevant in politics that's fair enough - i'm willing to sacrifice the ability to buy an election in order to avoid that scenario. I still get to exercise any free speech I could ever want.

 

[WildCat]

If you're happy with your political system requiring people to have huge amounts of money behind them in order to be relevant in politics

That's not the case at all. Many people with little means of their own can pool their resources together and have enormous political influence. One of the most, if not the most, powerful lobbies in the USA is the AARP. The NRA is also quite powerful. Both groups are composed of millions of individuals pooling their resources to gain an influence few if any large corporations or rich individuals ever could.

that's fair enough - i'm willing to sacrifice the ability to buy an election in order to avoid that scenario. I still get to exercise any free speech I could ever want.

And all the power stays in the political parties, your speech may as well not exist. But perhaps that's the British way, let the elite few make the decisions you commoners are hopelessly incompetent to make.

 

[Kay]

It's worth noting though, that in the UK you're not completely prevented from leafletting - you're prevented from leafletting/advertising over a certain budget, in favour of one party, during an election campaign, if you have any links to that party. And this is what I support, I don't support a total ban

What does "links to that party" even mean? If you try hard enough, you can prove that anything is related to something. I view myself as a Republican. I've attended state conventions as a delegate. I've done some work for local elections. I'm the treasurer of my chapter of College Republicans. So, am I then linked with the Republican Party?

Secondly "in favour of one party" - so if I campaign in favor of the Labour Party, I guess that's bad. But what happens if I pass out leaflets that say all British forces need to leave Iraq? I'm not dealing with a party, so is that bad. Because that's what a lot of political groups in America do - they don't officially support one party, they just support a position which that party also supports.

If you're happy with your political system requiring people to have huge amounts of money behind them in order to be relevant in politics that's fair enough - i'm willing to sacrifice the ability to buy an election in order to avoid that scenario. I still get to exercise any free speech I could ever want.

I would argue that OWS, while I may disagree with them, belies your claim.

Ultimately, I believe in the importance of the principles here above all else. You basically argue that if free speech is limited in the political discourse, it'll limit the influence of the rich, and so it's good. I'd argue that placing any limits on political speech is inherently evil, even if the intentions may be good. And as Wildcat demonstrated, many of the most important lobbies are common people uniting.

 

[stokes234]

That's not the case at all. Many people with little means of their own can pool their resources together and have enormous political influence. One of the most, if not the most, powerful lobbies in the USA is the AARP. The NRA is also quite powerful. Both groups are composed of millions of individuals pooling their resources to gain an influence few if any large corporations or rich individuals ever could.

Sure, i'll grant you it's possible, but every individual in that group has a very small amount of influence compared to any given rich person buying leaflets in bulk. Per person, they have much less influence if there is no prevention of using financial resources to sway an election. And if you ever intend to actually become an elected official at a high level, you still need huge amounts of money from organisations such as this, and so there is still a financial barrier to entry into the democratic system.

And all the power stays in the political parties, your speech may as well not exist. But perhaps that's the British way, let the elite few make the decisions you commoners are hopelessly incompetent to make.

Party election campaigns in the UK rely on ordinary people doing volunteer work. Canvassing is a large part of election campaigns, as is actually delivering the leaflets that fall within the budget etc, and these require ordinary people who care about politics to get involved. If a political party wants to have a chance in the UK, it doesn't need huge amounts of financial backing, it needs people who care passionately about it, even if they can't afford to buy the election. Our system isn't perfect (i'd rather see PR than FPTP), but I still prefer electoral campaigns to be decided by who is more passionate, rather than by who has more money.

 

[WildCat]

Sure, i'll grant you it's possible, but every individual in that group has a very small amount of influence compared to any given rich person buying leaflets in bulk. Per person, they have much less influence if there is no prevention of using financial resources to sway an election. And if you ever intend to actually become an elected official at a high level, you still need huge amounts of money from organisations such as this, and so there is still a financial barrier to entry into the democratic system.

That's why they pool their resources collectively with other like-minded people. And campaign contribution limits can certainly be lowered.

Party election campaigns in the UK rely on ordinary people doing volunteer work. Canvassing is a large part of election campaigns, as is actually delivering the leaflets that fall within the budget etc, and these require ordinary people who care about politics to get involved. If a political party wants to have a chance in the UK, it doesn't need huge amounts of financial backing, it needs people who care passionately about it, even if they can't afford to buy the election. Our system isn't perfect (i'd rather see PR than FPTP), but I still prefer electoral campaigns to be decided by who is more passionate, rather than by who has more money.

And how does one get the word out about a new political party in the UK? How many great ideas died at birth because there was no legal way to disseminate them?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Police Commissioner describes crime around Occupy Boston as "out of control":

Drug dealing. Violence. Vandalism. Prostitution.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/29892039/detail.html

More reason to silence free spech and petition right?

 

[Brainster]

Occupy LA leaves 60,000 pounds of trash behind:

Sanitation officials said Wednesday that they expect to haul away 30 tons of debris from the Occupy L.A. encampment –- everything from clothing to heaps of garbage to oddball curiosities left behind by the protesters who lived at the City Hall tent city for two months.

Andrea Alarcon, president of the city Public Works board, said workers already have removed 25 tons of belongings from the City Hall park, all of it heading straight to a landfill.

Of course, the real toxic waste here got taken away in a paddy wagon.

 

[Neally]

More reason to silence free spech and petition right?

Really? You're back to this bogus claim?

 

[stokes234]

That's why they pool their resources collectively with other like-minded people. And campaign contribution limits can certainly be lowered.

They can't be lowered if they're disguised as advertising and protected as free speech.

And how does one get the word out about a new political party in the UK? How many great ideas died at birth because there was no legal way to disseminate them?

It's not illegal to leaflet, it's illegal to leaflet in favour of one party, during an election campaign, over the cap imposed, if you have any links to them. So if you decide to create a new political party, you can spend up to the same amount the other political parties spend, for a start - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...rnment/Politicalpartiesandelections/DG_073226

And then you need to convince enough like-minded people that your ideas are worth electing, and get them to help you campaign. The FPTP system stifles this to a certain extent, since you need to be the most popular party in a constituency to get a seat (and this is why I favour PR), but new parties can win seats because they aren't automatically blocked out by excessive funding. The UK parliament has 10 different political parties with MPs - 3 major, 7 minor - and one independent. By contrast, the USA's senate and house of representatives both have 2 parties.

 

[Brainster]

By contrast, the USA's senate and house of representatives both have 2 parties.

Bzzt! Wrong!

 

[stokes234]

What does "links to that party" even mean? If you try hard enough, you can prove that anything is related to something. I view myself as a Republican. I've attended state conventions as a delegate. I've done some work for local elections. I'm the treasurer of my chapter of College Republicans. So, am I then linked with the Republican Party?

Yes, you would be. In the UK if you tried to spend large amounts of money to get one party to win over another, you'd be prevented, and you'd quite possibly hurt the party by splitting their available funds and tying them up in legal proceedings.

Secondly "in favour of one party" - so if I campaign in favor of the Labour Party, I guess that's bad. But what happens if I pass out leaflets that say all British forces need to leave Iraq? I'm not dealing with a party, so is that bad. Because that's what a lot of political groups in America do - they don't officially support one party, they just support a position which that party also supports.

No, you can do that.

I would argue that OWS, while I may disagree with them, belies your claim.

Well, I hope you're right, but as of yet they haven't achieved much in the way of political relevance. They got some items on the table for discussion, but then the discussion in many places switched to attacking them (rightly or wrongly) for various discretions.

Ultimately, I believe in the importance of the principles here above all else. You basically argue that if free speech is limited in the political discourse, it'll limit the influence of the rich, and so it's good. I'd argue that placing any limits on political speech is inherently evil, even if the intentions may be good.

Sure, so we can agree to disagree, but you're still standing in the country with fewer political parties and a much higher financial barrier to entry into the political system, while i've never even heard of anyones political speech being restricted in the UK. Besides discrimination perhaps, and even then the leader of the UKs racist party still got his slot on Question Time.

And as Wildcat demonstrated, many of the most important lobbies are common people uniting.

Yes, I concede that it does happen, but i'm yet to be convinced that it has as big an effect as rich financial backers, and it doesn't change my point that to become a viable candidate in the US you need a large amount of financial backing.

 

[stokes234]

Bzzt! Wrong!

What have I missed? 2 independents in the senate, both of whom are largely affiliated to one party? I think my point stands.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the restriction is not on people getting their message out to the public, the restriction is on pushing your message on the public using financial means.

You say that like these are two different things. But clearly they aren't. In fact, that's the entire premise of campaign finance laws to begin with: money is, as a practical matter, the only guaranteed way of widely disseminating a message. If it wasn't, campaign finance laws would be irrelevant. You're basically trying to take two mutually contradictory positions here.

I'm perfectly happy to allow a court system to have the power to decide when a group is trying to pervert the course of an election by funnelling large amounts of money into one side of it, if that's what you're asking.

And you honestly don't understand how that might corrupt the political process? Because I can tell you right now, there's no objective test for what "perverts" an election in terms of speech.

There are two main points to make here. Firstly, there is a difference between using money to go out and actively promote one side of an election, and putting something up for sale which contains a promotion for one side of an election.

No, actually, there isn't. Nor was there under the law in question.

In one case, the case I think should be prevented such as leafletting or advertisement billboards, you're not giving people much of a conscious decision to ask you for information, you're pushing the information on them. In the case of media advertising, people have made the decision to come to you for information, and therefore don't need to be as protected from you then pushing propaganda on them.

People need to be protected from hearing political ideas? Sorry, but that's a totalitarian idea which has no place in a democracy.

Secondly, to me the idea that the correct balance to superrich media organisations is ordinary people banding together to counteract their money is pure high fantasy.

So instead of a partial solution, you prefer no solution. You're not selling your position as an improvement of any sort.

Do you genuinely, truly believe that ordinary people have enough spare money lying around to try to fund an election campaign to an extent that can compete with the superrich media barons like murdoch?

Whether they can compete or not, they should have the right to try. Which is what Citizens United (the group) was trying to do. You want to take even that away from them, and have yet to explain why you want to deprive them of their rights to free speech.

We're in the middle of a financial mess where pretty much the only people doing well are murdoch and his ilk, while everyone else is pretty much living payday to payday. You take these people, the city bankers and big business directors and media barons, and put them on a start line next to ordinary people and say "go!", who do you think is going to start piling tens of millions into their favoured party faster?

Once again, Citizens United (the case) had absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations. And if you honestly thought that McCain-Feingold actually removed the influence of big money and leveled the playing field, well, then you're a gullible rube.

Yes, that's exactly the solution. Take people who are being massively outspent, and prevent them from being outspent by preventing both sides from spending.

You still don't get it. The rich guys will ALWAYS find ways to influence the process. You haven't stopped them. All you've done is keep the little guys (like Citizens United) off the field entirely, because they don't have the resources to play the game on any other terms.

 

[WildCat]

They can't be lowered if they're disguised as advertising and protected as free speech.

They can be lowered, and have been, and the Supreme Court has ruled this is permissable. Because Congress can regulate campaigns, however they cannot abridge the freedom of speech.

It's not illegal to leaflet, it's illegal to leaflet in favour of one party, during an election campaign, over the cap imposed, if you have any links to them. So if you decide to create a new political party, you can spend up to the same amount the other political parties spend, for a start - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...rnment/Politicalpartiesandelections/DG_073226

And then you need to convince enough like-minded people that your ideas are worth electing, and get them to help you campaign. The FPTP system stifles this to a certain extent, since you need to be the most popular party in a constituency to get a seat (and this is why I favour PR), but new parties can win seats because they aren't automatically blocked out by excessive funding. The UK parliament has 10 different political parties with MPs - 3 major, 7 minor - and one independent. By contrast, the USA's senate and house of representatives both have 2 parties.

Like I said, it takes power from the people and puts it in the hands of party leaders.

I prefer freedom of speech, thank you!