Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[stokes234]

You're asking me how a law that abridges freedom of speech violates the 1st Amendment?

I have no idea why you're so confused. This is like asking me why 2+2=4.

No, I understand perfectly the idea that restricting free speech violates the 1st amendment. What I want to know is what the bill that you believe restricts freedom of speech would actually do to restrict freedom of speech. Who would it prevent from speaking? Where would it prevent them from speaking, and what would it prevent them speaking about? Etc. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[stokes234]

Prohibiting government contractors from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

You do understand it, then.

All I can gather from that is that it prevents people who the government has employed from openly supporting one political party. That seems to me like a good idea, and a far cry from restricting freedom of speech. Obviously you wouldn't want a group paid by the government running a pro-government newspaper, tv channel etc.

 

[WildCat]

No, I understand perfectly the idea that restricting free speech violates the 1st amendment. What I want to know is what the bill that you believe restricts freedom of speech would actually do to restrict freedom of speech. Who would it prevent from speaking? Where would it prevent them from speaking, and what would it prevent them speaking about? Etc. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Do you dispute that Sec. 101 of the bill abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press?

 

[stokes234]

Do you dispute that Sec. 101 of the bill abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press?

I don't know, it depends on your definition of free speech. If the venezualan government paid a large amount of money to a public department who then ran a pro-chavez newspaper, I wouldn't call that "free speech", and i'm of the same opinion here. This is why i'm asking you to elaborate.

 

[WildCat]

All I can gather from that is that it prevents people who the government has employed from openly supporting one political party.

So you do understand that the bill abridges the freedom of speech. So why are you prtetending to be confused about its unconstitutional nature?

That seems to me like a good idea, and a far cry from restricting freedom of speech.

So it's not an abridgment of the freedom of speech if you think it's a "good idea"?

Obviously you wouldn't want a group paid by the government running a pro-government newspaper, tv channel etc

I had no idea you were against such things.

 

[stokes234]

So it's not an abridgment of the freedom of speech if you think it's a "good idea"?

Not what i'm saying, and try not to get so defensive. I'm not proposing that we all agree to eat your mothers liver, i'm asking you to explain your point to someone who doesn't automatically know just how literal you americans consider the constitution. It seems to me that a bill that prevents the government from funding its own propaganda would be a good thing, regardless of how it fits with words written by people 400 years dead.

 

[WildCat]

Not what i'm saying, and try not to get so defensive. I'm not proposing that we all agree to eat your mothers liver, i'm asking you to explain your point to someone who doesn't automatically know just how literal you americans consider the constitution. It seems to me that a bill that prevents the government from funding its own propaganda would be a good thing, regardless of how it fits with words written by people 400 years dead.

You mean like when public labor unions raise money for and endorse candidates who will give them favorable labor contracts?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, it is just SO ethical for government contractors who directly benefit from contract awards to spend money earned from doing public contracts to elect men who will give them more contracts.

That is the road to a transparent government.

Transparently corrupt.

I didn't previously take you for such a strong opponent of public employee unions. But I guess I was wrong about you, I guess you've taken FDR's warning to heart.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, then, no problem at all if Obama uses government money to hire all of the major news organizations as "consultants"? They would be government contractors, and if they wanted to get that "contract" renewed next year, they would have to make sure that Mr. Obama was still around to be their patron, now, wouldn't they?

 

[WildCat]

Well, then, no problem at all if Obama uses government money to hire all of the major news organizations as "consultants"? They would be government contractors, and if they wanted to get that "contract" renewed next year, they would have to make sure that Mr. Obama was still around to be their patron, now, wouldn't they?

There's already checks and balances built into the Constitution that prevents this sort of thing. That's why it hasn't ever happened and is unlikely to ever happen. You really wish to repeal the 1st Amendment, or interpret it to the point of irrelevancy, in order to prevent such an unlikely scenario?

Of course you don't, you think you can interpret it in just the right way so that your political opponents are silenced while your political allies are unrestricted. And you are shortsighted enough to be blind to how such a thing can be used against you as soon as the political tide changes. Something even guys "400 years dead" p) understood.

 

[000063]

Would you care to actually respond to someone, Ben? It won't hurt.

 

[BenBurch]

That wasn't a response?

 

[richardm]

I owe myself 5 bucks.

Capitalist pig

 

[Vorticity]

All I can gather from that is that it prevents people who the government has employed from openly supporting one political party. That seems to me like a good idea, and a far cry from restricting freedom of speech.

I work for the US government.

Suppose I want to go on a weekend to a (say) pro-Democratic event, and hold up a sign to that effect. Should I be allowed?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, it is just SO ethical for government contractors who directly benefit from contract awards to spend money earned from doing public contracts to elect men who will give them more contracts.

That is the road to a transparent government.

Transparently corrupt.

It's really strange because the Republicans are the same people who object to Unions in the government. Something about voting out those who employ you....but contractors, they're ok.

 

[Piggy]

The thread headline alone really does make it seem like you accuse the OWS protesters of being actually part of the "1%". Your OP changes the meaning of this "the 1%" to "making their own rules while disregarding others". But that is not selfevident from the thread title.

That's true, but it wasn't meant to be self-evident from the title. I intended that you'd have to read the OP to understand what it meant.

I was confident that (almost) everyone would take the OP for what it is, and not get so rattled by a momentary lack of comprehension that they can't let it go.

And I believe I was correct in that confidence.

 

[Piggy]

And to tie all this into the "argument" you're actually making, it seems like you're dressing up a statement of disapproval (you basically don't like the OWS protests) as if it were something more substantial.

Using a public space for one of the intended uses of such public spaces isn't a problem in itself. That those public spaces aren't available for other uses while they're being used by OWS protesters isn't unique to OWS. (For example, Kiener Plaza in St. Louis, where the Occupy St. Louis protesters were is also unavailable to the general public when it's being used for any number of events: the Go! St. Louis Marathon, the Susan Komein breast cancer fundraiser, and so on.)

But again, at least by connotation your thread title suggests that they have somehow become exactly what they're protesting against. And about all you're really saying is that you don't like them. I certainly don't think you have to like them or even approve of them.

It's not a connotation, I'm saying it outright -- they're doing what they're protesting against. I've said it before, I'll say it again.

They don't like it that too many resources are going to too few people.

In protest, they take over public resources for weeks at a time (unlike the other groups you mention) and prevent others from using them while incurring expenses that others are obliged to pay.

That's what I object to. The mainstream ideas they're pushing are worth considering, but their methods are selfish and counterproductive.

 

[WildCat]

It's really strange because the Republicans are the same people who object to Unions in the government. Something about voting out those who employ you....but contractors, they're ok.

You can object to unions in the government, you can object to any government contractor you choose, and I have no issues whatsoever with that. Say the contractor is ripping off taxpayers, say the unions have too much negotiating power wrt their contracts. Shout it from the rooftop, start a blog about it, take out a full-page ad in WaPo about it. Let the unions and the contractors do the same if they wish.

My issue is when you say the 1st Amendment has to be sacrificed in the process, especially when there are other far better (IMHO) alternatives.

 

[stokes234]

You mean like when public labor unions raise money for and endorse candidates who will give them favorable labor contracts?

I'll have to think about that one. The employees in the union are paid by the government, but the union itself isn't funded by the government, it's funded by individuals on a voluntary basis. I suppose it is somewhat similar to a security agency paid by the government lobbying for more funding to be spent on security so that they can get better contracts and thus pay themselves more, so if one was banned, the other would also have to be banned.

I'd rather see financial contributions be the focus of bills than vocal support.

There's already checks and balances built into the Constitution that prevents this sort of thing. That's why it hasn't ever happened and is unlikely to ever happen. You really wish to repeal the 1st Amendment, or interpret it to the point of irrelevancy, in order to prevent such an unlikely scenario?

I'm not as convinced as you that lobbying by government contractors has no effect on policies.

Of course you don't, you think you can interpret it in just the right way so that your political opponents are silenced while your political allies are unrestricted. And you are shortsighted enough to be blind to how such a thing can be used against you as soon as the political tide changes. Something even guys "400 years dead" p) understood.

I'm no partisan hack. If I ask you a question, it's not a rhetorical attack on your ideology or an insult disguised as a query - I genuinely want to know the answer.

I work for the US government.

Suppose I want to go on a weekend to a (say) pro-Democratic event, and hold up a sign to that effect. Should I be allowed?

Yes, and if the Disclose Act would have made that illegal, I can see the problem.

 

[Vorticity]

I work for the US government.

Suppose I want to go on a weekend to a (say) pro-Democratic event, and hold up a sign to that effect. Should I be allowed?

Yes, and if the Disclose Act would have made that illegal, I can see the problem.

Fair enough.

To be perfectly honest, after I made that post I checked WildCat's link to see the text of the act, and I'll be damned if I can make head or tails out of what the relevant section is saying:

SEC. 101. PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.

(a) Prohibition Applicable to Government Contractors-

(1) PROHIBITION

(A) IN GENERAL- Section 317(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘purpose or use; or’ and inserting the following: ‘purpose or use, to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication; or’.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 317 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441c) is amended by striking ‘CONTRIBUTIONS’ and inserting ‘CONTRIBUTIONS, INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS’.

(2) THRESHOLD FOR APPLICATION OF BAN- Section 317 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441c) is amended--

(A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d); and

(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:

‘(b) To the extent that subsection (a)(1) prohibits a person who enters into a contract described in such subsection from making any independent expenditure or disbursing funds for an electioneering communication, such subsection shall apply only if the value of the contract is equal to or greater than $10,000,000.’.

(b) Application to Recipients of Assistance Under Troubled Asset Program- Section 317(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (1);

(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:

‘(2) who enters into negotiations for financial assistance under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.) (relating to the purchase of troubled assets by the Secretary of the Treasury), during the period--

‘(A) beginning on the later of the commencement of the negotiations or the date of the enactment of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act; and

‘(B) ending with the later of the termination of such negotiations or the repayment of such financial assistance;

directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use, to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication; or’.

etc...

It all seems to be line-item modifications to something called the "Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971", which we don't have the text of here to refer to.

Let's see if I can find it...