Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

web.economist.com

“Hillary: the Movie” is no duller or more biased than much of what passes for journalism these days. And it is clearly political speech, which the constitution’s first amendment unambiguously protects. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” it says. Not “thoughtful, balanced speech”; just “speech”. Yet the creators of the movie were forced to drop plans to distribute it via cable television for fear of stiff fines and long jail terms.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a great article about how the Supreme, though well intentioned, has caused a mess of the freedom of speech.

There was an attempt to remove the ability of giant corporations from having too much influence in the press, but it has backfired and instead has made those who might protest the building of something near there own homes to have to create a PAC or be fined for their protests...

web.economist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Evidently the expose by the economist on the abridging of free speech doesn't garner as much attention on ATS as things shrouded in mystery.

I'll give you a star and a flag for this very scary article.

If you are banned from saying anything negative about political candidates, how can there be such a thing as political dissent?

This is a real bad one ...

This story is important for anyone interested in TRUE history. Because I promise you, 20 years from now, most will have forgotten all about it.

The issue has to do with which political appointees where in which positions at the time. Another factor is the "ownership" of the media.

S&F.

Question: If these folks had distributed this through a "public domain" network and played on "public access" television around the country, would they still be breaking the law?

Maybe it was the greed that screwed up their plan to unduly influence American politics....

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by Maxmars


Question: If these folks had distributed this through a "public domain" network and played on "public access" television around the country, would they still be breaking the law?

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Maxmars]

To me, this is just like a George Soros financed Michael Moore "documentary" (using the term very loosely) from before the 2008 elections. Guess it was all OK back then.

Reconciling freedom of speech with campaign finance reform is so difficult it might not be really possible.

One person's "truth" is another person's "smear."

An example: Lyndon Johnson was successful in passing Medicare and Medicaid--in my opinion the most progressive health care reforms ever to date--largely because he called upon his billionaire friends to pour money into the campaigns of key organizations and candidates in order to persuade them to vote the President's way. He would never get away with that under McCain-Feingold. Some people would say that's good, it was a worthy cause, and other might say it was an abridgment of the democratic process and an outrage.

I think the Hillary movie is probably trash that I wouldn't want to see, but as somebody else pointed out, Michael Moore's "Sicko" did remain in circulation when the Hillary producers had to wait until now.

In an ideal world money should not be the motivator of political action, but so far nobody has found a successful way to separate them.

BTW: "The Economist" is heavy reading that may discourage anybody but the most politically involved, but I wouldn't let the lack of response deter me from making good threads. I understand Bill Clinton read it from cover to cover each issue. IMO it's a basically unbiased publication (or as objective as it's possible for humans to be).

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias


Yeah.. it's a difficult proposition at best to attempt to reconcile the two.

And yes.. the economist is rather heavy reading... but I find it to be rather enlightening at times and at the very least detached from the quagmire of American political biases.