Friday, November 30, 2012

Not Just Anti-Gun: Free Speech Control

The same man that worries about Guam flipping over now wants a constitutional amendment banning free speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.
As reported by the  CBS Corporation.   GASP!

But wait this brain-trust has more.
“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”
Control the media?  I have grim news, other than PBS they OWN the media!  Double gasp.

And gotta love the idea of  "privatizing every aspect of our lives" being cast as a bad thing.  More public housing!  More Collective Farms!  All media should be owned by the State!

How dare people think that just because they freely associate that they can just say whatever they want!

It's a good thing there aren't many corporations in publishing, telecommunications, entertainment, or the media.  Oh wait, I'm sure that "responsible" corporations will get exemptions.

Mind you.  This is the kind of person that thinks he can run your life better than you.  This same island-flipping ignoramus that thinks that free speech is a privilege not a right.

At least he is honest enough to be going for a full on Amendment.     As opposed to something Statutory or Executively invoked.

And of course giving the State the power to control free speech would Never be abused.  It's not like those evil  Republicans wouldn't ever get into power.

For reference good old Mr. A had a similar idea to limit the First Amendment to those corporations deemed to be "truthful"

But that  was almost a year ago.  What does Mr. A think now?
People have rights.Corporations aren't people.We need to sort this out. Saying corporations deserve free speech is like saying fish have souls.
And what about publishing? Would that not have a disastrous effect? Well...

And yeah, the sort of policy I'm advocating WOULD create a situation where people can say things that corporations cannot. That's by design, because they're real living beings and corporations are not.

And, for the publishing thing, it would absolutely create a situation in which corporations could be held liable for things that the author cannot. In which corporations would, hopefully, have to restrict their involvement in politically sensitive matters to avoid liability. This is one of the intended outcomes

Emphasis added. And what's Mr. A's dream as to what corporations should not be allowed to do:

They should not be able to speak on political topics, finance speech on political topics, exercise any manner of influence over elected officials or the election of officials Their shareholders, of course, have the right to do so but they have to do it on their own personal time and dime
Personal dime.   So those with the most personal wealth can just buy the most free speech.

But there's more Miss W (the Canadian friend mentioned here) was also there.  And oh boy did things get rough. I got down a bunch of lines from that little exchange. 

Hold on for some grade-A progressive pap.   And mind that Miss W despite liking guns is quite good on Single-Payer healthcare AND is very open to campaign contribution caps and thinks that SuperPACs broke the american political system.

Mr. A: I do not need to be in, or part of, a corporation, to succeed at political commentary
Miss W: Forget political commentary. How are you going to publish a novel without such resources?
Miss W: Which restricts the production of TV, movies, and games to the mega-rich individuals only.
Miss W: Entertainment is political. Everything is political.
Mr. A: Yawn
 Miss W: Cut out social commentary in your movies
Mr. A: Bullshit
Mr. A: Most movies don't really have any
Miss W: You include a gay character in a movie? You made political commentary, and there are groups out there that would like to have you taken off the air for it.
  Mr. A: it's unfortunate that North America is somewhat barbaric in this respectMiss W: Look... what speech would you have suppressed?
Miss W: Who decides?
Mr. A: We the people decide
Miss W: In the end, the speech that gets suppressed is the speech that is unpopular.
Mr. A: through the process of government, electing congressmen and senators
Mr. A: just like how we decide what to do with our army
 Miss W: Neo-Nazis are unpopular. But fifty years ago? It was people who said 'blacks are human beings' who were unpopular.
 Mr. A: but when you have 22 hours of "OBAMA RAPES BABIES" on TV for months straight.. well.. turns out, it has an impact

Nevermind that he –um- won.

 Miss W: The solution is not shutting people up, the solution is basic education so that which is stupid can be seen as stupid.
 Miss W: Speech that can't be heard isn't speech, Mr. A
Mr. A: Canada doesn't have enough christards clamoring to make their mythology a fact to ruin that system, thankfully
 Miss W: And you don't think the christards won't make use of the 'shut down people saying shit I don't like' power?

And Mr A never had a good answer to that.

Again, they're not just anti-gun.

No comments: