Re: Fake News for Big Brother
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
It's significant that a United States Court of Appeals has a stronger commitment to the First Amendment than supposed arch-libertarian Tim May. Look at May's response when confronted with the idea that a newspaper has the right to print what it chooses:
But the journalist and his editors are still alive.
When they have been necklaced and lit, we can rest easier.
Burning down the entire newspaper office would maybe be overkill, but, hey, what the hell.
Fuck them dead.
That's right: Tim May believes people should be tortured and killed for saying the wrong thing in their own newspaper. Apparently he believes that he has the right to set rules which everyone else must follow in what they say, under penalty of a horrific death. Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. Thank God for the protection of anonymity. With people like Tim May throwing around death threats towards those who say the wrong thing, this may soon be the only way we can communicate without fear. Please join me in condemning this savage trampling on principles supported by all men of honor.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.
I thought the Constitution applies to personal speech, not to corporate or government speech... If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies. But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"? I suggest an "eye test". If it is theoretically possible to talk with it eye-to-eye[1], then the Constitution applies. If it isn't possible to talk with it without a proxy person - a CEO, a spokesperson, etc. - no "higher rights" apply. A non-personal entity should be considered to voluntarily give up its "right" to existence by an act of knowingly lying. A death penalty - the entity liquidation - should swiftly follow. [1] Applies to blind people and people born without eyes as well; the spirit of what I say should be clear, and whoever would want to nitpick on such piddly details is a stinkin' lawyer type.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.
I thought the Constitution applies to personal speech, not to corporate or government speech...
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
Yes, they are considered "persons" in a ficticioius way. so are houses - a house can be confiscated if one person living in it was either a "drug dealer" or "terrorist. The owner need not know, the house is guilty of being an accomplice. Insane? Yes, but what else is new in the US :-)
I suggest an "eye test". If it is theoretically possible to talk with it eye-to-eye[1], then the Constitution applies. If it isn't possible to talk with it without a proxy person - a CEO, a spokesperson, etc. - no "higher rights" apply.
A non-personal entity should be considered to voluntarily give up its "right" to existence by an act of knowingly lying. A death penalty - the entity liquidation - should swiftly follow.
You are confusing common sense with law. A very silly thing to do! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
Yes, they are considered "persons" in a ficticioius way. so are houses - a house can be confiscated if one person living in it was either a "drug dealer" or "terrorist. The owner need not know, the house is guilty of being an accomplice.
Where is the due process then? Will the house get a pro-bono lawyer (as houses are known to not own enough money to afford one)? Can it be proven that the house was an unwilling accomplice, that it was forced to "cooperate" against its will?
Insane? Yes, but what else is new in the US :-)
The willingness of The Sheeple to trust whatever The Whoever Claims To Be Elected says that's to be considered The Truth at the given moment? Ahh, sorry, you said "new"...
You are confusing common sense with law. A very silly thing to do!
One day I will pay dearly for it...
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.
I thought the Constitution applies to personal speech, not to corporate or government speech...
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
I don't believe that corporations do have rights, or at least they certainly shouldn't. There is a case before the Supreme Court as we speak about whether Nike has a right to freedom of speech. Hopefully they will say no, which would end corporate political contributions, the bane of our current political situation. However, along with freedom of speech, there is also a First Amendment "freedom of the press" as well, so the press, including newspapers, can print anything they want unless it's libel. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 07:28 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.
I thought the Constitution applies to personal speech, not to corporate or government speech...
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
I don't believe that corporations do have rights, or at least they certainly shouldn't. There is a case before the Supreme Court as we speak about whether Nike has a right to freedom of speech. Hopefully they will say no, which would end corporate political contributions, the bane of our current political situation. However, along with freedom of speech, there is also a First Amendment "freedom of the press" as well, so the press, including newspapers, can print anything they want unless it's libel.
This debate some of you are having about whether "free speech" applies to corporations as well as individuals, or only to individuals, or whether it covers "political or financial gain," and so on, is silly. The First Amendment says nothing about "individuals" or "political or financial gain." In fact, what it says is quite simple, and should be memorized by all who wish to discuss it" -- Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -- That's what it says. It says "Congress shall make no law..." It does NOT say "Individuals get to say what they wish, provided it is not for financial or political gain, or, like, is a lie and stuff. And corporations....fuhgettabout it!" It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. "No law" means no law. And if there is no law, there cannot be a law which applies to corporations consisting of one person (they exist) or of 30 people of 3000 people. Congress cannot make a low abridging Nike's freedom of speech. (Some statists have argued for an "actual malice" exception to the First Amendment, e.g., in "N.Y. Times v. Sullivan" and later cases. I take the view that the First means precisely what it says it means: "No law.") --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:28:25AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
I don't believe that corporations do have rights, or at least they certainly shouldn't. There is a case before the Supreme Court as we speak about whether Nike has a right to freedom of speech. Hopefully they will say no, which would
You need to actually read the case and understand what's at issue in it. -Declan
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
How about Indymedia? How about a student newspaper collective? How about Slashdot and its editors? How about the New York Times' editorial page? -Declan
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:42:21AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
How about Indymedia? How about a student newspaper collective? How about Slashdot and its editors? How about the New York Times' editorial page?
That's obviously covered under the 1st's "freedom of the press". What does that have to do with non-humans (corporations) having Constitutional rights? The arguement always put forth is that corporations have the right to make campaign contributions, because that's "freedom of speech". But I guess if those rights are going to be extended to non-humans like corporations, then there's no way to stop them from being extended to other non-human entities as well, such as animals and trees. Or even rocks. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:42:21AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
How about Indymedia? How about a student newspaper collective? How about Slashdot and its editors? How about the New York Times' editorial page?
That's obviously covered under the 1st's "freedom of the press". What does that have to do with non-humans (corporations) having Constitutional rights? The arguement always put forth is that corporations have the right to make campaign contributions, because that's "freedom of speech". But I guess if those rights are going to be extended to non-humans like corporations, then there's no way to stop them from being extended to other non-human entities as well, such as animals and trees. Or even rocks.
I cited the full text of the First. It doesn't talk about who has rights: it says "Congress shall make no law." Again, the full text. You need to read it, and absorb exactly what it says: "-- Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -- " So, yes, if Congress tried to pass a law about the speech of trees or rocks, it would be unconstitutional under the "shall make no law" language. This doesn't mean trees and rocks have "freedom of the press" or "free speech rights." More practically, the First means Congress shall make no law about speech, period. Or about the other things covered. Notice the word "or." This is important. The First does not say "Congess shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of individual persons when engaged in press activities or political speech." It says what it says. The "rights of corporations," to use your phrasing, thus derive from the specific prohibition placed on Congress (and thus on all states, through their requirement to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of joining the Union...and repeated in the 14 Amendment because some states didn't think the words of the Constitution applied to their fiefdoms). "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system." -- Grady Booch
At 05:41 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:42:21AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
If I speak for myself, the First Amendment applies.
But should it apply even to corporations? Are such entities considered to be persons? Should they have "rights"?
I cited the full text of the First. It doesn't talk about who has rights: it says "Congress shall make no law."
Again, the full text. You need to read it, and absorb exactly what it says:
"-- Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --
More practically, the First means Congress shall make no law about speech, period. Or about the other things covered. Notice the word "or." This is important.
The First does not say "Congess shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of individual persons when engaged in press activities or political speech."
It says what it says.
The "rights of corporations," to use your phrasing, thus derive from the specific prohibition placed on Congress (and thus on all states, through their requirement to support and defend the Constitution as a condition of joining the Union...and repeated in the 14 Amendment because some states didn't think the words of the Constitution applied to their fiefdoms).
Funny thing about the 14th, the representatives of the Southern States (who had previously been sworn in and seated for the session) didn't get to vote on it. They were ejected and the doors barred (the Senate even barred a New Jersey rep. who held the deciding vote and was strongly opposed to the measure). They then reported that the majority (of those in the room) approved the measure, which was sent on to the states for ratification. A similar travesty played out in the counting of ratifying states and reporting out the results. When challenged in the Supreme Court the robed ones punted, saying it was a "political matter for Congress to decide". Thus spake Tyranny. Most all current federal authority rests on the 14th and the unwarranted expansion of the Commerce Clause (Wilkert v. Filburn) after FDR and Congress threatened to pack the bench with additional justices in order to pass unconstitutional New Deal legislation. steve
At 2003-05-02 02:56 +0000, Steve Schear wrote:
Funny thing about the 14th, the representatives of the Southern States (who had previously been sworn in and seated for the session) didn't get to vote on it. They were ejected and the doors barred (the Senate even barred a New Jersey rep. who held the deciding vote and was strongly opposed to the measure). They then reported that the majority (of those in the room) approved the measure, which was sent on to the states for ratification. A similar travesty played out in the counting of ratifying states and reporting out the results. When challenged in the Supreme Court the robed ones punted, saying it was a "political matter for Congress to decide". Thus spake Tyranny.
That may be so, but stories abound of drunk state legislators, corruption, bribery, and other shenanigans involved in the ratification of every Amendment from the Reconstruction up to the point people became serious about doing the Right Thing (tm) with stuff like female suffrage and the repeal of the prohibition amendment. There are serious questions about the validity, specifically, of the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments, and it is quite clear that even were there no trickery involved in the passage of the civil rights amendments, Confederate States were required to ratify them as a condition for re-joining (read cessation of occupation) the Union. Just like the 16th, if someone got a serious opposition movement going against the 14th, Congress and the States would quickly ratify an amendment authorizing ex-post-facto law in the specific instance in question (and probably for all the Amendments that were questionably ratified so they'd only have to deal with it once), and a follow-on amendment similar to the 14th which would have effects retroactive to the "ratification" of the 14th. -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11
At 11:09 AM 4/30/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: ...
I suggest an "eye test". If it is theoretically possible to talk with it eye-to-eye[1], then the Constitution applies. If it isn't possible to talk with it without a proxy person - a CEO, a spokesperson, etc. - no "higher rights" apply.
So, if I have a right to free speech, and so do you, why would a voluntary association we formed together not have it? And what impact would that have on the ability of people like you and me to actually get our ideas out there? What happens when some media are so expensive that they're virtually never owned by a single person--does that mean laws can regulate what they are and aren't allowed to say?
A non-personal entity should be considered to voluntarily give up its "right" to existence by an act of knowingly lying. A death penalty - the entity liquidation - should swiftly follow.
So if I want to destroy Intel, all I have to do is get one provocateur into their PR department, to issue a press release that says "The sky is green"? --John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
participants (9)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Harmon Seaver -
John Kelsey -
Justin -
Mike Rosing -
Nomen Nescio -
Steve Schear -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tim May