(fairness act) conspiracy theories and free speech

[Texicannibus]

Hello everyone I am once again attempting to start a thread on this subject. A mod asked me to give it another go. This time I will ask that all please try to stay on topic and make sure your replies have to do with cannabis or ICmag. If not this thread will be binned like the others. This is not about Republicans, Democrats or the president. This is about our freedoms and liberties under attack.

First of all its very important that we recognize what the first ammendment protects for its citzens (as well as non-citzens). The right to free speech and free press. It is also the clause that prevents the goverment from endorsing a specific religion and protects religious freedom.

First ammendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

I contend that the first ammendment to the constitution is under attack by proposals such as the 'fairness act'. For instance roughly one year ago a post on the White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.

Quote from ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice):
In his post, Phillips notes “[t]here is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there” both on the web and floating around in chain emails. Phillips states that “ince we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
In a nutshell, the White House is asking you to report on your neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President’s policy choices on health care. The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all – let’s “flag” those who disagree with us. For what purpose are these individuals being flagged?

Another example is the recently proposed Disclose Act. A blog on Campaign Freedom notes:

The DISCLOSE Act (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) by Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen just keeps getting worse and worse with each reading.

Among the many deficiencies uncovered so far (crafted behind closed doors, favors the speech of organized labor while silencing the business community, designed by Democratic Congressional political leadership to enhance their election advantages, and ignoring that current disclosure requirements are more than sufficient), another has recently come to light—the bill would impose significant restrictions on the right of citizens to speak freely on the internet about candidates.

William McGinley, a prominent campaign finance lawyer who testified at yesterday's hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, noted during his oral testimony that "the broad reach of the new definitions of independent expenditure... and covered coordinated communications... now appear to regulate internet communication, including the liberal and conservative blogosphere."

McGinley went on to note that the DISCLOSE Act's media exemption provisions does not include web sites or internet communications in the same manner as current law, which does protect political speech on the internet from government regulation and restriction. He concludes that "this legislation does not exclude bloggers or internet communications, and places them at risk. If this bill passes, the internet's status as a free-speech zone is in danger."

The FCC is imposing new rules without the fairness act even. These rules are effecting the free speech of various radio stations. “Report on Broadcast Localism And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” In that 98 page report, there are EIGHT references requiring radio stations to set up “community advisory boards” to advise on station programming.

We tentatively conclude that each licensee [station] should convene a permanent advisory board made up of officials and other leaders from the service area of its broadcast station.” The FCC brief also states, “How should members of the advisory boards be selected or elected? How can the advisory boards be composed so as to ensure that all segments of the community, including minority or underserved members of the community, would also have an opportunity to voice their concerns about local issues facing the area? How frequently should licensess be required to meet with these advisory boards?

While the Commission has observed that each broadcast station is not necessarily required to provide service to all such groups, it has nonetheless recognized the concerns of some that programming – particularly network programming – often is not sufficiently culturally diverse

.

In addition to these outright attacks on free speech the current administration's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein has some very radical opinions on free speech. I should add that it would be easily feasible reading his paper to conclude he may consider 'cannabis being medicine' a conspiracy theory. Note the opinion about getting natural sunlight.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010

The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.
Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.​

On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.

1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.​

2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.​

​

That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?

And what does Sunstein define as “conspiracy theories” that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.
The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.
A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein’s definition.
Sunstein also cites the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.
But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it’s specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.
Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in “conspiracy theories,” Sunstein’s ’solution’ to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the “repressive society” he warns against elsewhere in the paper.
“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that’s even debatable in the context of free speech, he’s talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.
No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well as advocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.
The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.
That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.​

Now in addition to all of this we have of course the patriot act wich imo is a bi partisan attack on our freedom and liberty by both Republicans and Democrats. This is why I dont feel this is a partisan issue. Both are for consolidating federal powers.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

wow you are very correct. This is a sad turn of events. The nation is torn in two right now, but If these are enforced I imagine there will be a straight up civil war. I have been thinking for the last few years that we are teeter tottering on the brink of civil war and just waiting for the final straw.

I dont like the Tea Party folk, but If my freedom of speech is threatened I will grab a rifle and join them in a second. Either that or Join GN and the IC crew in the netherlands. Things are going to far, and if they wont listen to or voices and votes, then what choice will we have?

 

[Greensub]

Even though I hated those emails going around (one of them that I got had all the pages of the health care act notated where they said problems were, and I looked it up and checked every one and 99% of what they alleged were misleading if not outright lies about the bill) but nevertheless I'm in complete agreement with Texicannibus on this (and we've disagreed in the past)

Hi again Texi (we argued in the progressives thread you started)

 

[ChronJohn]

.

 

[Greensub]

Well... I went and looked up page 14 (and a bit after that, that was relevant)

II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

He does say all 5 would have a place under imaginable conditions (what are imaginable conditions?)... he does say that the main gist of what he advocates is 3, 4, & 5.

As far as application of these ideas towards the idea of cannibus... NIDA pretty much fits the description of counterspeech except in that case the government is disseminating the conspiracy theory and we're providing the counterspeech.

 

[Botanist]

The first amendment grants no right at all. What it is, is a contract between the fed, the states, and the people. that part of it says that congress will not pass laws trampling on that right. It was believed, and rightly so back then that rights exist with or without government. We tried to set up a government thats soul responsibility would be protecting said rights. we failed.

I feel the first step in this fight would be understanding that the constitution and bill of rights grants you no rights at all. It is the recognition of rights. Rights are a fundamental part of the life of man. He needs them to property survive. Much like a cat has claws a man has his mind. All rights stem from the fact that you own your life and mind.

 

[Botanist]

The problem with all this is no one knows what will be deemed a conspiracy. It could be anything from 9/11 stuff, to stuff as simple as political speech that challenges the party in power at the time being.

Its the same idea as the war on terror. What and who decides what a terrorist is. I feel every "terrorist" has a right to a trial and such because it may not be long before your deemed a terrorist for simply speeding in a school zone.

Stay with me, this is on topic.

This law may start out seemingly OK, yet who out their is asking why government is regulating speech to begin with? It will start with them cracking down on the smallest of minority's of conspiracy's. But in 10 to 30 years they will be cracking down on the conspiracy that marijuana can be medicinal. the conspiracy started by those evil old people about how many books used to be in the library. The conspiracy that their once was a free internet.

So yes by all means, let us give a government power over the means of sharing information.

Info acts in a free market. the truth being the bettor product wins out. the lies do not. Every person on the planet is in the market for info. the best info wins because more people except it and when applied to reality good results come from it. Letting government decide for us what the truth is and what is a conspiracy would be much like letting them decide what brand of bread tastes best, or what kind of car we can drive, or what religion we must or must not buy into.

This seed they are trying to plant will grow into a tyrannical monster... Much like all of the other good intentions they have had over the years.

 

[SeniorBuzz]

Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.

is the Media Czar

Good to see so many in the crowd railing
about some of the same issues as the Tea Party
or those who call themselves Americans
as in Patriots

we are all involved in this one
whether we like it, or not.

now I'll go read through the thread
I'm very interested in what everyone has to say

 

[Texicannibus]

I should correct that ... it doesnt grant it enshrines and protects... I am a big advocate of natural rights.

 

[SeniorBuzz]

wow you are very correct. This is a sad turn of events. The nation is torn in two right now, but If these are enforced I imagine there will be a straight up civil war. I have been thinking for the last few years that we are teeter tottering on the brink of civil war and just waiting for the final straw.

I dont like the Tea Party folk, but If my freedom of speech is threatened I will grab a rifle and join them in a second. Either that or Join GN and the IC crew in the netherlands. Things are going to far, and if they wont listen to or voices and votes, then what choice will we have?

HZ, just curious as to what you don't like about Tea Party folk? I am not one of them; I consider myself a Patriot, an independent, so to speak, but they have the same issues with our government, that many IC members have. might have to exclude a few things, here, and there, but for the most part, we're all the same.

 

[Texicannibus]

If you read the Federalist papers it will explain the bill of rights a bit... The bill of rights is a concession by the Federalist to the anti-federalist. The resistance by Federalist not to include a 'bill of rights' had little to do with not wanting to protect these freedoms. One of the arguments Alexander Hamilton made was ... why protect the press from the federal goverment when they had given no authority to the federal goverment to enfringe on free press. It was also thought by Federalist that the document would give the false impression that somehow the Federal goverment had any role in these types of policies. They gave enumerated powers for a reason.

I suggest everyone read the constitution the bill of rights and the federalist papers(and anti-federalist)... If your brain hasnt exploded read about the constitutional debate.

 

[SeniorBuzz]

Even though I hated those emails going around (one of them that I got had all the pages of the health care act notated where they said problems were, and I looked it up and checked every one and 99% of what they alleged were misleading if not outright lies about the bill) but nevertheless I'm in complete agreement with Texicannibus on this (and we've disagreed in the past)

That HealthCare Bill is going to cost us trillions if it isn't stopped..that's guaranteed. but this is all part of the same issue.

 

[SGMeds]

Texi~ didn't read any on the previous thread, so in the dark, but wow... how could this not get 'off topic'...???

K, so under the overarching theme of Freedom of Speech as this certainly pertains to ICMag & the MMj movement... ;-)


Been grounded to Netflix as of late, so spending a lot of time in the political doc's.

PBS has The Spy Factory... NSA direct tap into the main communications hubs throughout the nation. Hard tapped into the lines, tied into their Crays. Under the previous Admin & WOT... zero warrant requirements for domestic & intn'l taps. Privacy... gone.

Frontline has Bush's War, two part. Gives a different perspective into the political happenings around the WOT, Iraq & the major players. Very interesting, but also goes over the systematic dismantling of citizen rights, in the name of our own protection.

Tie in the 9/11 Press for Truth & the 9/11 In Plane Site... both kinda point out certain irregularities in what was presented, and offered an underlying rationale for how the Admin might very well have twisted these events in the systematic dismantling of rights. You can also then tie in Iraq for Sale as an added boot... economic incentives for the Admin's actions.

Finish it all up with Naomi Wolf's The End of America. At first I too was skeptical, but as her argument developed & the parallels continued on & on & on, well... scary. In this light, the whole thing isn't the last Admin vs any other, but the overarching & systematic subjugation of the American people by those of wealth & influence & entrenchment... both Republican & Democrat.


The framework is in place, it is done. Scary stuff...

 

[SGMeds]

In fact, 'they' just came into my house & used the invisible ray gun to force me knock my beloved 'water pipe' into a hundred damn pieces!!!!!!!!!!

This has to be them... ;-)

 

[Texicannibus]

I wear a foil hat to prevent that ... I love my Roor to much... lol all kidding aside many parts of your post I agree with. What I would love for people to do is to question their political beliefs. For a moment stop looking at the other side and be introspective. Ask yourself what the form of goverment you support leads to. Ask yourself if this is really what you want.

I considered myself a liberal for many years. I made arguments for them. I thought they was for 'the people' and protecting personal freedoms. Upon serious introspection I found that I live my life conservatively. That I would prefer a more localized and decentralized goverment. That big goverment leads to less personal liberties.

I am not a Republican nor Democrat I am a American that is constitutionally conservative libertarian.

 

[pearlemae]

I'm all for freedom of speech, I like it even more when it applies to people. I don't see the logic of, or anywhere in the constitution that a corporation is a person. When did money become free speech, oh yeah, money talks and bull shit walks. What the activist court of Justice Roberts has done, will go down in history as a huge break for the corptocracy and the corporations that are now running the country. You know the one where corporations can buy an election by using their right to free speech, DONATIONS TO THOSE WHO WILL DO THEIR BIDDING. Yeah I'm all for free speech, but show me where it says that a corporation has the same rights or should have the same rights under the constitution as a person.

 

[SeniorBuzz]

thinking we don't have a whole lot of time

there's a train coming our way

to me, it appears the Perfect Storm is developing

anyone here ever been through a depression?

 

[Texicannibus]

Well first of all Pearl you seem to be referring to campaign financing and lobbies. I have addressed this previously in other areas but yes they are covered by free speech. Just because someone has more money and influence than someone else does not give one the right to gag their speech. The consitution is not about group rights it's about individual rights. The cooperations are made up of individuals that have the right to free speech.

Want to make note that I am totally against bribes, payoffs, and 'special deals'.

 

[MarquisBlack]

First they came for the communists... and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist...

Great thread, Texi.

 

[Texicannibus]

Btw if a mod wouldnt mind I believe I should have posted this in cannabis laws and politics instead of cannabis laws and legislation. If yall dont mind and it needs to be in other area please move it. Thanks