Presidential News Conference

[Pastor Gary]

What proposal? I haven't heard about it. If there is a proposal to gag newspapers from free speech, I am completely against it, and that would indeed be a reason for concern and many other like feelings. I don't see how such a thing could pass Constitutional muster, though, and I would bet my bottom dollar that discussion boards like this one would never be censored like that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 7F20090324

"Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements."

[Tim Elston]

If the Congress can make a law that newspapers can't endorse candidates, no matter what the incentives are, what's to keep them from making any other rule about expression? The very heart of the First Amendment is being ripped out and stomped flat with this proposal. If the newspaper syndicates are told not to endorse a particular candidate, why should the power of government stop while a little Christian forum crosses the road in front of it?

Tim, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I did some searching on it tonight, and my interpretation of it is different than yours. I don't like the legislation, but not because I think it is a First Amendment issue. I don't like it because it amounts to the government giving corporations of a for-profit industry non-profit status to protect them from changing information market dynamics.

But the bill, as reported, allows newspapers the choice to become non-profit organizations; it does not force newspapers to make that choice. It does not forbid newspapers to endorse political candidates. It gives them the option to sell their right to give endorsements for tax-exempt status. It's journalistic prostitution, but newspapers continue to have the right not to prostitute themselves.

I see no threat whatsoever from this proposed bill to the free speech of social networking sites like Jude 2. There is already a long-lived precedent for allowing tax exemption for religious organizations in exchange for a requirement that those organizations not endorse political candidates. Jude 2 is a Christian site, and by the logic that opening newspapers to non-profit status would threaten Jude 2's right to free speech, it would already be threatened from the religious angle. Why haven't they already taken away the right of free speech regarding political candidates on Christian message boards as an extension of not allowing tax-exempt churches to endorse political candidates? Why? Because Christian message boards per se are not under non-profit law if they do not have tax-exempt status. Does Jude 2 even generate revenue?

Your argument turns on the logic that if they can pass a bill that allows and incentivizes newspapers to exchange their right to endorse for tax-exempt status, then they can pass a bill to forbid free speech on any grounds. That seems specious to me. That's like saying, If they can pass a law that allows capital punishment, then they can pass a law that requires murder. While in theory it is within the realm of possibility that Congress could pass such a requirement and the Supreme Court could uphold it, how likely is it? How likely is it that Congress would ever pass a law, let alone "soon," as you say, to forbid free political speech, including the right to endorse candidates, on the Internet and that the Supreme Court would uphold such a law? Next to nil, except under despotic conditions akin to the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions, and while some people are crazed enough to fear being on Hitler's doorstep with Bush or Obama, that's paranoia.

[dolfan]

The involvement of government in press matters is inherently corruptive. I understand the point you make, and it has merit. That doesn't change the bigger problem, though. The government proponents of this measure say newspapers need to be protected because they are watchdogs of government (pardon my chuckle, there). No good dog will bite the hand that feeds it. And, already, people who claim to be professional journalists are flinching at the prospect.

The SF Chronicle's editor met with Nancy Pelosi to discuss the problem. A Columbia Journalism Review article accused him of acting not as a journalist but as an unregistered lobbyist trying to get favors for his employers. Another journalsm academic said there would always be concern about government intervention.

Now, that doesn't address my slippery-slope argument directly. I, for one, don't like making those arguments. They are too often based on speculation and unfounded fears. But, this Congress has already shown its predilection for controlling the content of media messages by considering reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine".

Members of Congress have argued that the airwaves are public and that media conglomeration homogenizes them with a singular set of views. Of course, for the ones doing the complaining, the target is "conservative" talk radio. On the other hand, in the name of preserving democracy, they bemoan antitrust laws that keep newspapers from building up similarly powerful syndications; the ones in trouble that are getting sympathy from Congress all have "liberal" editorial boards and views.
It is duplicitous, which is not surprising because they are politicians after all; yet, it is the end aim of these ideas to control content. It is easy for them to spout platitudes about freedom and democracy when they want to position mass media in a way that is as indebted to them as are other groups that lean hard left. I'd make the same argument if Republicans proposed it. Newspapers are not too big to fail. If their model is broken, they should fix it or perish. These politicians are not one whit concerned about the survival of newspapers as newspapers. They are getting ready to position their friends in a new model and will subsidize that transition, but only insofar as they have an undeniable stake in the outcome.

My fears that government will censor even small pockets of expression such as this one is a more difficult one to substantiate, I'll admit. I lean on the inertia of growing government and its tendency to stifle freedom of expression and freedom of religion. I also look to the ever growing Chinese influence over our affairs. It is with a lot of trepidation that I hear of Geithner's even half-serious consideration of China's proposal for a global currency. China is the largest stakeholder in American treasuries. Nothing they do or propose is going to hurt them. To any extent that the Obama administration may allow for the possibility of such a move and to the extent we continue to indebt ourselves to China, we are mortgaging away (in sums we never hope to repay) our freedom to the communists in China.

So, yeah, that may be paranoia, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

[bibleguy]

Good posting PG, Dolfan!

Constitutional protection of certain rights was in response to the governmental abuses that the founders had witnessed. The Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the first draft of the Constitution, but rather was demanded by the Several States before they would ratify any document that would create a common government.

The States knew how the colonies and other dominions of Britain and other empires had been controlled, and how some of those controls prevented dissent when obvious abuses had been perpetrated.

More than 220 years later, we have no recollection of such a need to curtail abuses, especially since we have such a benevolent, kind and generous government.

But the founders knew the dangers. They didn't say freedom FROM religion. They didn't protect SOME speech, or only certain sectors of the press. Why? Because our system is based on common law, which weighs heavily the authority of PRECEDENT. Precedent can be a tool for good or evil.

Precedent can grant that all people have the equal protection, or can be the expression of incrementalism. If incrementalism... the the frog will be cooked in the pot, never knowing that the heat had been rising at all.

So, do we speak out now (as some have done in this, and no doubt, many other forums), or do we wait until brave men and women have to rebel under great threat of personal harm and loss to once again declare their independence from tyranny?

[Tim Elston]

The involvement of government in press matters is inherently corruptive. I understand the point you make, and it has merit. That doesn't change the bigger problem, though. The government proponents of this measure say newspapers need to be protected because they are watchdogs of government (pardon my chuckle, there). No good dog will bite the hand that feeds it. And, already, people who claim to be professional journalists are flinching at the prospect.

The SF Chronicle's editor met with Nancy Pelosi to discuss the problem. A Columbia Journalism Review article accused him of acting not as a journalist but as an unregistered lobbyist trying to get favors for his employers. Another journalsm academic said there would always be concern about government intervention.

I'm right with you on everything here.

Now, that doesn't address my slippery-slope argument directly. I, for one, don't like making those arguments. They are too often based on speculation and unfounded fears.

Agreed.

But, this Congress has already shown its predilection for controlling the content of media messages by considering reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine".

Members of Congress have argued that the airwaves are public and that media conglomeration homogenizes them with a singular set of views. Of course, for the ones doing the complaining, the target is "conservative" talk radio. On the other hand, in the name of preserving democracy, they bemoan antitrust laws that keep newspapers from building up similarly powerful syndications; the ones in trouble that are getting sympathy from Congress all have "liberal" editorial boards and views.
It is duplicitous, which is not surprising because they are politicians after all; yet, it is the end aim of these ideas to control content. It is easy for them to spout platitudes about freedom and democracy when they want to position mass media in a way that is as indebted to them as are other groups that lean hard left.

I agree, but in fairness, fittingly enough, conservatives pushed for a fairness doctrine of sorts to public television and public radio during the Bush administration. I don't think that the left is the only side guilty of using tactics to control the media. Regardless, the point is a good one, no matter which way it applies.

Newspapers are not too big to fail. If their model is broken, they should fix it or perish.

I completely agree, and this is my main objection to the legislation.

These politicians are not one whit concerned about the survival of newspapers as newspapers. They are getting ready to position their friends in a new model and will subsidize that transition, but only insofar as they have an undeniable stake in the outcome.

The way I see it, major newspapers are already controlled by big money, and since Congress is, for the most part, a functionary of big money, the balance of control wouldn't shift much with this legislation. This smells to me less of politicians aiming to control the media than to court favor with those who do control it, although admittedly that's almost a difference without a distinction, given Congress's preponderant sellout to money.

My fears that government will censor even small pockets of expression such as this one is a more difficult one to substantiate, I'll admit. I lean on the inertia of growing government and its tendency to stifle freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I agree that there is this tendency generally, but I don't see much of a threat to the Internet in this legislation. Still, I can appreciate your hedge and the general concern.

I also look to the ever growing Chinese influence over our affairs. It is with a lot of trepidation that I hear of Geithner's even half-serious consideration of China's proposal for a global currency.

In the heat of the current global crisis, it would be unrealistic to expect world finance leaders not to consider it hypothetically, or even theoretically. It's fraught with fundamental issues of sovereignty, and even the very notion of the nation state, but, in reality, our government has already given away its sovereignty to the banking industry. We are in hock to it, and our politicians are its agents. That's the fundamental reality that already exists, and the consideration of a global currency is little more than a symptom of that. And, yes, this situation is completely and fully the baby of so-called conservative, corporate America, nourished by both Democrats and Republicans.

China is the largest stakeholder in American treasuries. Nothing they do or propose is going to hurt them. To any extent that the Obama administration may allow for the possibility of such a move and to the extent we continue to indebt ourselves to China, we are mortgaging away (in sums we never hope to repay) our freedom to the communists in China.

And herein lies the call to address the fundamental problem: the monetary system. But it falls on deaf ears. It's too easy to take the lazy tack of blaming Obama and the Democrats, or blaming the Republicans and Bush. I'm not saying that you specifically are doing that. But most Americans have bought into the partisan blame game; all the while the monetary system itself is what's leaking like a sieve.

So, yeah, that may be paranoia, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

By the way, thanks for intelligent, on point discussion.