First Amendment no big deal, students say

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-31 02:56pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:On the other hand there is a case for the media having too much power over politics; limiting what they are allowed to say to make it stay close to the truth wouldn't nescesarily be a bad thing.

The usual notion of the 4th estate becoming the 1st estate isnt much of a concern if you really think about it. What is the primary concern of any media corporation?
It isnt politics, like any other corporation, it's profits. The power of the media over politics comes from their power to affect what people think, but the real trick is, to be popular and get your viewers/circulation/listeners up, the best approach is to tell people what they want to hear.
Basically, the media do not control the public so much as the whims of their target demographic affect what they chose to speak out on.

The only real area of concern is ensuring people understand the difference between news and editorial, which so few people really do. That and a libel system more akin to the UK/Scotland model than the US one and the press is fine.

On an interesting note, we dont actually have Freedom of the Press in the UK. We just have an absence of total restriction which came about by accident when parliment couldnt pull its finger out of it's ass in time to renew an act around the start of the 18th century.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2005-01-31 03:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote: Just as a reference for the curious, it was February 7, 1995 as a proposed amendment to H.R. 666 ( ). It was rejected by a vote of 303-121.

However, I have been unable to find minutes of any debate on the floor of the House. I wonder if many rejected it simply because it was redundant via the Constitution. Of course, considering the layers of redundancy that occurs in lawmaking, I'm not going to place any money on that bet.
Of course one has to wonder what sort of bill it was that this was attached to. If the crime bill was for say The Immediate Internment and Execution of all fluffy kitties, wide eyed puppies, and other adorable animals" then it might not pass, irregardless of the amendmants being inserted. There have been other similarly insane stunts pulled with such trickery.

Here the text of H.R. 666 plus some remarks.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-31 04:05pm

God Bless America eh...

So, who gets to be muzzled first?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-31 04:32pm

What's funny is not only McCallum's ignorance of the highest law, which he's sworn to uphold, but his admission that his bill was against the Bill of Rights. What a dick!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2005-01-31 04:38pm

Do you think Mr. Conyers knew what he was doing when he asked for a recorded vote? Because that's exactly what I would do in this situation.

Then laugh about it for years on end. Can't forget the maniacal cackling...

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-01-31 04:44pm

If people don't know their rights, and someone infringes on their rights, what are they going to do about it? Absolutely nothing. Another generation growing up thinking the media shouldn't be allowed to do anything without government approval, and then the government can start doing it. It's illegal, but no one's going to stop it.

You might say "There's still the Supreme Court, and someone who knows his/her rights can take it to them." But now note the demonization of the Supreme Court and "activist judges." A couple generations brainwashed into thinking that the courts should be muzzled, and they won't have any effective power. So what if it's illegal? If no one knows the law or does anything about it, it's meaningless.

And so the end begins...

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-01-31 05:52pm

We're talking about a generation of youth that was supposed to vote in record numbers this year, right? The same generation that wound up having one of the LOWEST turnouts in the past several decades?

As long as they're not voting, they can have whatever bass-ackwards opinion they want. They don't care. They're more concerned about having a cool cellphone ringtone than actually bringing about any sort of change, so when they're asked about their opinion, they just spit out any fool thing that comes to their head.

In another decade, they'll actually have to start THINKING, and I guarantee you, their opinions will change.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-31 07:15pm

SPOOFE wrote:We're talking about a generation of youth that was supposed to vote in record numbers this year, right? The same generation that wound up having one of the LOWEST turnouts in the past several decades?

Actually, the youth did vote in record numbers this year. The problem was that everyone ELSE voted in record numbers, too. They were proportionately about the same percentage of the vote as they always are.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-01-31 07:49pm

I should have said record proportions. The youth vote was about the same percentage of voters as 2000. So I was wrong in stating that it was lower than usual... but that still means that the young'uns are still slackers.

I'm still not worried. When they actually start to care about stuff going on around them, their opinions will mature.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-02-01 10:42am

Darth Wong wrote:
Elfdart wrote:A few years ago Rep. Melvin Watt added the exact wording of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into a "crime" bill and the majority of House members voted against it.
Forgive me for laughing at your misfortune, but that's the funniest fucking thing I've heard all day.

I grew up in what is now Watt's district. He's one of the few Reps worth a damn.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-02-01 11:06am

Phil Skayhan wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote: Just as a reference for the curious, it was February 7, 1995 as a proposed amendment to H.R. 666 ( ). It was rejected by a vote of 303-121.

However, I have been unable to find minutes of any debate on the floor of the House. I wonder if many rejected it simply because it was redundant via the Constitution. Of course, considering the layers of redundancy that occurs in lawmaking, I'm not going to place any money on that bet.
Of course one has to wonder what sort of bill it was that this was attached to. If the crime bill was for say The Immediate Internment and Execution of all fluffy kitties, wide eyed puppies, and other adorable animals" then it might not pass, irregardless of the amendmants being inserted. There have been other similarly insane stunts pulled with such trickery.
Here the text of H.R. 666 plus some remarks.

That thing scares the fuck out of me.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-02-01 11:06am

Good thing it didnt pass....