[Vision2020] Another perspective on free speech

[Donovan Arnold]

To me, unlimited donations to a candidate is the same as bribery. If a corporation gives a member of Congress $1 million a year for campaigns and then gives them a $500,000 a year job after they leave the House or Senate for writing, sponsoring, or voting for legislation which impacted the finances or favored the finances of that corporation it is fraud.
 
No elected official or a high ranking appointee of an elected official should be allowed to accept a job or financing from a corporation they were involved with legislating while in office and thirty years after.
 
Media Outlets should exercise their rights to refuse service to politicians that go to negative or saturate the airwaves with garbage. 
 
Donovan J. Arnold

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another perspective on free speech


That's right. Joe

On Sep 27, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:


I might agree with you, but I posted the article to show that US values are by no means universal. Our neighbors to the North, for example, have a very different outlook, favoring social harmony over individual rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
>
>
>Even in the US, absolute free speech isn't universal. According to Gallup, 57% agree that expending money on politics is the same as speech (Citizens United), but a majority wants to limit political expenditures. And Gallup usually finds majority or plurality support for a flag burning amendment.
>
>Ron Force
>Moscow Idaho USA
>
>From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another perspective on free speech
>
>
>Thanks Ron. This is similar to some of Tom's posts I think.
>
>
>One question is what KINDS of reasons can we have for restricting speech? Everyone agrees that we can restrict speech if and when it leads to physical, social, or economic harm. If someone is in fact trying to incite a riot, his speech is not protected.
>
>
>Some think that offense is enough to warrant restricting speech but I don't think so. In fact, I agree with Paul that it is best to never use the law to restrict speech. Better to allow for insults and questionable speech-harms; better to err on the side of free expression.
>
>
>But when people abuse these privileges, as in the case of the recent video that sparked riots in the Middle East, they can and should be criticized.
>
>On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/free-speech-and-the-1st-amendment-arent-always-the-same-thing/262894/ 
>>
>>Ron Force
>>Moscow Idaho USA
>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
>
=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net/
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120927/2bf7f5a5/attachment-0001.html>