Warm up the bribes.

Remove all ads!

This is the point exactly, and the further quotes you give seem to only support that position. These are restrictions on the government, not freedoms given to citizens.

I think this is a bad example. First off, the public library is not a forum of free expression. This is proven by the simple fact that no real effort is made to include everything that is published. Secondly, when the community forms it's government (city council, whatever), and that government decides to establish a public library, it should establish rules as to it's functioning and define a purpose for it. If those rules and that purpose allow for it to be a pool of writings available to the community, then the community likely has authority to act on what is there. If those rules extablish it as an institution for voluntary learning and reading, then that doesn't necessarily follow. I think most public libraries are the latter, not the former.

 

Take a look at the DoI for a further explanation of those rights, NOG.

 

NOG, I don't think there's a forum of free expression in existence that tries to include everything. I don't see that as a prerequisite for a free expression argument.

The mandate for most public libraries is likey something along the lines of "to serve the public" -- NOT to serve the majority. Now if a library committee, operating under a budget, decides to not bring in a title because other titles will appeal to a wider audience, then that's one thing, and that thing ain't censorship. But once a book is in the library, removing it should be a very rare occasion. That sort of censorship is not cool.

 

The books contained within the walls of a library speak otherwise.

Jefferson, like Ragusa and I, understand that these protections apply to citizens:

 

Chandos, that quote is indeed insightful, but I stand by my earlier logic:
For a corporation to exist at all, it must have at least some rights. What rights it is further endowed with is up to the government.

Not being a lawyer of any type, I don't know what those rights entail, or even if they have been spelled out anywhere. If anyone on these boards knows anything more, please enlighten us.

 

I agree. They should have recgonized rights and protections.

 

And that would naturally be so because a company is ultimately only a vessel for natural persons. A legal entity can only act with natural persons acting as an intermediate. Without these natural persons as actors a corporation can do exactly nothing - it is all but a body without organs. Shareholders, owners and the the natural persons functioning as a corporations organs do have their individual rights, like freedom of speech.

It is an unanswered question whether corporations possess 'personhood'. I seriously doubt that. I think that rights they do have out of necessity and practicability, but 'personhood' they do not. Interestingly enough the ruling didn't appear to even touch that matter as indeed the First Amendment says nothing about "persons." It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech. Hmm.

I have, however, reconsidered the prediction of inevitable massive bribery that will follow as a result of the ruling. It probably cannot get much worse than it already is. Also, it will benefit all organisations, not just corporations.

 

Do you agree that if the book were made into a movie, that it should not be banned and people should have the right to see it and buy it?

 

General Ghoul, are you offering to finance my movie??!! Sweet!

I'm not sure what point you are making here, though -- has Chandos in the past advocated censoring movies and I just missed that post? I kinda doubt it, but just ask my ex -- I can be wrong sometimes!

I am not aware of any movie in the US or Canada that is subject to a total ban on viewing or purchase.

 

It depends on the circumstances and the movie. It has to conform to the laws of the land, just like everything else. Suppose the Iranians made a movie about how to become a suicide bomber and how easy it would be to blow-up Americans in shopping malls. Do you think it a movie like that should be banned?

 

Ahh, I was operating under some assumptions -- the primary one being that we were talking about movies as entertainment / art -- I had not considered documentaries. If the movie were ABOUT an Iranian bomber who killed people in shopping malls, and portrayed him sympathetically, I myself would not see it, but I would not advocate banning it. I can see that the government might want scenes that detailed HOW to make a bomb be excised, but that's as far as that goes.

Mythbusters does that all the time -- they never give out formulas or such for the explosions they create, and they blur some labels.

To me, though, when I hear the word "censorship", I think of it in terms of "no one is allowed to possess, read, or view this thing, ever!" I do not consider reasonable restrictions on access to be censorship.

 

Not only should it be banned, but anyone participating in the making of that film is advocating it and should definitely be on a terror watch list.

 

How about the movie idea that was originally being discussed: that of a purely political movie released in the height of political campaigns? What if someone had made The Audacity of Hope into a movie during the last presidential campaign, or some book by McCain (I'm sure he's written something)?

 

I would argue that there would be some crying of "foul!" from the targetted side, and people pointing out that such a film is mere propaganda, but I don't think it would be appropriate to ban or limit the film. Might as well muzzle the late night comedians during the course of an election if you want to go down that road. And the editorial cartoonists. And the editorialists. And the bloggers. And Time. And Newsweek. And the New York Times . . . . .

 

No, there are hundreds of political movies already out there. The timing of it's release should have nothing to do with it, as we are always in the height of a political campaign. We are just farther from the voting day. Banning movies/books/art that advocate terrorism and our downfall is one thing, but banning these things because of politcal party affiliation? I don't think that's right.

 

Chandos, do you believe Farenheit 9/11 should be banned from existence? This is a more apropos analogy than your terrorist movie. We are talking mainstream documentaries, heck there is some crazy porn out there and its not banned, we aren't talking snuff films here, just political charged movies. You may disagree with the message, but surely you don't think they should be banned?

 

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, GG.

I agree that the particular movie in the Supreme Court case is probably not an especially huge threat to our democratic process. However, we are considering a larger point than just that particular movie: coporate money in the political system and if a corporation is entitled to Constitutional protections, much the same as a "natural" person.

Some porn is banned and I suggest that you not to view it, cuz it is not only banned, but they will come and take you away for viewing it.

 

Confused Texas Education Board bans kids' author from curriculum

... speaking of banned books, here is a nice contemporary episode from Texas:

Like that the elected elected board members primary quality apparently is being strong in ideology?

Odds are that Pat Hardy hasn't even read the book he wanted banned. He must have discovered that one Bill Martin wrote 'a commie book', and that was reason enough for the motion to ban. That's the only conclusion to draw from his statement that the books that man named Bill Martin had written for adults contain "very strong critiques of capitalism and the American system." That means, he wanted that book banned not because it was harmful for children but to sanction the author for his other works, all the while oblivious to the fact that he was dealing with the works of two different persons. And none of the other board members bothered to check.

I guess Pat Hardy is probably quite earnest on the matter of communist subversion. I can only speculate but I vividly imagine his deep concern after uncovering yet another secret communist plot to subvert America's youth with superficially innocent children's books when he saw which other books this Bill Martin had written. For some people google is a curse.

 

If a documentary expresses an unpopular idea, it should not be banned.

If a documentary encourages or urges people to break the law, then there is a case for banning it.

If a documentary is more of an instructional manual, and shows step by step how to perform an illegal activity (building a bomb, for example) then there is a VERY good case for banning it.

If a film shows children being used for sexual purposes, then obviously what the makers are doing is illegal, and the film should be banned -- I assume that's what you were aiming at, Chandos?