|
KauaiOrca
Waterman


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 3,131
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil] 1
#21659039 - 05/09/15 09:08 PM (9 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: So, it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.
Bingo. All the money in politics has effectively SUCKED the oxygen out of the room for everyone else. They drown us now with a form of fertilizer that grows more and more conformity.
-------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21659067 - 05/09/15 09:19 PM (9 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Your test doesn't differentiate whether the third party is acting as a third party or not.
I changed "serving as an owner or employee" to "acting on behalf of the publication or production". Hopefully that's clearer.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,475
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21659667 - 05/10/15 12:30 AM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: So, it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.
We've been through all of this. If a third party (sponsor) wishes to dictate content of a political segment of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation.
A sponsor can still pay CNN to air their non-political advertisement during commercial time, but it may not then dictate the message CNN delivers, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.
Falcon, you may want to add something to this effect to the 'test'.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/10/15 12:33 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21659772 - 05/10/15 01:16 AM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
Enlil said: So, it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.
We've been through all of this. If a third party (sponsor) wishes to dictate content of a political segment of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation.
A sponsor can still pay CNN to air their non-political advertisement during commercial time, but it may not then dictate the message CNN delivers, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.
Falcon, you may want to add something to this effect to the 'test'.
Is that not there already?
Which piece is missing?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,475
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Political statements are subject to individual spending limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people who are viewing desire to watch. If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.
That sounds pretty solid to me.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21660430 - 05/10/15 08:45 AM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I think you're missing the point. All content aired on TV or printed in newspapers/magazines is paid for by 3rd parties who influence that content. Those third parties certainly pay more than your intended limit. As a result, all political content is banned from those publications altogether unless it is paid for by pooled money. This means that there can be no reporting on political matters.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21660778 - 05/10/15 11:00 AM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: All content aired on TV or printed in newspapers/magazines is paid for by 3rd parties who influence that content.
I don't believe that at all. If true, it would be easy for you to prove.
You honestly believe that 1-800 Flowers and Stamps.com (two of Rush Limbaugh's biggest supporters) tell Rush what he needs to talk about in order to gain their support? I simply don't believe that. If you can show us how you determined that, then I'll have learned something new. But I think you're completely full of it on this one.
Quote:
Enlil said: This means that there can be no reporting on political matters.
Only if your above statement holds true. But we'll see if you can back it up. I'm not holding my breath.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
I worked in the entertainment industry for well over a decade, and I've sat in writer's meetings many times. Sponsor wishes are discussed at length in those meetings. It is standard practice.
MAYBE there are a few shows that have the popularity/clout to ignore the big sponsors because they know that there will always be sponsors for those shows...those are the exception, however.
I can't say from experience that the same is true in newspapers and magazines, but I can say that I've never read anything in either that was critical of a sponsor. I assume that there is a similar process in those media.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: What's the difference between an advertisement and the next program? Isn't that what this definition is supposed to do, define what is and isn't an advertisement?
See explanation to psyconaught.
Looks like I missed a lot, but I'll try and keep all my comments in regards to the newest definition.
I'm still very unclear as to how you are defining an ad? Is it simply if a third party pays for it, then it is an ad? That would make all movies with product placement (i.e. all movies) ads.
Your definition of political statement is extremely broad, but still doesn't cover statements which present lies as fact, which will be a lot of them. But if you include that into the definition, I think it almost becomes that a political statement is any statement that references the government or politicians.
Given your definition of spending, personal expenses of anything that is used to aid political speech is covered, is that accurate? So if I purchase a megaphone and use it to make a political statement, the cost is counts for my limit?
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: I have no idea how many people actually watch television ads, but I can say with confidence that if they choose to watch the ad, that it stands to reason that they had some desire to do so. I can't possibly know what a person is desiring at any given moment, but based on their actions, a person who watches an ad seems to express a desire to watch it. Why is that not a valid interpretation of that person's actions?
Do you have the option to skip ads where you live? I certainly don't. If I don't want to miss my programming when the ad is over, I have to keep the ad on.
Irrelevant. You can keep the ad on, but by no means does that mean you have to watch it. Put it on mute and go get a snack from the kitchen, read a book, surf the internet, etc. You do not have to watch the ad unless you want to watch the ad. Given that neither you or I can read anyones mind, why is it unreasonable to use a person's actions to decide what they desire? If a person watches a movie, then they probably wanted to watch the movie. If a person reads a newspaper, then they probably wanted to read a newspaper. Why does the same not apply when a person watches an ad?
As it stands I think it could easily be argued that your definition applies to nothing at all because for virtually any content a person consumes, it can be said that they had a desire to do so.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21661074 - 05/10/15 12:32 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: I'm still very unclear as to how you are defining an ad? Is it simply if a third party pays for it, then it is an ad? That would make all movies with product placement (i.e. all movies) ads.
No one is trying to ban advertising, nor product placement. The proposal is that you simply can't pay to put a pro-Hillary statement in a movie. If you want pro-Hillary content, you can still do that, but only if you're acting on behalf of the publication or production, and not accepting 3rd party money for it.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Your definition of political statement is extremely broad, but still doesn't cover statements which present lies as fact, which will be a lot of them. But if you include that into the definition, I think it almost becomes that a political statement is any statement that references the government or politicians.
The idea was that Fox News should be allowed to say "hear the latest about the Hillary Clinton email story tonight at 7:00pm". That doesn't express any facts or opinions about the politics of the case. Is there a better way to express that idea?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Given your definition of spending, personal expenses of anything that is used to aid political speech is covered, is that accurate? So if I purchase a megaphone and use it to make a political statement, the cost is counts for my limit?
No, because the megaphone itself is not political. If you pay someone to speak using your megaphone, then that's clearly political. I updated the definition of spending accordingly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Irrelevant. You can keep the ad on, but by no means does that mean you have to watch it. Put it on mute and go get a snack from the kitchen, read a book, surf the internet, etc. You do not have to watch the ad unless you want to watch the ad.
It's not about whether you have to watch an ad, it's about whether you desire to watch it. And while a majority of people don't desire to be interrupted by political ads, they will tolerate them.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Given that neither you or I can read anyones mind, why is it unreasonable to use a person's actions to decide what they desire? If a person watches a movie, then they probably wanted to watch the movie.
Exactly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: If a person reads a newspaper, then they probably wanted to read a newspaper.
Exactly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Why does the same not apply when a person watches an ad?
Do you honestly think people watch tv or buy newspapers for the political ads? Is that the argument you're making?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21661084 - 05/10/15 12:35 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I worked in the entertainment industry for well over a decade, and I've sat in writer's meetings many times. Sponsor wishes are discussed at length in those meetings. It is standard practice.
I didn't say it never happens, I said dictating content is not something that "all" sponsors require, as you have claimed.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: I'm still very unclear as to how you are defining an ad? Is it simply if a third party pays for it, then it is an ad? That would make all movies with product placement (i.e. all movies) ads.
No one is trying to ban advertising, nor product placement. The proposal is that you simply can't pay to put a pro-Hillary statement in a movie. If you want pro-Hillary content, you can still do that, but only if you're acting on behalf of the publication or production, and not accepting 3rd party money for it.
Sure, but by this definition, almost all content could be considered an ad, so long as a third-party invested any money in having it produced. And your statement below defining what is and isn't political is also very broad. The result is essentially placing limits on political statements in all media. Depending on how high you set the limit, it could have the equivalent result of banning the content. That is how the definition currently reads to me. The fact that we can have two very different interpretations shows that the test needs to be more precise and objective.
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Your definition of political statement is extremely broad, but still doesn't cover statements which present lies as fact, which will be a lot of them. But if you include that into the definition, I think it almost becomes that a political statement is any statement that references the government or politicians.
The idea was that Fox News should be allowed to say "hear the latest about the Hillary Clinton email story tonight at 7:00pm". That doesn't express any facts or opinions about the politics of the case. Is there a better way to express that idea?
I have no idea. Per your definition, I think Fox News can still make that statement as it contains neither opinions nor facts, but when they do their story about Clinton, it would be considered a political statement.
And my point was that lots of political statements are lies, so you'd want to include that in your definition as well if you want to cover that possibility. Per your test, if I run an ad that says "Obama killed millions of babies" it wouldn't be considered a political statement as it offers no opinions and no facts.
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Given your definition of spending, personal expenses of anything that is used to aid political speech is covered, is that accurate? So if I purchase a megaphone and use it to make a political statement, the cost is counts for my limit?
No, because the megaphone itself is not political. If you pay someone to speak using your megaphone, then that's clearly political. I updated the definition of spending accordingly.
I don't understand what you mean applied towards political content. The money has to be spent to purchase political content?
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Irrelevant. You can keep the ad on, but by no means does that mean you have to watch it. Put it on mute and go get a snack from the kitchen, read a book, surf the internet, etc. You do not have to watch the ad unless you want to watch the ad.
It's not about whether you have to watch an ad, it's about whether you desire to watch it. And while a majority of people don't desire to be interrupted by political ads, they will tolerate them.
All I'm saying is that you can't know what people desire. And seeing as polling every person in the country for every bit of media they watch is impractical, it would be prudent to use their actions to decide what their desires were. If I watch an ad, who would you give the power to say that I didn't want to watch it? Clearly someone will have to make that decision if you think watching something does not equal wanting to watch something.
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Given that neither you or I can read anyones mind, why is it unreasonable to use a person's actions to decide what they desire? If a person watches a movie, then they probably wanted to watch the movie.
Exactly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: If a person reads a newspaper, then they probably wanted to read a newspaper.
Exactly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Why does the same not apply when a person watches an ad?
Do you honestly think people watch tv or buy newspapers for the political ads? Is that the argument you're making?
That's not my point at all. You clearly agree that a person who chooses to consume some forms of media wanted to consume them. How do you know that? And more importantly, how do you then know that someone didn't want to consume the media they consumed? Seems like a very arbitrary distinction that you're making.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21661249 - 05/10/15 01:22 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
it seems he's using the "I know it when i see it" method.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21661320 - 05/10/15 01:48 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: by this definition, almost all content could be considered an ad, so long as a third-party invested any money in having it produced.
Not produce, but to insert or dictate political content.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: And your statement below defining what is and isn't political is also very broad. The result is essentially placing limits on political statements in all media.
Shouldn't political spending should be limited in all media?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Depending on how high you set the limit, it could have the equivalent result of banning the content. That is how the definition currently reads to me. The fact that we can have two very different interpretations shows that the test needs to be more precise and objective.
I'm not following this at all (probably my own fault). Can you provide an example to illustrate what you mean?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: Per your definition, I think Fox News can still make that statement as it contains neither opinions nor facts, but when they do their story about Clinton, it would be considered a political statement.
Exactly! Just how it was intended.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: And my point was that lots of political statements are lies, so you'd want to include that in your definition as well if you want to cover that possibility. Per your test, if I run an ad that says "Obama killed millions of babies" it wouldn't be considered a political statement as it offers no opinions and no facts.
Thank you for example. I agree and updated the statement accordingly.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: I don't understand what you mean applied towards political content. The money has to be spent to purchase political content?
Exactly. Is there a better way to say it to make it clearer?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said: All I'm saying is that you can't know what people desire. And seeing as polling every person in the country for every bit of media they watch is impractical, it would be prudent to use their actions to decide what their desires were. If I watch an ad, who would you give the power to say that I didn't want to watch it? Clearly someone will have to make that decision if you think watching something does not equal wanting to watch something.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that there will ever be a question here, because "majority of people" is part of the definition. A majority of people will never desire to have their programming interrupted by political ads (especially if the ad is of an opposing point of view). And while you seem to disagree about that, we can always conduct surveys to find out.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Do you honestly think people watch tv or buy newspapers for the political ads? Is that the argument you're making?
That's not my point at all. You clearly agree that a person who chooses to consume some forms of media wanted to consume them. How do you know that? And more importantly, how do you then know that someone didn't want to consume the media they consumed? Seems like a very arbitrary distinction that you're making.
Because you have to buy a newspaper, and turn on a tv to watch something. You don't have to do anything to watch an ad.
I understand that it's theoretically possible that a majority of people want to have political ads in their programs and publications, but I'm certain that will never realistically be the case. Do you disagree?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21661326 - 05/10/15 01:49 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: it seems he's using the "I know it when i see it" method.
Please see my responses above. I'm using the "please read the definition" method, and if there's a hole let's plug it.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said: I worked in the entertainment industry for well over a decade, and I've sat in writer's meetings many times. Sponsor wishes are discussed at length in those meetings. It is standard practice.
I didn't say it never happens, I said dictating content is not something that "all" sponsors require, as you have claimed.
That's not what I claimed. I claimed all shows have content influenced by sponsors.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21661778 - 05/10/15 04:00 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
You said "All content aired on TV or printed in newspapers/magazines is paid for by 3rd parties who influence that content. Those third parties certainly pay more than your intended limit. As a result, all political content is banned from those publications altogether unless it is paid for by pooled money. This means that there can be no reporting on political matters."
That's a false statement because 3rd parties are free to dictate non-political content on a political program. If you want to pay Rush Limbaugh to drink a Pepsi on his show, then go right ahead.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
I think you're missing the point. Sponsors influence content not just by dictating what will be said, but influencing what won't be said. If Monsanto is a sponsor, there will be no commentary that is anti GMO.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21661843 - 05/10/15 04:15 PM (9 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Being paid to shut up is outside the scope of this discussion. This about paying for speech.
If Monsanto wants to pay for someone to say something pro-GMO, then that would be prohibited by these rules.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
KauaiOrca
Waterman


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 3,131
|
|
Democracy, even representative democracy, as I see it, was intended to be a very open process. What we need is to get CORPORATIONS out of the political process and place the responsibility of lobbying and donating and all of that back on INDIVIDUALS … Individuals not shielded by layers and layers of legal protection, professional lobbying groups and paid influencers. Individuals, making donations with their own money, fully on the record with a mandate that Politicians FULLY DISCLOSE exactly what big donors are paying for.
-------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
|
|