Repeal the First Amendment in the US?

[Hermit]

It takes 365 days, 6 hours, 8 minutes, 38 seconds for the Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun. This is why we have leap years.

Sometimes we have leap seconds as well. 26 in fact, since 1972. The earth's orbital speed is slowing down, but at an uneven rate, so those leap seconds are applied at irregular intervals.

[JimC]

More than 40% of Australians don't know that it takes one year for the Earth to go around the sun. 30% of Australians do not know if humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

Idiocy is universal.

It takes 365 days, 6 hours, 8 minutes, 38 seconds for the Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun. This is why we have leap years.

And also so that women have a chance to propose marriage!

[Seth]

Opinion
Citizens United Allows Everyone To Air Their Grievances
Photo of Brian Walsh
Brian Walsh
Research Fellow, Center for Competitive Politics
1:39 PM 12/23/2015




As Americans, we love to speak our minds. In fact, we have such an affinity with expressing ourselves that the right to do so is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution, explicitly protecting our right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It’s undeniably a quintessential part of our culture.

The iconic 90’s sitcom, Seinfeld, devoted an entire episode to a fictional holiday that embraces this tradition. That holiday, Festivus, is now celebrated every December 23rd and is dedicated to letting people know “all the ways they have disappointed you over the past year” through the ‘airing of grievances.’ What could be more American than watching a television show about nothing featuring a holiday that celebrates complaining about everything?

Well … nothing.

Now, imagine that the government had any laws restricting the right of citizens to “air their grievances” about candidates running for office. Those who wish to criticize politicians could only do so under the government’s seal of approval.

In other words, the government would be basically saying “No speech for you!”

Sadly, there was such a law when the Supreme Court took the case, Citizens United v. FEC. And despite all the complaining of the naysayers since then, that case was about whether or not any group of citizens who formed a nonprofit corporation could air their grievances with a political figure, no matter how they might have paid to voice those complaints.

This Festivus, let’s turn the griping on its head. It is time to complain about those complaining about Citizens United. Festivus should be dedicated to ‘airing our grievances’ without government intrusion. Here we go!

“I got a lot of problems with you people! Now you’re gonna hear about it!”

Grievance #1: Stop misrepresenting what Citizens United was about.

Citizens United is frequently portrayed as a disastrous decision in which the Supreme Court blessed a “corporate takeover” of our elections. And, unsurprisingly, this misleading stigma has benefitted no one in understanding what the case actually contributed to our First Amendment jurisprudence.

Those opposed to free speech have done a very good job preying on citizens’ fear and mistrust of those who seek to influence government. But if the regulatory lobby actually took the time to explain what Citizens United was about, then those who sympathize with their thinking would not be frightened at all. They’d learn that the case was just about a movie. Specifically, whether it was constitutional under the First Amendment to prohibit the airing of a movie that criticized (or supported) a candidate running for federal office within a specified time period before an election, simply because the movie was produced by a group organized in a corporate form. The movie in question, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced to express a political grievance, in particular, that then-Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton was unfit to be president.

The Court’s majority opted to protect the freedoms of Americans to speak however they want, whenever they want, and on whatever subject they want – especially when that speech is about candidates, politicians, and issues of public importance.

The goal of the First Amendment is not to protect the speech of those who a majority of society deems morally right, but rather to protect all from censorship so that we may challenge one another’s thoughts openly. Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed with this tenant when he wrote in theCitizens United decision that “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.”

Grievance #2: Stop declaring that corporations are controlling our democracy.

Anti-speech zealots consistently claim that the advent of Citizens United has ‘opened the floodgates’ for corporate money in our political system. Such claims are worthy of a Festivus grievance because they blatantly mislead the public into believing that Citizens United allowed corporations to “drown out the rest of the public” from speaking.

Far from causing a tidal wave of corporate funded campaign speech, to date there has only be a relative trickle.

Not only is there a dearth of corporate-backed Super PACs spending money to spread their message to the masses, but in the five years post-Citizens United, we have seen almost no large corporations take advantage of their newfound ability to voice their opinion on issues of importance to the public. As Sunlight Foundation revealed in their study, 200 of the largest corporations gave just $3 million between 2010 and 2012, with the bulk of that funding coming from a single $2.5 million donation from one corporation to one Super PAC.

This shouldn’t be surprising though. Big corporations are notoriously hyper-sensitive and extremely risk-adverse to becoming politically engaged for fear of alienating their customer base or inspiring boycotts. Few corporations want to be associated with the contentious world of partisan politics.

Thus, despite the fear mongering, the impact of the decision was about whether the federal government had the power to restrict speech, and unequivocally has not led to a corporate takeover of campaign ads and obviously democracy has survived and prospered.

Grievance #3: Stop crying that Citizens United enabled ‘dark money’ to flood our elections.

‘Dark money,’ in layman’s terms, is a purposefully pejorative term used to refer to nonprofit groups that exist for other reasons, but that are sometimes active in the political debate as a small part of their overall mission. Such groups are labeled “dark” because, as non-primarily political entities, they are not required to report the private information of their supporters to the government for permanent publication in an online database.

By far, this has become the silliest of all the hysterics attributed to Citizens United. Once again, a reading of the Court’s opinion in the case presents the exact opposite of the regulatory lobby’s claims. The Supreme Court, specifically, upheld the disclosure law that applied to Citizens United that was already on the books.

Furthermore, despite the hysteria about so-called “dark money” flooding our elections, there is little evidence that such funds play a significant role. Just 4.3 percent of total political spending in the 2012 cycle was spent by groups that do not provide itemized disclosure of their donors. In the 2014 election cycle, that number dipped further to 3.3 percent. Moreover, all spending on federal campaigns is disclosed and many such groups, like the NRA or the Sierra Club, are well known.

Festivus Means Free Speech for All of Us

The Festivus practice of the “airing of grievances” is the perfect example of what the First Amendment exists to protect: the ability to criticize on whatever grounds you think is important. So this Festivus, as you check the strength-to-weight ratio of your aluminum pole, you should also celebrate the decision in Citizens United by ‘airing your grievances’ against anyone who tries to take that right away from you.

[Forty Two]

I haven't read the link, but if it's mean rather than median, then it is fairly meaningless.

And yes third world countries probably have more poorly educated people than the US. Well done.

They have more people. The average Malawian probably understands world geography better than the average Merkin.

I don't know if there is reliable data, but anecdotally I am often disappointed in the lack of knowledge of geography and history among my American peers. Some folks seem to have been sold on the notion that knowing "a bunch of facts" is not important. They think that the important thing is to know the answer to "why" questions -- like what's the import of a historical event, rather than the dates, names and places etc.

I think people have misunderstood. Yes, understanding "why" and the importance of events and places and names is probably MORE important than "just" knowing dates, places, chronologies, times and people, etc. But, in my view, you really can't get to "why" before you know who, what, when, and where, and in what order. You can't build a firm understanding, without a basic knowledge of the facts.

Some years back, during a general conversation involving a game of Trivial Pursuit, I came to learn that a friend's girlfriend had absolutely no idea of the order of major historical events. The topic came up because in discussing how one could puzzle out the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, I suggested thinking about the order of major wars, and then taking a best guess based on which ones most likely occurred in the mid-19th century. The answer was the American Civil War, and one of the other selections was World War 1. So, when I pointed out that WW1 was a 20th century war, and involved mechanized warfare which was rather unlike a 19th century war, and that it occurred some 50-odd years after the Civil War, I came to learn that she had no idea whether the Civil War occurred after or before World War 1. I did not want to embarrass her, so I left it alone. I was just a bit shocked that what I viewed as sort of basic was just something she not only didn't know, but also she did not even think it was important or helpful to know.

I'm not sure of the cause of it, or if it's worse than in prior generations. All I know is, if you're an American, and you don't know that the American Revolution came first, followed by the War of 1812, then the Mexican War, then the Civil War, then the Spanish American War, then World War 1, then World War 2, then Korea, then Vietnam, etc. -- at a bare minimum -- how can you understand anything about "why" these things occurred? And, if you don't know where Russia is compared to India, the US, the UK and such - if you don't know basic geography -- how can you hope to understand much about geopolitics?

[Forty Two]

I haven't read the link, but if it's mean rather than median, then it is fairly meaningless.

And yes third world countries probably have more poorly educated people than the US. Well done.

If you were responding to my post (since you posted right after mine), the link was not to "third world countries having more uneducated people" -- rather, it was to the Better Life Index, which demonstrates that the poor in the US are better off than much of the rest of the first world. It's the statistic that is ignored when people lambaste the US for having too much income inequality. They don't want to recognize that in the US the "floor" is much much higher than in most other countries in the world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... -humanity/



The poor in the US have better socioeconomic status than in Britain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Japan....and the list goes on. Only in a few countries do the bottom 10% do better -- Canada, Sweden, Australia - that's it. But, the American middle class blows the socioeconomic doors off every other country in the world.

This is not the only relevant statistic. And, certainly, income inequality and wealth inequality are important stats. But, they too are not the only relevant stats. And, it is important to note that the US isn't some shithole where people kick sick people in the street for fun and have shootouts at high noon. The US is a great place. That's not to say that other places aren't also great places. They are. I am merely putting some perspective on the conversation here.

[JimC]

I haven't read the link, but if it's mean rather than median, then it is fairly meaningless.

And yes third world countries probably have more poorly educated people than the US. Well done.

They have more people. The average Malawian probably understands world geography better than the average Merkin.

I don't know if there is reliable data, but anecdotally I am often disappointed in the lack of knowledge of geography and history among my American peers. Some folks seem to have been sold on the notion that knowing "a bunch of facts" is not important. They think that the important thing is to know the answer to "why" questions -- like what's the import of a historical event, rather than the dates, names and places etc.

I think people have misunderstood. Yes, understanding "why" and the importance of events and places and names is probably MORE important than "just" knowing dates, places, chronologies, times and people, etc. But, in my view, you really can't get to "why" before you know who, what, when, and where, and in what order. You can't build a firm understanding, without a basic knowledge of the facts.

Some years back, during a general conversation involving a game of Trivial Pursuit, I came to learn that a friend's girlfriend had absolutely no idea of the order of major historical events. The topic came up because in discussing how one could puzzle out the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, I suggested thinking about the order of major wars, and then taking a best guess based on which ones most likely occurred in the mid-19th century. The answer was the American Civil War, and one of the other selections was World War 1. So, when I pointed out that WW1 was a 20th century war, and involved mechanized warfare which was rather unlike a 19th century war, and that it occurred some 50-odd years after the Civil War, I came to learn that she had no idea whether the Civil War occurred after or before World War 1. I did not want to embarrass her, so I left it alone. I was just a bit shocked that what I viewed as sort of basic was just something she not only didn't know, but also she did not even think it was important or helpful to know.

I'm not sure of the cause of it, or if it's worse than in prior generations. All I know is, if you're an American, and you don't know that the American Revolution came first, followed by the War of 1812, then the Mexican War, then the Civil War, then the Spanish American War, then World War 1, then World War 2, then Korea, then Vietnam, etc. -- at a bare minimum -- how can you understand anything about "why" these things occurred? And, if you don't know where Russia is compared to India, the US, the UK and such - if you don't know basic geography -- how can you hope to understand much about geopolitics?

I agree. And this extends to very basic scientific knowledge as well, IMO...

[Seth]

I haven't read the link, but if it's mean rather than median, then it is fairly meaningless.

And yes third world countries probably have more poorly educated people than the US. Well done.

They have more people. The average Malawian probably understands world geography better than the average Merkin.

I don't know if there is reliable data, but anecdotally I am often disappointed in the lack of knowledge of geography and history among my American peers.

There's a reason that Americans are culturally and geographically ignorant: Marxism.

I know, you'll roll your eyes but it's true. Over the last 100 years or so the American educational system has been systematically infected with both cultural and actual Marxism that was imported from Europe by the Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism, which realized that violent social rebellion as Marx called for was not effective, particularly in cultures where the overall satisfaction with one's economic opportunities was high, like the US. They decided that the only viable Marxist path to their goal of a classless society was the long road and that control of the education of the young was the way for Marxism to prevail.

The Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists came to the US and settled at Columbia University when it became unwelcome in Germany in the 1930s and has been slowly killing free thought and education ever since.

While the academic debate surrounding critical theory rages, the actual Marxists appropriated many of the ideas as amendments to Marx's revolutionary ideology and decided to apply it to the US educational system, where Marxist influences have been creeping like cancer throughout our schools and especially our universities ever since.

Applying the Critical Theory ideas and practices to the Marxist dialectic, these individuals and groups, including the National Education Association and most teacher's union upper management are determined to both censor what students have access to by way of history and to actively propagandize them and turn them into obedient little Marxist useful idiot proletarians who are ignorant of, in particular and quite specifically, US history and the reasons and philosophy surrounding the founding of this nation. Their propaganda campaign in our schools (and it extends far beyond the schools these days) is correctly labeled "cultural Marxism" because it uses the Marxist dialectic and the practices of behavior modification, educational indoctrination and propaganda to deny students the ability to think critically and question the propaganda they are being fed every single day.

So if Americans are ignorant of history and geography it's not because Americans are stupid, it's because they have been deliberately raised in ignorance of the truth and the essential facts of history that would cause them to reject Marxism. One can see this in the fact that inner-city schools no longer teach the Constitution in a civics class. This deliberate rejection by the Marxists who control the educational curricula, like the bomb-throwing murderous terrorist William Ayers and his equally evil wife, Bernadine Dorn, don't want kids to know they have rights that they can assert against the government because Marxism does not permit counterrevolutionary thought or action.

It's not an accident at all that the last two or three generations are themselves cultural Marxists who disrupt their own educations with ridiculous complaints about "microaggressions" and "safe spaces." They have been carefully and deliberately trained into dependency and incapacity so that the Marxist elite (and yes, they do exist) can more easily control them.

[Seth]

I haven't read the link, but if it's mean rather than median, then it is fairly meaningless.

And yes third world countries probably have more poorly educated people than the US. Well done.

If you were responding to my post (since you posted right after mine), the link was not to "third world countries having more uneducated people" -- rather, it was to the Better Life Index, which demonstrates that the poor in the US are better off than much of the rest of the first world. It's the statistic that is ignored when people lambaste the US for having too much income inequality. They don't want to recognize that in the US the "floor" is much much higher than in most other countries in the world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... -humanity/



The poor in the US have better socioeconomic status than in Britain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Japan....and the list goes on. Only in a few countries do the bottom 10% do better -- Canada, Sweden, Australia - that's it. But, the American middle class blows the socioeconomic doors off every other country in the world.

This is not the only relevant statistic. And, certainly, income inequality and wealth inequality are important stats. But, they too are not the only relevant stats. And, it is important to note that the US isn't some shithole where people kick sick people in the street for fun and have shootouts at high noon. The US is a great place. That's not to say that other places aren't also great places. They are. I am merely putting some perspective on the conversation here.