They still retain their ability to write as private citizens.
Nothing Orwellian, nothing lost, no censorship.
The NYT should not endorse anyone. Yes, they should stop.
They should report the news ( including politics ) without regard to political slant or political consequence.
The only guideline should be "is it true?".
People as individuals can and should write the paper and be published.
I have covered all this ad nauseum, repeatedly.
I am of the opinion that you understand well enough, but cant make your case without misstating mine.
Business owners and shareholders can and should represent their own individual political viewpoints each on their own.
There is zero need for businesses or other organizations to participate at that level.
I see what you are saying, but none of that applies.
You are adding something to what I am saying that I do not intend to be there.
Your business belongs to you.
IBM, for example, belongs to many many shareholders. Are their political interests being well represented by IBM?
I would hazard not.
No, I'm not interested in cutting anyone down.
There is not real way to amplify the little people. I want to de-amplify the large. Then they wont drown out others.
And ideas don't come from businesses, they come from the people within a business, and there is *nothing* preventing that from happening.
Yes, democracies can oppress minorities. I'd rather that than oligarchy/plutarchy oppressing majorities and minorities.
Again, no one is being censored. Individuals can express anything they like. The only thing lost is the ability for businesses to censor others.
I can see where you are coming from.
And I do think your political advocacy should happen with your resources ( money, time, etc ).
Why? I can see that in your case, it makes little difference.
And if that were the extent of the playing field, I would say knock yourself out.
But that isn't the extent of the playing field. Large corporations have inordinate influence.
I know IBM's business is impacted by political decisions. So are foreign countries.
Why should they have a say?
Why should the size of a wallet influence the decision making?
Doesn't it make you mad that larger companies make your advocacy less meaningful?
Shouldn't it be about what is good for the country, what is right, rather than who had funding?
So, yes, so as to make unnecessary a distinction between a small business and a large one,
I would say no business should engage in politics. You have your say, say it. You can give yourself a large paycheck for your advocacy.
Doing it thru your company, why? A minor inconvenience against actually being in control ( you, me ) of "our" government.
And I can see that some business activism has gone well ( in my opinion ), The uprising against SOPA.
But all that could have and should have been in *our* hands to begin with, not as a plaything of business.
I would argue that SOPA would not have come into being without other business interests pushing it into being.
I disagree with the word censor, again. I don't want any real person's viewpoint censored.
And the wealthy/powerful would not be censored, they would be just as able as anyone to promulgate an idea.
But so would the not so wealthy/powerful.
The censorship is by the wealthy/powerful by making it so that viewpoints divergent from theirs are drowned out.
I agree, completely, freedom of political speech is really fundamental. For people. Real people.
I don't think foreigners should have a say in a countries politics.
I don't think internal entities without a vote should have a say.
The citizens and the citizens alone should have a say. That is the country. That is who should be engaged in the process.
I recognize that this is all a pipe dream. The people who would need to enact such a scheme as mine are the same ones already captured. It wont happen, you can rest easy. I really don't see how that sits easy with anyone. But that is life.
Yes, the business owners should direct the conduct of the business ( duh ).
I disagree on using a business as a tool of expression. They have their own private lives, they can use that.
They should not be able to speak twice+. As an individual *and* as a business.
On unions, they should also be barred from politics. Their function is representing membership to management and negotiating.
Their membership have all they need in the political arena already, again, they have their private lives, they can use that.
There is nothing about people joining together that should cause them to have additional influence. To have to ability to drown out others.
They should have influence, but not more than that due anyone.
I have not said that a political party should loose it's freedom of speech.
I have said corporations do not deserve or need any speech to begin with.
Note a distinction between corporations and owners/managers of corporations.
The owners of a business already have freedom of speech. The business will only repeat their ideas, without regard for how the investors or employees feel about the position ( yes, if they feel strongly enough about it, they can quit. ) I would call that misrepresentation.
There is a distinction between telling someone to let another have a moment/time to talk and telling someone to shut up.
The ones you incorrectly think I want to shut up are the only ones with much of a voice right now.
They should be able to talk, but not to the exclusion of others.
I really don't see where you get the "repeal the First Amendment" stuff from.
I am fond of it myself, I just wish it meant more for all, rather than a select few.
We are repeating ourselves here. I don't expect to convince you, I remain unconvinced by you.
"So you do want to censor them as a company. One person putting up a political sign in his yard is OK, but two people working together to do it, and you will demand that they stop. Honey, I'm afraid that would be censorship."
I do not see why a corporation should have any input into the political process.
The people in the corporation, of course, and they do.
I don't see it as censorship, they ( the people in the corporation ) can say what they want.
I do not think they should have additional influence.
I don't see why the person(s) heading a corporation should get additional influence.
"What would be really nice is if some people would stop whining that others have more money than they do."
Its not about whining that others have more money.
They got it, fine. Enjoy it, but using it to influence politics isnt a good thing.
They are one citizen, they should not have more or less voice than any one else.
Anything else just leads to to oligarchy/plutarchy.
"Because democracy doesn't mean that everybody has the same reach and visibility of their communications. You're just whining because you want to censor some other peoples' political speech. "
I really wish you would stop with the condescending stuff. I have a point of view. I believe it to be correct. That is not whining. Stop trying to paint my discourse, talk about what you think without the nonsense.
And again, they can say what they want.
censor [sen-ser] Show IPA
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3.an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4.(in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5.(in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
4 and 5 dont apply. 3 kinda does, but on both side.
I do not want to see anything suppressed or supervised, I want for all to be able to be heard. Not just the wealthy and powerful.
The censor is on the other foot.
"I have no sympathy with you whatsoever in pursuing that objective, and I consider your goal fundamentally inimical to a free democratic republic. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees with me, at least for the present."
Making it so that everyone, rather than the few have a voice in government is inimical to a free democratic republic?
Is that what you are saying?
"No it is supposed to be the people you have elected to represent the citizenry, obviously you aren't going to a referendum on every single issue.'
Yes, but they are supposed to be answerable to the citizenry in terms of getting voted out of office
"What are you selling? And to whom? And for what? If people's livelihood didn't depend on money then obviously people wouldn't care so much about it"
Democratic institutions in this Republic.
Yes, people's livelihoods depend on money, in the main, and it is something to care about.
But, so? If one person cares about money, they can vote on money/economic issues. If another cares about ecology, they can vote that.
I don't believe the current patent system is the best of all possible systems.
"Look at it from the perspective of those running the country,"
I am in the USA, and that is supposed to be the citizenry.
"IBM and MS support the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of their employees, they contribute billions to the economy and have hundreds of thousands of shareholders which includes active traders, long term investors and retirement funds. It isn't 4 "persons" involved because corporations are not people, but they are often representative of many people"
It should not be about the money, it should be about democracy. Sustaining and maintaining and defending it.
We are selling it a bit at a time.
It really is not so short or sweet.
Take the item from today's main page, IBM and MS oppose a part of a bill.
Say for the sake of argument that I and another developer friend support that bill.
4 "persons" involved, but my voice and my friend's voice is rendered inconsequential by IBM and MS's voice.
Why is that OK?
What I want is not censorship of their voice ( they should be able to voice their opinion, as individuals, not as a company ), what I want is to eliminate the censorship of *my* voice. I want their opinion and mine to be able to be evaluated on the opinion's merits, not on the contents of their wallet versus my wallet.
When my voice is drowned out by theirs, how can you argue we have democracy?