Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Mali. I'm sure there are others. I have traveled extensively in Malaysia and Turkey, where mosques are as numerous as churches in the USA, and the people of those countries belie every disparaging remark posted in this thread. >> ^messenger:

@chingalera
Well stated. I agree with your comparison of the two religions, but I think my point also stands that Muslims (or anybody) in countries without basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech and a free press are bound to be a lot more screwed up than those living under democracy and the freedoms that we enjoy. I think the corporate oligarchy is a red herring here. Sure, it's real, but that doesn't mean our democracy is zero. We have lots of freedom and power, even if our governments aren't as much "by the people" as they ideally could be. Could you imagine if elections were taken away altogether, if our leaders had no accountability whatsoever, and we didn't have a free press? Muslim or Christian or atheist, we would be a lot less civilized and a lot easier to manipulate to hate the "other". I mean, does anyone have any fears of attack or takeover by Muslims from Indonesia, Mali or Malaysia? Not that I've ever heard of, yet they're Muslim majority countries. The difference: democracy.
In a nutshell, you can't impose Iran- or Saudi-style Islamic rule on an existing democracy. Western Europe might change, and sure it'll cause discomfort and conflict, but nothing even remotely approaching deserving any of the comments cited in the video.

@chingalera

Well stated. I agree with your comparison of the two religions, but I think my point also stands that Muslims (or anybody) in countries without basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech and a free press are bound to be a lot more screwed up than those living under democracy and the freedoms that we enjoy. I think the corporate oligarchy is a red herring here. Sure, it's real, but that doesn't mean our democracy is zero. We have lots of freedom and power, even if our governments aren't as much "by the people" as they ideally could be. Could you imagine if elections were taken away altogether, if our leaders had no accountability whatsoever, and we didn't have a free press? Muslim or Christian or atheist, we would be a lot less civilized and a lot easier to manipulate to hate the "other". I mean, does anyone have any fears of attack or takeover by Muslims from Indonesia, Mali or Malaysia? Not that I've ever heard of, yet they're Muslim majority countries. The difference: democracy.

In a nutshell, you can't impose Iran- or Saudi-style Islamic rule on an existing democracy. Western Europe might change, and sure it'll cause discomfort and conflict, but nothing even remotely approaching deserving any of the comments cited in the video.

I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

Tags for this video have been changed from 'newark, police, camera, abuse, free press, police state, despotism, totalitarianism' to 'newark, police, camera, abuse, free press, abuse of power' - edited by xxovercastxx

Since your free press turned to corporate press.>> ^Duckman33:

Since when is it a reporters job to make Washington happy? Just another reason why I don't watch these "news" stations.

I don't see how regulation will do anything. Prosecute for the crimes committed, and let it go. Celebrity gossip is the price we pay for free press. And a total lack of privacy (within the bounds set by law) is the price famous people pay for their chosen careers (with the occasional exception for accidental celebrities who don't want it).

I just realized something.

You and I agree that police brutality must end.

I have a solution I can live with -- the Constitution and its guarantee of free press tied with cameras in the hands of citizens shedding light on injustices, slow and steady and boring and pragmatic and bad things will continue to happen as these battles are fought, one case at a time.

BUT. I have never asked you -- how do you want to end police brutality? What is your solution?

That is an honest question. I really do want to know. I've been so busy defending my point of view, I just realized, that I have never bothered to ask you for your solution. I might agree with it! I don't know, because I don't know what it is.

It is so tiring to be painted with beliefs I don't hold just because I don't agree 100% with someone else's stance.

I am very confused by this whole story. First I was outraged as is everyone else, but then the broadcast ends by saying that he wasn't handcuffed and the door wasn't broken down? Somebody is lying, and they are OUTRAGEOUS lies. This happened at 6 am, and he sat in a car in front of his house for six hours! There must be neighbors! Witnesses!

If the cops are lying, that just compounds my outrage. Weiner lying about a tweet is NOTHING compared to a lie of this magnitude. Thank god for the fourth estate and a free press -- heads will roll and roll they should.

If the guy is lying, well, that makes it all kind of funny. I thought while watching it that he was entertaining -- he played that camera like a pro and was clearly having a GREAT time. And to end with his little speech about paying your student loans? This guy is priceless. If he made up the whole thing, that makes him even more entertaining. And then what does it say about our free press -- if they don't do the least bit of investigative reporting to see if he is credible. Did they talk to the neighbors to see if they had seen anything, to corroborate the story before airing it? Or were they more interested in their "exclusive" story so they can capture eyes and therefore profit from advertising dollars?

I have nothing but questions.

What a roller coaster ride this vid was for me -- outrage and amusement and wha???

>> ^spaceisbig:

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.


Too late! You're in the discussion now, pal! No backing out! (<-- winkey smiley face means I kid)

I agree that a lot of what defined Lincoln is what also currently defines a modern Democratic politician. But mostly in terms of a large, centralized federal government versus a union of states with their own individual and self-defined rights. He did, however, suspend habeas corpus and locked up US citizens without trial for sedition. Mainly people in the free press he deemed 'Confederate Sympathizers'.

>> ^raverman:
It's time to make a clear distinction between Media coverage and news journalism.
99% of all written and televised content is media coverage... They quote opinions from twitter and show you tube videos. They are hosts and MC's, and maybe even broadcasters - but not Journalists.
Also: If it's openly called Propaganda when media is forced to broadcast message by threat of force...
What is it called when media is willing to broadcast propaganda by choice?


propoganda isn't defined by forcing someone to broadcast a certain message... or even by limiting discenting viewpoints... its simply information tailored to get a specific result... support this war, demonize this group, etc etc... there has been propoganda in North America at the same time as free press actually meant something

What is it called when media is willing to broadcast propaganda by choice?
failure of democracy?
corruption

@ 8min Starbucks is like... 'hey, free press'

I agree. I also watched this last night on 60 minutes. I do not see why the press is not more sympathetic with his cause.

I for one can not see Asange being in trouble for his actions. The "Pentagon pagers" event from the early 70s is the same thing. that ended up at the Supreme court.

From Wikipedia

"On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[16]"
>> ^JiggaJonson:

Edited or not, I watched this last night and thought that Assange carried himself well and had keen, honest responses to each question he was asked. I for one appreciate that there is a venue for those who want to speak out against abuses in organizations who would otherwise not be policed at all.