24 ms·

Once again the US exporting "corporate democracy"

by pm24601 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Don't blame the united states for everything. Totally unlike the situation described in the article, I can assure you that Americans have all the freedom in the world to criticize the government. We are fortunate in that regard.
- Retric 11y ago
  The US government found many ways to cut back on free speech. Most direct is probably the fact you don't get to stay part of the Presidents press core if you regularly say bad things about them. But, there are thousands of little things that add up to surprising levels of control.
  - krapp 11y ago
    That's hardly an effective way of suppressing dissent or criticism against the President. The press corps is not the press.
    - Retric 11y ago
      On it's own it's not a big deal, but you don't control 320 million people doing just one thing. So, the surprising thing is not that it works, but that nobody thinks of it in terms of free speech. After all, of course news organizations will chase profits so access becomes a useful tool. PS: Press releases are not just a means of corporations using lazy reporters to spread there message.
      - krapp 11y ago
        I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize Americans as being "controlled" by the media or the government. If the president (Obama in particular) had that much power to influence popular opinion through propaganda, we would have an actual national healthcare plan right now.
        Retric 11y ago
        The US government does not have a single viewpoint so it's message is not unified on a wide range of issues. But, things like the food pyramid have a huge impact on how people think. Consider, did the Fed have anything to do with the recent housing bubble and burst? Well, bubbles become self sustaining up to a point, but was there anything that caused a huge amount of money to slosh into the housing market? Now, let's take a step back. Are houses a good investment in the abstract?
        mirimir 11y ago
        What's the basis for believing that President Obama wanted an "actual national healthcare plan"? Did he get negligible funding from the health insurance sector?
- SwimAway 11y ago
  Fortunate? Freedom of speech (et al.) is a birthright, NOT a privilege. If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights..
  - scribu 11y ago
    > If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights.. As mentioned in the article, there already are massive protests around this issue. What more could they do? Try to take down the government by force? Even if they succeeded, I'm sure the U.S. would be happy to step in to "calm the waters" and impose martial law outright.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      They don't need to have a violent revolution. They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle. If the votes aren't there, revolution wouldn't succeed anyway.
      - thanksgiving 11y ago
        Revolutions do not need a majority. I think our best guess is that fewer than a third of the then colonists (USA) supported the proclamation of independence. It is true though that with FPTP, you don't really need a majority to win elections either so it might be a wash.
      - rangibaby 11y ago
        "They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle." The last time they tried that (2009), the different party was literally more of the same. The only thing worth mentioning about the following two elections was their extremely low turnout (the lowest ever in Japan's modern history in the latter).
  - hasenj 11y ago
    The difference between a right and a privilege seems to be a matter of definition ..
- laotzu 11y ago
  >Totally unlike the situation described in the article, I can assure you that Americans have all the freedom in the world to criticize the government. I'm assuming you have not studied what happened to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the last American of his level of influence to fundamentally criticize the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_an...
  - crusso 11y ago
    Yes, and much more recently we had the IRS stifling political groups that oppose the current administration. But there's a difference between government stifling of speech illegally and government stifling of speech legally. At least with the former there are legal avenues that can be pursued to correct the situation.
    - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
      There's not much difference to the person being stifled, at least, not initially. Yes, you can litigate absurdly expensive court battles (assuming the government allows itself to be sued), have your voice silenced for the years and years your case takes to work its way through the courts, and then, assuming you win, finally get to say what you want a whole decade or more after the fact. Legal avenues are great like that for people that want to delay, distract, and disrupt.
      - crusso 11y ago
        There's not much difference to the person being stifled, at least, not initially. There's a huge difference between a government being able to send the police in broad daylight to do its bidding and beat you up or jail you for breaking the "subversive speech law" vs having to deal with some bureaucratic agency making you jump through endless hoops trying to get your group's 501c tax status. That's all before you even think about getting into a courtroom.
- hasenj 11y ago
  To his credit, the article does mention: > For many years, Washington’s Japan-handlers have pressed Tokyo to introduce repressive legislation to protect secrets concerning the US-Japan security alliance

Once again the US exporting "corporate democracy"

by pm24601 11y ago

Once again the US exporting "corporate democracy"

Don't blame the united states for everything. Totally unlike the situation described in the article, I can assure you that Americans have all the freedom in the world to criticize the government. We are fortunate in that regard.

Retric 11y ago
The US government found many ways to cut back on free speech. Most direct is probably the fact you don't get to stay part of the Presidents press core if you regularly say bad things about them. But, there are thousands of little things that add up to surprising levels of control.
- krapp 11y ago
  That's hardly an effective way of suppressing dissent or criticism against the President. The press corps is not the press.
  - Retric 11y ago
    On it's own it's not a big deal, but you don't control 320 million people doing just one thing. So, the surprising thing is not that it works, but that nobody thinks of it in terms of free speech. After all, of course news organizations will chase profits so access becomes a useful tool. PS: Press releases are not just a means of corporations using lazy reporters to spread there message.
    - krapp 11y ago
      I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize Americans as being "controlled" by the media or the government. If the president (Obama in particular) had that much power to influence popular opinion through propaganda, we would have an actual national healthcare plan right now.
      - Retric 11y ago
        The US government does not have a single viewpoint so it's message is not unified on a wide range of issues. But, things like the food pyramid have a huge impact on how people think. Consider, did the Fed have anything to do with the recent housing bubble and burst? Well, bubbles become self sustaining up to a point, but was there anything that caused a huge amount of money to slosh into the housing market? Now, let's take a step back. Are houses a good investment in the abstract?
      - mirimir 11y ago
        What's the basis for believing that President Obama wanted an "actual national healthcare plan"? Did he get negligible funding from the health insurance sector?
SwimAway 11y ago
Fortunate? Freedom of speech (et al.) is a birthright, NOT a privilege. If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights..
- scribu 11y ago
  > If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights.. As mentioned in the article, there already are massive protests around this issue. What more could they do? Try to take down the government by force? Even if they succeeded, I'm sure the U.S. would be happy to step in to "calm the waters" and impose martial law outright.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    They don't need to have a violent revolution. They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle. If the votes aren't there, revolution wouldn't succeed anyway.
    - thanksgiving 11y ago
      Revolutions do not need a majority. I think our best guess is that fewer than a third of the then colonists (USA) supported the proclamation of independence. It is true though that with FPTP, you don't really need a majority to win elections either so it might be a wash.
    - rangibaby 11y ago
      "They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle." The last time they tried that (2009), the different party was literally more of the same. The only thing worth mentioning about the following two elections was their extremely low turnout (the lowest ever in Japan's modern history in the latter).
- hasenj 11y ago
  The difference between a right and a privilege seems to be a matter of definition ..
laotzu 11y ago
>Totally unlike the situation described in the article, I can assure you that Americans have all the freedom in the world to criticize the government. I'm assuming you have not studied what happened to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the last American of his level of influence to fundamentally criticize the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_an...
- crusso 11y ago
  Yes, and much more recently we had the IRS stifling political groups that oppose the current administration. But there's a difference between government stifling of speech illegally and government stifling of speech legally. At least with the former there are legal avenues that can be pursued to correct the situation.
  - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
    There's not much difference to the person being stifled, at least, not initially. Yes, you can litigate absurdly expensive court battles (assuming the government allows itself to be sued), have your voice silenced for the years and years your case takes to work its way through the courts, and then, assuming you win, finally get to say what you want a whole decade or more after the fact. Legal avenues are great like that for people that want to delay, distract, and disrupt.
    - crusso 11y ago
      There's not much difference to the person being stifled, at least, not initially. There's a huge difference between a government being able to send the police in broad daylight to do its bidding and beat you up or jail you for breaking the "subversive speech law" vs having to deal with some bureaucratic agency making you jump through endless hoops trying to get your group's 501c tax status. That's all before you even think about getting into a courtroom.
hasenj 11y ago
To his credit, the article does mention: > For many years, Washington’s Japan-handlers have pressed Tokyo to introduce repressive legislation to protect secrets concerning the US-Japan security alliance