3 ms·

how so? why does citizen A get to publsih a book but citizen B does not? Who decides if citizen B's book is political ? Why is citizen A's book against global w

how so? why does citizen A get to publsih a book but citizen B does not? Who decides if citizen B's book is political ? Why is citizen A's book against global warming ok but citizen B's book against homeschooling not ok? Publishing generally goes through a publisher even if that publisher is only Amazon Kindle. Corporations (even 1 person corporations) are involved almost without exception

ubernostrum 9y ago
What I'm saying is simply that while John Q. Citizen has the unlimited right to publish his opinions, I do not think Acme Corp. should have the unlimited right to publish its opinions. So a book authored by John Q. Citizen could not legally have its publication restricted, but a book authored by Acme Corp. could, if a legislative body chose to do so. Similarly, John Q. Citizen is absolutely free to engage in political activism, but Acme Corp. should not be. Also, the gloom-and-doom death-of-individual-speech scenarios people like to propose in response to this did not occur during periods when corporate speech was restricted by law, which is a telling counterpoint.
- greggman 9y ago
  John q citizen will almost necesssarkly use a Corp to publish. As brought up in the radiolab episode Citizen’s United’s movie was in response to Michael Moore’s anti Bush movie. when asked why it was not banned the government said “because he’s media”. nothing to do with corporations. His movie was published by a corporation (Sony). Instead the government found itself in the position of saying who is allowed to publish. Sony yes , other Corp no. maybe you think the solution would have been to ban Moore’s movie. But in that case the government now has to decide what is and isn’t a political movie. Every movie projects some sort of world view and people who disagree with that view see those movies as political propaganda
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    See, I think you and I are not understanding each other. I tend to believe that an entity founded for the purpose of pooling capital to generate profit should be restricted to doing those things which are necessary to its purpose. Engaging in political activism isn't one of those things. If the particular field of endeavor of that entity is publishing books or movies, then that's perfectly all right, but I'd argue there's a right on the part of the government to, for example, police it for signs of really being a political-action organization rather than a profit-making one, and to regulate its actions accordingly. Nothing about that does away with publishers. Nothing about it even does away with the ability of publishers to publish the political opinions of individuals. Most publishing houses do this and do it with little or no care as to what the opinions are, because even political opinions the publisher's executive disagrees with can be very lucrative to publish, and the executive is charged with making money rather than with enforcing some sort of political opinion. And any and every counterexample that tries to muddy the waters by arguing that an individual's ability to publish would be impacted is going to fail in a similar way. Please, stop trying to make some counterexamples.

ubernostrum 9y ago

What I'm saying is simply that while John Q. Citizen has the unlimited right to publish his opinions, I do not think Acme Corp. should have the unlimited right to publish its opinions. So a book authored by John Q. Citizen could not legally have its publication restricted, but a book authored by Acme Corp. could, if a legislative body chose to do so. Similarly, John Q. Citizen is absolutely free to engage in political activism, but Acme Corp. should not be. Also, the gloom-and-doom death-of-individual-speech scenarios people like to propose in response to this did not occur during periods when corporate speech was restricted by law, which is a telling counterpoint.

greggman 9y ago
John q citizen will almost necesssarkly use a Corp to publish. As brought up in the radiolab episode Citizen’s United’s movie was in response to Michael Moore’s anti Bush movie. when asked why it was not banned the government said “because he’s media”. nothing to do with corporations. His movie was published by a corporation (Sony). Instead the government found itself in the position of saying who is allowed to publish. Sony yes , other Corp no. maybe you think the solution would have been to ban Moore’s movie. But in that case the government now has to decide what is and isn’t a political movie. Every movie projects some sort of world view and people who disagree with that view see those movies as political propaganda
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  See, I think you and I are not understanding each other. I tend to believe that an entity founded for the purpose of pooling capital to generate profit should be restricted to doing those things which are necessary to its purpose. Engaging in political activism isn't one of those things. If the particular field of endeavor of that entity is publishing books or movies, then that's perfectly all right, but I'd argue there's a right on the part of the government to, for example, police it for signs of really being a political-action organization rather than a profit-making one, and to regulate its actions accordingly. Nothing about that does away with publishers. Nothing about it even does away with the ability of publishers to publish the political opinions of individuals. Most publishing houses do this and do it with little or no care as to what the opinions are, because even political opinions the publisher's executive disagrees with can be very lucrative to publish, and the executive is charged with making money rather than with enforcing some sort of political opinion. And any and every counterexample that tries to muddy the waters by arguing that an individual's ability to publish would be impacted is going to fail in a similar way. Please, stop trying to make some counterexamples.