So basically your argument is: > Rolling back freedom of speech is a non-starter. * Governments have a free speech right to propaganda. (The techniques I sugg

So basically your argument is: > Rolling back freedom of speech is a non-starter. * Governments have a free speech right to propaganda. (The techniques I suggested 'rolling back' are only used for the purposes of propaganda). > Media can and do provide quality information. * Despite barriers and through mires of conflicting accounts, the media is able to effectively report information to a public that doesn't pay it and is able to ignore the influence of the institutions that do. > By and large the public know about the Patriot act and support it... * The public has wildly different opinions about the effectiveness of Obamacare than it does the Affordable Healthcare Act. Despite countless examples like this it is because of an efficient and reliable news system that the American public has a good sense of politics, the issues that the country faces, the trade-offs inherent to national legislature and how domestic bills fit into larger policy goals and geopolitics. There is no politicization of the media, or where there is it is recognized, sourced and understood as a defining piece of narrative context. > The reports are there yet the public has yet to be swayed. * But despite this really good reporting there's a real debate about whether global and ubiquitous surveillance, espionage and sabotage is legitimized by counter-terror purposes even when the programs in question have nothing to do with terrorism. > We need to convince voters that the Patriot Act is bad not pretend they have been victims of mind control. Information control. Don't burn too many calories on the straw man.