“With scattered light in the morning.”

Cyrena, thanks for the George Carlin line.  The one I always liked was from his Hippy Dippy Weatherman skit.  “Tonight’s forecast—dark!”

Ernest, Antispin, and all..

Thanks for these updates. (I’m now posting under a new name, since my browser apparently ‘reset’ me). I used to be Cyrena, and sometimes I still am. )

Anyway, I did understand the distinction that you all made to the original question here by heavyrunner. (and thank you as well heavyrunner, since I’m glad to know about the civil disobedience planned for LA) regarding the Nevada courts’ action, but I do appreciate the illumination that Ernest provided. I think the primary issue has been (from the beginning) the fact that any court would allow a corporate entity, (NOT an individual) access to first amendment rights. And, we all seem to be in agreement on that understanding, so Antispin’s link was helpful in trying to understand how this came about. Same with the (1971 case from Hugo Blacks decision).

All of this has been very helpful, if only to understand what SHOULD be happening (or not happening) if we weren’t in the Kafka existence.

Meantime, I came across another of Will Rivers Pitt’s pieces, that I thought might be worth sharing. So, here’s the link:

Real Change
  By William Rivers Pitt
  t r u t h o u t | Columnist

  Wednesday 23 January 2008

  I put a dollar in one of those change machines. Nothing changed.
  - George Carlin

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012308R.shtml

I meant to reply to EC’s last post and hit “report this” by mistake.  Ooops.  “Thankyou for keeping Truthdig clean, tidy and safe.”  Or some such.

What I wanted to say is that this simbiotic government/press relation dates back to at least the Spanish American War, when Herst invented a false flag incident (remember The Main?) as a pretext for generating newspaper sales.  I’d like to think that was the beginning of the Evil Empire (no, not the one Reagan referred to) but then there’s this nasty business with the indigenous populations in the United States… 

Still, the U.S. Constitution as a model for government and the hopes of Thomases Paine and Jefferson have a lot of redeeming value.  But this guilt over the slaughter of the natives maybe is now being reflected in the slaughter of the Palestinians and Iraqis and so on, it seems.

And the U.S. government pushing heroin and crack cocain around the world and in poor communities…it’s all too shameful.  I say we gut all these clowns (Abrams, Perle, Feith, etc.) taxidermy ‘em and display their ugly mugs in the rotunda.

“Swear!”  - Hamlets Ghost

The Nevada court ruling is a binding precedent only upon Nevada state courts.  It amounts to nothing more than “persuasive” authority in any other court, and other courts would be free to reject their reasoning.

One of the disturbing features of the decision is its alacrity.  There was insufficient time given for the Justices to carefully consider written and oral arguments, as ordinarily occur in the appellate process.  That will weigh against its future weight.

In terms of how far the decision strayed from the purpose of the First Amendment as described by Justice Hugo Black in his concurring opinion in New York Times vs. Sullivan (1971):  “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.  The press was to have served the governed, not the governors.  The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.  The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.  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…”

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the symbiotic relationship between war profiteers like GE, MSNBC’s parent company, and the government or a circumstance in which those war profiteers perversion of the First Amendment by utilizing their monopoly control of the public airwaves to censure the anti-war message that Mr. Kucinich would have brought to this public forum.

Thank you for the clarification.

While the reasoning and result are indeed right out of Kafka, heavyrunner is mistaken in his belief that a state court has no jurisdiction to rule on first amendment issues.  The rights afforded under the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution are applicable to the states under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.  State courts are repeatedly called upon to determine whether state action violates rights under the federal constitution.  Those rulings are subject to a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that does not deprive the states from enforcing rights created by the U.S. constitution.  Indeed, in many instances, the U.S. constitution is considered the minimum standard below which a state may not fall.

The real twist in logic is to extend to fictional entities (corporations) a right to silence the free speech rights of real live people and those who seek to represent them.  It is the corporate media’s monopoly control over the public airwaves, which in this case involves corporations with as conflict of interest—GE and their subsidiaries Ratheon and MSNBC—who have used their monopoly control over the public airwaves to silence dissent.  The Nevada Supreme Court’s acceptance of a right to silence dissent as somehow protecting the First Amendment is nothing short of Orwellian.

Thank you heavyrunner! I have been complaining about this injustice all the way back in Iowa when the Desmoines Register pulled the same artificial tactics to prevent an alternative candidate from being seen or heard. The idea that a corporation is entitled to first amendment rights like an individual person, is absurd, and worse, patently un-American. I am happy that you care about this matter, I am saddened that so many do not seem to mind.
If injustice is permitted anywhere, justice is threatened everywhere.

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the local judge in Las Vegas did not have jurisdiction and that to force MSNBC to include Kucinich would violate NBC’s First Amendment Rights.

How can a state court like the Nevada Supreme Court rule on a First Amendment issue, which is part of the U.S. Constitution?  They did not have jurisdiction to rule on the First Amendment issues in the case because that has to be argued in a Federal court.

And a media company like MSNBC does not enjoy freedom of the PRESS provisions of the First Amendment.  They fall under a completely different set of rules promulgated by the FCC as a licensee of the public airwaves.

I am planning to participate in civil disobedience in Los Angeles if the California Democratic Party attempts to exclude Congressman Kucinich from the debate planned for the Kodak Theater on January 31.

I am Vice-President of our local Democratic Committee too.

There was just a NYT/CBS poll (and I know how we all love polls…LOL) on this very thing: the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton question.  The poll was conducted over 3 days in January with over 1,000 registered voters in a variety of areas.

According to the poll, among ALL voters, 50% say it makes no difference to them; only 38% say it’s a “bad thing.”  Interestingly, more Republicans (52% to 32%) than Democrats (46% to 43%) said that it makes no difference (and we are talking specifically about Hillary here).

Peace.

Thank you antispin for the 16 year old document that explains why Mr. Kucinich was denied a place at the debate. But I must say, I think big media engaged in overkill. The congressman from Cleveland had been thoroughly marginalized already by the UFO thing, and strangely, I heard this one myself, that it appeared he used hair dye!
Yes the power mongers flourish unabated. Despite the fact that I am aware of my insignificance, I still refuse to go along with the crime. Thank you.

It’s hard to believe this article is 16 years old: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/American_Media_IYLTP.html

That’s 16 years of the Clinton/Bush dynasty in which these power mongers have been allowed to flourish unabated.  What is it going to take to break the knees of these creepy busy-bodies?

It is amazing that MSNBC/GE would go to such great lengths to prevent an elected representative from expressing his views on a publicly televised debate. Commenter laughoutloud is correct when it is stated that there is no right or left, only rich or poor. Unfortunately for the have-nots, they have no one voicing their concerns. They are strangely, the true silent majority. Never being truly recognized, but always being manipulated (“I feel your pain.”).
But what is to be done? First, in a capital driven society, the boycott is one of the last viable weapons.
You might consider no longer being a patron of big league sports. NFL, MLB, etc., these are corporate welfare clients that transfer billions to a few individuals, at the expense of everyone else. Not only do we subsidy their businesses, but also build the structures for them to do business. Stadium taxes are contrary to everything that the free enterprise system is suppose to be about. And so is the monopoly exceptions that allow these “businesses” to keep competition out. And George Mitchell is investigating use of steroids? Would it not be far better if the money and energy poured into that project, instead went in to exposing the obscene graft and corruption legally foisted upon the public? Just ask the candidates how they feel about “public works” projects for major league sports. That would clarify matters quite a bit.

Well, you said it all here, and well fusthai.

So, maybe Thailand is where I need to be. It’s very difficult to imagine that any revolution might come about here in our Amerika.

Sad of course, but you’ve made the point. This is where we’re at, and it’s not getting better.

Because, this wasn’t just the State of Nevada. I mean, that’s where it happened. But, this could have happened in any other state, just as easily. I mean, so it would seem.

I’m still puzzling over the fact that MSNBC could claim any ‘rights’ in a Supreme Court appeal anyway. As Jackpine Savage pointed out, the 1st amendment rights were guaranteed to INDIVIDUALS, not corporate entititis. So, when MSNBC becomes enough of an individual to take a bullet, or vote at the booth, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, then maybe I could understand their claim. Otherwise, it’s a farce that the Supreme Court even addressed it on anything close to a ‘right’ to freedom of speech.

That said, we’re already in ruin.

I haven’t had regular access to television since the summer of 1999. 

Tune out, turn off, and remember that where and how you spend your money is what’s important.

The Equal Time Rule was a part of the Fairness Doctrine which was eliminated by the Reagan administration.  It is one of the media reforms that Mr. Kucinich desires to institute, along with a roll back of media consolidation, increased funding for public broadcasting and a requirement that the corporate media provide free air time to candidates and parties during elections as part of the price they pay for their monopoly licenses to operate on the “public” airwaves.  With billions of dollars in future campaign ad revenues at stake, is it really any wonder why the corporate media desires to exclude Kucinich and his message?

Can somebody please explain to me why the Equal Time Rule does not apply to these debates? Seeing as how this was a debate hosted by MSNBC, shouldnt they be required by federal law to include Kucinich?

Amen!!

MSNBC’s willingness to go to the Nevada Supreme Court to shut off real debate may be more open but the effort by the corporate media to control the scope of acceptable discourse in this country is hardly new.  It must be understood that nearly the entirety of the media is under the control of six major media conglomerates, all of whom would stand to lose billions of dollars if the message carried by a candidate like Mr. Kucinich actually were received and understood by the manipulated masses.  From day one, before the first poll was taken, the media had already designated whom the “leading” candidates were going to be.  Substitute the word “acceptable” for the word “leading” and you have a better picture for what the corporate media had in mind.

Insofar as the global class war is concerned, the haves have already prevailed over the have nots with respect to the 2008 presidential election by reducing the core question to Clinton or Obama.  This election is not about gender or race.  It is not about “change” or “hope.”  The true character of these corporate charletons can be found in their past support for NAFTA or in Obama’s recent praise of Ronald Reagan, not to mention the healthcare insurance subsidy schemes that they pass off as “reform” to counter the Conyers/Kucinich single-payer plan.

The six major media conglomerates, who control almost all of what we see, hear and read, act as thought police, limiting not only the scope of discourse at debates but the very ability of Americans to understand that they have succumbed to nothing less than voting against their own interest.  Even amongst the better informed of our citizens, time and again, I hear the “I don’t want to waste my vote” when it comes to Kucinich, not realizing that by buying into the “vote for the likely” winner they are abandoning the only true criteria for supporting “any” candidate in a democratic society—where they stand on issues that truly matter.

I guess I’m ‘blessed’ to not receive a lot of American political news here in Thailand but I was really looking forward to seeing how Dennis was treated at the Nevada debate.  Now I learn that corporate power was able to get the Nevada Supreme Court to hurriedly meet & overturn Judge Thompson’s ruling that Kucinich had a contractual right to be there. Such a sad commentary for the State of Nevada!

I don’t know how Dennis maintains his upbeat attitude in the face of these repeated travesties of justice!  I also dismay over the fact that there isn’t a huge protest from the American public against this ‘faux’ election!  Poor “dumbed-down” souls are being duped again…and just follow the rigged polls and paid-off pundits like the sheeple they’ve been trained to be.  Seems they deserve the government the corporations are paying for…but I despair for the America I grew up with, and have no desire to return to the Amerika of today!  (At least not until the revolution starts.)

“Chok dee” (good luck) to you all!

Weather,

I did this. It’s really quite refreshing. It hasn’t been quite long enough for me to begin realizing the ‘flourishing’ benefits, but I’m sure they’ll come.

Liza, I didn’t watch the debates either.

to plutocracy American style everybody. It’s only going to get worse - or better if you’re a plutocrat.  We’re like gnats.  Easily squashed, inflicting no lasting harm, too small to cause even any real discomfort.

Looks like the greatest con-artists to ever hit the political scene might make it back into the WH.  And we can depend on it that whoever or whatever gets them back there will also get them back there for a second term.  If you’re not a plutocrat, you should be worried.

So true, Amy. NBC was hoisted on its own petard by silencing the voice of Dennis Kucinich. And then they wonder why the “debate” was so vacuous. It was their fault!
Americans tread close to the edge of losing what common soldiers died for at Valley Forge when they let the “kings of big media” take over the public forum in such an important venue as presidential debates.

I didn’t even watch the so called “debate” on NBC, because their refusal to allow Dennis Kucinich to participate made their debate irrelevant. 

If these debates are staged with selected “performers” then how are they different from any other form of entertainment. 

This isn’t serious politics, it is just another “show.”

Village Elder, I’m reposting this part of your comments, because it’s the best articulation I’ve ever come across, in explaining how these flippin’ CORPS do NOT and CAN NOT ‘enjoy’ the SAME RIGHTS as individuals!! Or, they obviously shouldn’t.

•  MSNBC is not an individual; it cannot vote in an election; and it cannot be called upon to take a bullet for the nation.  Therefore, it has no claim to stake on the right to “free speech”.

And, how or why ANY Supreme Court doesn’t get that, is truly beyond me. But isn’t it always pretty damn amazing, how an INDIVIDUAL can rot in jail for a crime he/she hasn’t committed, for decades and decades, without ever getting an audience with the Court, (let alone the Supreme Court), but MSNBC can just file and appeal and have it heard the same day or the next, in the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Meantime, this was a help in working my budget for the upcoming year. I’ve been spending $74.00 per month, just for BASIC BROADCAST TV service. Yep, that’s because where I live; the only broadcast station available for citizen viewing (without charge) is ABC. And, since I so rarely watch the thing anyway, I’ve decided I just don’t need it. (I don’t watch ABC either, but I’ll presume that one is enough for me to hear any ‘emergency broadcast bulletins”.)

So, now I’ll be able to add an extra 50 cents to my ‘assets’,  since that’s what $74.00 is, in 2008 currency.

And, thanks again for the clear point on how NONE of these corporations are individuals, since they don’t take bullets, and they don’t vote, and we know they don’t even pay taxes.

Especially when those corporations are further enabled by the media they either own or control, or which are compliant and complicit in controlling political campaigns.

It does not matter who one is supporting: Hillary, Obama, Edwards, even the Republicans.  What was done to Mr. Kucinich is an outrage, and should be cause for both response and alarm.

Peace.

There’s not much we can do if we have a judicial system which has been bought and paid for by corporations.

NBC also argued: “A television station does not have to grant unlimited access to a candidate debate. If anyone’s First Amendment rights are being infringed, they are MSNBC’s.”

If those debates are broadcast on network television, the airwaves they travel across are (supposedly) owned by the public.  Unlimited access, no.  Reasonable access, most certainly.

And of all our problems, one of the biggest is the idea that corporations are afforded the rights (but not the responsibilities) of individuals.  MSNBC is owned by a group of stockholders with limited liability.  Each of those stockholders has a right to free speech.  MSNBC is not an individual; it cannot vote in an election; and it cannot be called upon to take a bullet for the nation.  Therefore, it has no claim to stake on the right to “free speech”.