MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 62.0° F  Partly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby rabble » Thu May 17, 2012 9:05 am

pjbogart wrote:Now, running around and suing (or even arresting) people who lie is pretty impractical, but if it were illegal to conspire to spread disinformation it would have a chilling effect in all the right ways. FoxNews could no longer run "Mosque at Ground Zero" stories, oil companies couldn't organize malicious campaigns against wind and solar industries and we'd never see another "swiftboat" campaign. Whatever upside we once saw to complete freedom of speech in political campaigns has been outweighed by the reality that money often buys the truth, even if the truth is demonstrably false.

Canada has laws against news orgs putting out false statements. We don't.

I can't remember which politician I emailed about that, a year or two ago, asking how come we don't tell our newsies to tell the truth. He responded that it was free speech.

As long as it isn't libel, they can say anything they want. The news is basically a text version of professional wrestling, except more people believe it's true.

We are so fucking screwed.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Thu May 17, 2012 9:29 am

Stella_Guru wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote: PJ is right, the real solution is getting smarter voters.

Which celebrities did you say support gay marriage?


Since I assume you have some clue what you are talking about, why don't you tell us all?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Comrade » Thu May 17, 2012 9:30 am

pjbogart wrote:I think we need to reassess the First Amendment, personally. The general theory behind sacrosanct freedom of speech in the political realm is that voters will not vote for someone who is lying to them, so you lie at your own peril. What we now know is that if you have enough money you can convince people of things that are patently false. There was a story in the news about Skechers agreeing to a $45 million fine for making false health claims about their shoes. If we were to apply those kinds of limitations to all of industry and politics we may end up with a "smarter" voter (and consumer) because their head won't be filled with so much nonsense.

Now, running around and suing (or even arresting) people who lie is pretty impractical, but if it were illegal to conspire to spread disinformation it would have a chilling effect in all the right ways. FoxNews could no longer run "Mosque at Ground Zero" stories, oil companies couldn't organize malicious campaigns against wind and solar industries and we'd never see another "swiftboat" campaign. Whatever upside we once saw to complete freedom of speech in political campaigns has been outweighed by the reality that money often buys the truth, even if the truth is demonstrably false.


OK now let me get this straight. You consider my notion of term term limits to be anti-democratic. Yet, you seek to reasses the First Amendment? I can see where this is going. Thanks for playing, but you failed to convince me of anything with your logic. Let me submit one final thought--there are different ways of viewing the world. Just because someone has a different viewpoint does not mean necessarily that they are stupid or not as smart as you. Arbitrarily deciding who gets to speak or what gets to be said is an absolutely horrific idea and no longer worthy of any discussion.
Comrade
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Detritus » Thu May 17, 2012 9:42 am

pjbogart wrote:I think we need to reassess the First Amendment, personally. The general theory behind sacrosanct freedom of speech in the political realm is that voters will not vote for someone who is lying to them, so you lie at your own peril.

Wait--what? Who has ever said that?

The only thing we need to "rethink" about the First Amendment (other than our government's desire to curtail it) is the SCOTUS equation of money with speech in a way that allows wealth to trump everything else. Fixing that does not require us to modify the original document.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2388
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby wack wack » Thu May 17, 2012 9:51 am

Suggesting that term limits are "anti-democratic" is absurd. So absurd, in fact, it requires no further comment.

It is the lack of term limits which is inherently undemocratic.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3148
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu May 17, 2012 9:51 am

Detritus wrote:The only thing we need to "rethink" about the First Amendment (other than our government's desire to curtail it) is the SCOTUS equation of money with speech in a way that allows wealth to trump everything else. Fixing that does not require us to modify the original document.

It would require that the SCOTUS revisit the question. If Obama is reelected and gets the opportunity to appoint to our highest bench, there might be a chance.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19899
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby jman111 » Thu May 17, 2012 10:19 am

pjbogart wrote:What we now know is that if you have enough money you can convince people of things that are patently false. There was a story in the news about Skechers agreeing to a $45 million fine for making false health claims about their shoes. If we were to apply those kinds of limitations to all of industry and politics we may end up with a "smarter" voter (and consumer) because their head won't be filled with so much nonsense.

Comrade wrote:Just because someone has a different viewpoint does not mean necessarily that they are stupid or not as smart as you. Arbitrarily deciding who gets to speak or what gets to be said is an absolutely horrific idea and no longer worthy of any discussion.

I think you need to look up "arbitrarily". It certainly doesn't apply to pj's example.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3001
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Thu May 17, 2012 10:33 am

Guys, the First Amendment doesn't per se legalize lying. Case law, over the last 200 years, has carved out what we think of as free speech. For instance, there is virtually no recourse for telling lies during a political campaign, however you can be fined a great deal of money for making misrepresentations about the health benefits of a product you are selling. I guess you might call that the "snake oil exception" to free speech. There would be nothing inherently unconstitutional about saying, "hey, you can't just make shit up when running for office."

As for the ongoing "anti-democratic term limits" kerfuffle, anything which limits democracy, that is the right of the citizens to make ANY decision they want, is "anti-democratic." The word isn't vulgar, nor does it imply something evil. The Constitution is "anti-democratic" because it LIMITS what people can vote for... even if 99% of Wisconsinites voted to revoke African Americans' right to vote, such a vote would be unconstitutional. Term limits LIMIT our right to select whoever we want as our representative because one person has been removed from consideration. Saying that the Constitution is "anti-democratic" isn't a criticism, it's a factual statement.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu May 17, 2012 11:19 am

pjbogart wrote:Guys, the First Amendment doesn't per se legalize lying. Case law, over the last 200 years, has carved out what we think of as free speech. For instance, there is virtually no recourse for telling lies during a political campaign, however you can be fined a great deal of money for making misrepresentations about the health benefits of a product you are selling. I guess you might call that the "snake oil exception" to free speech. There would be nothing inherently unconstitutional about saying, "hey, you can't just make shit up when running for office."
There is a lot of political speech that isn't necessarily a lie, but rather a massaged and heavily-cropped version of the truth. All political campaigns do this, both sides and on non-partisan issues. We're just going to have to deal with it.
pjbogart wrote:As for the ongoing "anti-democratic term limits" kerfuffle, anything which limits democracy, that is the right of the citizens to make ANY decision they want, is "anti-democratic." The word isn't vulgar, nor does it imply something evil. The Constitution is "anti-democratic" because it LIMITS what people can vote for... even if 99% of Wisconsinites voted to revoke African Americans' right to vote, such a vote would be unconstitutional. Term limits LIMIT our right to select whoever we want as our representative because one person has been removed from consideration. Saying that the Constitution is "anti-democratic" isn't a criticism, it's a factual statement.
A+. Democracy is not the one true ideal that we should be striving for. It is a pragmatic system that works reasonably well for achieving some goals, not so well for others. Term limits are anti-democratic. Acknowledging that fact doesn't mean that term limits are necessarily a bad idea.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu May 17, 2012 12:05 pm

The Supreme Court, through various rulings, has held that political speech deserves the most protection under the First Amendment and commercial speech the least. Ordinary speech falls in the middle.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19899
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby DCB » Thu May 17, 2012 1:32 pm

pjbogart wrote:As for the ongoing "anti-democratic term limits" kerfuffle, anything which limits democracy, that is the right of the citizens to make ANY decision they want, is "anti-democratic." The word isn't vulgar, nor does it imply something evil.


Fair enough. But I think it is debatable whether term limits are in fact anti-democratic. Maybe 'true democracy' means giving all candidates a fair chance. Incumbency (it could be argued) gives an unfair advantage. If you follow this train of thought, then you'd also want to have publicly funded campaigns.

But I don't think that would solve the problem that is the topic of this thread. Money is power, and Wall Street controls the money.

To limit that kind of power will require a host of reforms.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2658
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby snoqueen » Thu May 17, 2012 5:02 pm

I think election promises and campaign speech fall somewhere right in between commercial speech and political speech. Think of it like this: the voters are hiring somebody to represent them. This is a paid position, and the candidates are applicants.

A certain level of veracity is expected from a job applicant, just as a certain amount of misconduct is reason for dismissal. To have almost no expectation of truthfulness regarding campaign speech is pretty much a license to abuse the public trust. If what Walker has done gets voter approval, no political candidate will ever bother with the truth again.

Maybe that's already the case, and he'll just seal the deal.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11510
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Thu May 17, 2012 5:49 pm

snoqueen wrote:If what Walker has done gets voter approval, no political candidate will ever bother with the truth again.


I think you're giving our recall election a bit too much weight and Walker is far from the first shameless liar when it comes to campaigning. Remember when Karl Rove, aka "fart blosssom," started a whisper campaign that John McCain had an illegitimate black child? Except the child was adopted and wasn't even black, she was Indian. Or how about when the swiftboaters said that they served with John Kerry and that he was lying about his actions in Vietnam? Except by "served with" they meant "was in the same country" and none of them actually had any first-hand knowledge of what went on under Kerry's command.

I'm not talking about tinkering with some stats to make some numbers look to your favor, I'm talking about flat out spreading vicious lies TO THE DETRIMENT of the voters, who go to the polls believing things that are factually false. Hell, we still have a poster digging up birther arguments despite the fact that there's no legitimate controversy over where Obama was born. That's not intended to inform the public and make us better voters. Quite the contrary.

Apparently that's OK with The Isthmus, though.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Stella_Guru » Fri May 18, 2012 6:00 am

snoqueen wrote:A certain level of veracity is expected from a job applicant, just as a certain amount of misconduct is reason for dismissal. To have almost no expectation of truthfulness regarding campaign speech is pretty much a license to abuse the public trust. If what Walker has done gets voter approval, no political candidate will ever bother with the truth again. Maybe that's already the case, and he'll just seal the deal.

Oh, kinda like presenting yourself as an agent of change but in reality a representative of banks, transnational corporations, and the pentagon.
Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby bdog » Fri May 18, 2012 7:01 am

Stella. HEY STELLA! Dems never lie.

When Fred Clark says he feels like smacking a woman around, HE MEANS IT.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Previous

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar