Thread: "We can ban books!"... Hope and Change (TM), coming your way!

Recently the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latest in a series of challenges to the application of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (or, as I've taken to calling it, Johnny McCain's Magical Muzzle). Not surprisingly, the Solicitor General for the new administration argued in favor of the lower court's ruling that Citizens United could be prevented from showing their film, Hillary: The Movie, on an On Demand service shortly before the Democratic primaries.

What is surprising (or not) is the statements made by the Solicitor General in these arguments in response to questions from the bench. On page 27 of the oral arguments transcript, Justice Alito engages Malcolm Stewart (the Solicitor General) in an exchange where Stewart makes some pretty bold statements regarding the administration's view of its authority under BCRA:

JUSTICE ALITO: That's pretty incredible. You think that if -- if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?

MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned. I'm saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its --

At this point Justice Alito interjects with another question, but given the rest of his arguments, we can safely assume Stewart was going to finish with "political action committee." On the next page, Justice Kenndy engages Stewart in another question:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 -- 90-day period -- the 60 -- the 30-day period?

MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

I sure hope I'm not the only one alarmed by this assertion of power. I've always been against BCRA not only on first amendment grounds, but also because it's at least arguable that the power granted to Congress by the Constitution to regulate federal elections does not extend to regulating the campaigns that precede them. And now the federal government is asserting that it has the power to ban books under this law, provided that they aren't paid for in a certain manner.

If that doesn't sound too onerous, the manner in which such books must be funded should be given a second glance. Federal election law is probably about as complex as the federal tax code, so I resorted to the Wikipedia entry on [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee]political action committees[/ame] to see if it explains how they must be funded. Indeed, it does. According to Wikipedia (an important caveat, to be sure) a PAC must be funded by donations from individuals, and any individual cannot donate more than five thousand dollars per year. Corporations are not allowed to donate to PACs. This means a publisher is prohibited from printing and distributing a book that it pays for itself if the book is deemed to be an "electioneering communication." According to Stewart (page 29):

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?

MR. STEWART: That's correct.

Although the law explicitly exempts newspapers from funding requirements, I can't imagine why they should be treated any different from any other publisher which puts words to paper. If corporations can be prohibited from publishing "electioneering communications" under BCRA and it does not run afoul of the Constitution, I fail to see why that provision which exempts newspapers from the funding requirements cannot be removed at some future date with no problems at all.

Book banning, and the theoretical muzzling of the press: this is "Hope and Change"?

Originally Posted by MrShrike

If you disagree with it, then act towards getting the regulation removed, don't sit around being an armchair advocate criticising the fact that the law is or should be enforced.

Whoa, what the fuck is this? This forum is dedicated to discussion. Hassling people for expressing an opinion on the internet instead of doing something about the issue in real life is retarded. Expressing and discussing ideas is what we're all here for. By all means, disagree with the opinion if you like, but don't do what you just did. If you can't deal with the fact that people express their opinions in a discussion forum, don't spend time in discussion forums.

Haha....except of course, that's exactly what you just did to me; told me not to express an opinion I hold. Ironic, no?

I understand you're sympathetic to that opinion, but I'm sure you'd agree there nothing improprer about telling someone that their approach to an issue (i.e. laws they disagree with should be ignored, rather than changed) is the wrong one.

I'm just expressing my opinion, afterall. None of us actually have the power to command one another to silence.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

I'm just expressing my opinion, afterall. None of us actually have the power to command one another to silence.

Syme is a moderator

ok guys less meta-debating and more back to the topic ok

Right.

Put simply, the OP's chief complaints can be summed up as "regulation is fascism" and "ooooh scary, laws can be changed".

This doesn't even seem to be about banning books per se, so much as limiting the ability for campaigners to campaign via the medium of books. There isn't anything particularly wrong with that, imo.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a limited amount of censorship going on - what makes it a problem is when the censorship becomes intrusive and gains a dangerous agenda. I have no problem with the idea of censorship for things such as materials promoting hate, child pornography, snuff films etc., so it's actually counterproductive to cry 'censorship is bad!' when it's not being used in a bad way.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

This doesn't even seem to be about banning books per se, so much as limiting the ability for campaigners to campaign via the medium of books. There isn't anything particularly wrong with that, imo.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a limited amount of censorship going on - what makes it a problem is when the censorship becomes intrusive and gains a dangerous agenda. I have no problem with the idea of censorship for things such as materials promoting hate, child pornography, snuff films etc., so it's actually counterproductive to cry 'censorship is bad!' when it's not being used in a bad way.

But isn't censorship by its very nature intrusive?

Well to a point, but if it's cutting off material that I would consider either intrusive or well beyond reasonable distaste, does that make it instrusive?

I see it more as a filter, albeit one prone to abuse.

It's okay to censor material that you consider "well beyond reasonable distaste"???

Originally Posted by Syme

It's okay to censor material that you consider "well beyond reasonable distaste"???

Well yes, we already do this. I know it's true in Australia and I'm pretty sure that it applies in the U.S. too.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Well yes, we already do this. I know it's true in Australia and I'm pretty sure that it applies in the U.S. too.

Well, just because it's a policy in many countries does not necessarily make it the correct course of action, no?

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Well to a point, but if it's cutting off material that I would consider either intrusive or well beyond reasonable distaste, does that make it instrusive?

I see it more as a filter, albeit one prone to abuse.

Who is setting the moral standard for reasonable distaste?

It's pretty much a culture by culture thing.

Look, I realize all this stuff is completely relative and subjective, and that i'm arguing against some libertarians. The point I'm making is that there are certain acts that are universally distasteful, generally because their creation requires the abuse of another group, whether it's women, kids and/or any other human being.

Are you telling me the video of the decapitation of a hostage in Afghanistan shouldn't be censored? That the video of the brutal hammer murders in eastern Europe aren't beyond 'reasonable distaste'? That child pornography shouldn't be censored or stamped out and snuff videos are ok to distribute, but illegal to make?

Ok, enough of the hyperbole. Like I've already stated, by 'reasonable distaste' I mean material whose creation requires the abuse of another entity, whether or not said entity is there willingly.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'd agree that it's reasonable to ban child pornography. Why should videos of people be killed be banned, though?

What is the difference between censoring child pornography and censoring videos of beheadings? Both are non-consensual for the victim and both are crimes in our countries.

On first glance there seems to be a big gulf between the two, but looking deeper I can't see much difference. Would the beheading of a child be censored? What about videos of adult rape?





[disclaimer: I'm in no way advocating any of the above]

Child pornography is an industry; people make child porn specifically for the purpose of providing it to people who want to see child porn. They make money off it. Banning the possession or distribution of that kind of material is part of fighting the industry that creates it, and therefore is part of preventing the kids from being abused in the first place. Videos of killings generally don't fit the same model. Al-Qaeda's beheading videos certainly don't, nor do those hammer-murder videos.

IF someone was videotaping murders for the purpose of selling the video to people who want to see it, then I'd be okay with banning that, because banning that sort of video would make it less likely that it'd be produced at all. But snuff videos of that kind are really an urban legend.

Originally Posted by Syme

Child pornography is an industry; people make child porn specifically for the purpose of providing it to people who want to see child porn. They make money off it. Banning the possession or distribution of that kind of material is part of fighting the industry that creates it, and therefore is part of preventing the kids from being abused in the first place. Videos of killings generally don't fit the same model. Al-Qaeda's beheading videos certainly don't, nor do those hammer-murder videos.

IF someone was videotaping murders for the purpose of selling the video to people who want to see it, then I'd be okay with banning that, because banning that sort of video would make it less likely that it'd be produced at all. But snuff videos of that kind are really an urban legend.

That seems kind of arbitrary. Simple illegality isn't enough for censorship, but if the material is produced on a large enough scale then it qualifies. Of course, money isn't the only object. Al Qaeda and others were probably counting on their video getting publicity for without it their killing of one or two hostages would be rendered useless; similarly, if producers of child pornography have no audience, it is also rendered useless as an industry.

Is there a distinction to be made between protecting the victims, or potential victims, portrayed in such material, and protecting the viewers? That seems to me to be a more realistic distinction, but then it comes back to the problem of who exactly decides what needs to be censored.

That said, I don't really have an answer myself right now.

You're quite right, of course.

My point should have been that in those countries, it's generally considered acceptable to censor some material and this is apparently not violating any enshrined legal right or precedent.

So whether it is 'correct' the answer is not necessarily, but whether it is 'ok' the answer is apparently so. And that makes a powerful argument to support it being 'right' (although not a sufficient one in itself).

Originally Posted by MrShrike

So whether it is 'correct' the answer is not necessarily, but whether it is 'ok' the answer is apparently so. And that makes a powerful argument to support it being 'right' (although not a sufficient one in itself).

I don't see how the fact that some censorship is legal in some places makes any argument whatsoever in support of censorship being "right". To me, there's no relationship at all. Why do you think that legality is a powerful argument in support of rightness?

Originally Posted by Syme

I don't see how the fact that some censorship is legal in some places makes any argument whatsoever in support of censorship being "right". To me, there's no relationship at all. Why do you think that legality is a powerful argument in support of rightness?

Whilst I agree that it is faulty reasoning, it is common for people to presume that that which is in place, is deemed acceptable, or constitutes "normal" must have merit or validity in order to be that way.
That's when you hit 'em with the slave trade and the holocaust.