Our dubious Constitution (continued)

[michael curtis]

It is even worse than Daniel Hoffman suggests.  Most get most of their news 
from TV.  Even most the heavily visited internet news sites are major 
networks' sites.  The trivial drives out the substantive much of the time--a 
sort of Greshham's law of  political discourse.  Gore's making faces at some 
of Bush's more remarkable assertions of fact during the TV debates, his 
mis-statement about who he discussed a Texas disaster with, Bush's failure 
to pass the name this leader quiz, Cheney's shooting accident, etc. are big 
issues--more substantive questions took a back seat to "character" in 2000 
which unlike taxes, environment, etc talking heads thought they had unique 
insight into and could be discussed with very little homework. If recent 
experience does not disprove the we are experts on character claim, nothing 
will.  I know, I know.  These concerns prove I am elitist.  Criticism of the 
corporate media system proves one is an elitist because people are voting in 
a fair and free very democratic election with their remotes.

Then the political system requires huge amounts of money to run the 30 
second spots.  The funding narrows the debate from both sides.  Over 85% of 
campaign costs are for TV.  If we wanted a robust democracy and were setting 
one up, we would explore free TV (and cable)  time for candidates.  Of 
course, the system would raise serious problems--but everything is 
comparative.  We would also have rules to keep the internet a very 
inexpensive open-to-all public free speech zone.

Since it appears that the internet will soon go the way of the old downtown 
free speech forum and become a shopping mall or a toll road, the claims that 
it will save us are probably premature.  In the brave new free speech world, 
the pipes that carry the internet (unlike the old phone lines of yesteryear) 
are speakers who have free speech rights to censor, prefer, etc.  This 
raises the prospect that the internet will become more like TV, or worse. 
Of course, in its infancy, TV was touted as a great democratic revolution 
too.

I know of course that The Market Fairy will not permit such things.  Those 
with unbounded faith in the Market Fairy might do well to consider the 
history of the telegraph and how it was used to censor and prefer certain 
papers and views.  The story is briefly told in Starr's, The Creation of the 
Media.  According to Start, there was a place where the telegraph did 
faciliate a discussion of a broad range of news systems.  This was in Great 
Britain where the govt--in a move supported by Conservatives, Liberals, and 
Labor as a free trade measure, took over the telegraph, made it part of the 
post office, and open to all on equal terms.  Unlike the US with the AP 
monopoly aided by the telegraphy monopoly, a wide range of news services 
with a wide range of views flourished.  Those who have unqualified 
admiration of the Market Fairy might also consider how, in response to 
market forces, major US internet companies are helping the Chinese autocrats 
censor the internet.  These skills will come in handy here as the internet 
is transformed into a private corporate preserve.


Michael Curtis
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "guayiya" <guayiya at bellsouth.net>
To: <DavidEBernstein at aol.com>
Cc: <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>; <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Our dubious Constitution (continued)


> The free speech/free elections package has changed greatly since the
> founding, but failed presidencies have been with us always.
> Judging competence is hardly an objective science.  But it is pretty
> clear that, no matter how one understands competence, the modern
> election system (e.g., scripted 30-second sound bites and negative ads)
> is an obstacle to making such judgments..
> Parts of the problem are constitutionally entrenched.  Whatever may be
> said for current First Amendment doctrine, it seems captive to the
> assumption that in our "free marketplace of ideas," all relevant points
> are apt to be heard.  As if mass media were accessible to all who have
> something to say, and all relevant messages were available and
> intelligible to all.  To the extent that this assumption is false, the
> election system loses much of its lustre.
>
> Daniel Hoffman
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.