The Right To Free Expression

[Michael Hardner]

MOSCOW, March 31 (Reuters) - Russia's parliament gave initial approval on Wednesday to stricter rules on public protest that opposition leaders, already with little voice in the legislature, say could clear them off the streets as well.

The State Duma lower house, where President Vladimir Putin's supporters have had a huge majority since a general election in December, passed on its first reading a bill that would outlaw rallies and pickets in most public places.

Article

Does this legislation go to far ? I think so. But generally, should there be limits to free expression of individuals and organizations ?

I think that television advertising is one area that needs to be severely curtailed. Television ads increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a television ad provides inadequate opporunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to large pools of cash.

What do you think ?

[August1991]

Television ads increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a television ad provides inadequate opporunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to large pools of cash.

I think Internet Forum Posts increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a Forum Post provides inadequate opportunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to the Internet.

Hardner, many participants here are upset that Greg exercises ANY censuring. A forum is one thing; the real world another. Who should decide what is acceptable?

The US Constitution's First Amendment is one of the most beautiful and important sentences ever written in any language at any time. It is a direct result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. We non-Americans should appreciate so much that the world's only superpower has such an Amendment - and the means to ensure that it's not mere verbiage.

At the Academy Awards, when Michael Moore told George Bush Jnr to take a hike, he was doing what all Americans consider to be perfectly normal. Thank God that we have such people as neighbours.

Russian society never really went through the Enlightenment. Many Russians, like many others around the world, are struggling to discover all this now. Their meanderings may be interesting to watch but are hardly a model for anything.

[Michael Hardner]

I think Internet Forum Posts increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a Forum Post provides inadequate opportunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to the Internet.

Sorry, Charlie.

This is a retort, posted with adequate opportunity.

If it was an emotionally manipulative post, you could easily point that out in your counter-retort.

The proportion of people will access to the internet is many thousands time the proportion of people who can afford network airtime.

Hardner, many participants here are upset that Greg exercises ANY censuring. A forum is one thing; the real world another. Who should decide what is acceptable?

I think a forum is more of a "real world" than the world of television, generally speaking.

The US Constitution's First Amendment is one of the most beautiful and important sentences ever written in any language at any time. It is a direct result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

Yes. Good point. And that age ended hundreds of years ago.

It was written in response to suppression of the printed word, and free speech. It couldn't have possibly anticipated electronic mass media.

We non-Americans should appreciate so much that the world's only superpower has such an Amendment - and the means to ensure that it's not mere verbiage.

At the Academy Awards, when Michael Moore told George Bush Jnr to take a hike, he was doing what all Americans consider to be perfectly normal. Thank God that we have such people as neighbours.

Interesting. So all one has to do to get a chance to voice their opinion on television is win an Academy Award !

Eeeeeeasy....

Russian society never really went through the Enlightenment. Many Russians, like many others around the world, are struggling to discover all this now. Their meanderings may be interesting to watch but are hardly a model for anything.

Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest what Russia is doing is a model, or even a good idea. It's a springboard for discussion....

BOING

[August1991]

The proportion of people will access to the internet is many thousands time the proportion of people who can afford network airtime.

How many people will read our posts? 5, 10? How many are watching TV in Canada as we write? Several million?

But my main point is different and it seems to have been missed in your reply.

My only knowledge of the people who post here is through this forum. I suspect they are ordinary people one might see in a shopping mall. I notice extended debates in which it is rare that people genuinely change their mind except if the argument is truly compelling.

In ordinary life, for things that matter, it is extremely hard to make other people do things they don't want to do. So why do people forget this obvious fact about human behaviour when TV, advertising and modern media is discussed?

It was written in response to suppression of the printed word, and free speech. It couldn't have possibly anticipated electronic mass media.

How is electronic mass media different? Does it "hypnotize" us?

Sorry, people are not fools about things that truly matter to them.

[August1991]

Interesting. So all one has to do to get a chance to voice their opinion on television is win an Academy Award !

Eeeeeeasy....

I gather you have absolutely no experience with a society - or a job - where you cannot say out loud to others what you truly think. (Academy Award show is not the point at all.)

What do I mean? Well, imagine you discovered that "someone in authority" was observing your posts here. Do you realize the consequences this would have on your mental peace?

[Michael Hardner]

How many people will read our posts? 5, 10? How many are watching TV in Canada as we write? Several million?

But my main point is different and it seems to have been missed in your reply.

Sorry. I thought you were drawing some kind of parallel between posting on a web and producing a TV commercial.

My only knowledge of the people who post here is through this forum. I suspect they are ordinary people one might see in a shopping mall. I notice extended debates in which it is rare that people genuinely change their mind except if the argument is truly compelling.

In ordinary life, for things that matter, it is extremely hard to make other people do things they don't want to do. So why do people forget this obvious fact about human behaviour when TV, advertising and modern media is discussed?

Well, why would people advertise at all if it didn't work. Advertising works.

But television advertising doesn't express ideas, or build on rational arguments. They use persuasive means and dramatic effects that can be misleading.

A back-and-forth argument is a better way to glean information, don't you think ?

That's what the forefathers thought. They knew that the press would be a good way to exchange ideas, and for people to make informed choices.

How is electronic mass media different? Does it "hypnotize" us?

Sorry, people are not fools about things that truly matter to them.

I for one don't think that I could get 1% of the information from a TV commercial marketed towards a mass audience, that I get from these boards.

I gather you have absolutely no experience with a society - or a job - where you cannot say out loud to others what you truly think. (Academy Award show is not the point at all.)

What do I mean? Well, imagine you discovered that "someone in authority" was observing your posts here. Do you realize the consequences this would have on your mental peace?

I thought you were using the Academy Awards as an example of allowing free speech. I was just pointing out that it's a pretty narrow forum.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to speak their minds, if that's what you're saying. Rather, that television commercials don't amount to free speech.

[Moderate Centrist]

"Hardner, many participants here are upset that Greg exercises ANY censuring."

source:August1991

I don't dispute that some may be upset but I like the idea of a moderator.

Although technically impressive the internet has hardly ushered in a new era of enlightment. I would argue it's one of the largest idiocy dispensers since cable television.

Consider the most common material available on the internet:

pornography, hate literature, conspiracy theories and endless pop culture.

There is very little of substance available regarding history, politics, science and a host of other more important issues.

Mapleleafweb provides a forum for people to express their opinions. I have no problem with Greg acting as a censor which is almost never.

Without some kind of control the forum would quickly dissolve into pointless discussion, rants, hate speech and outrageous claims of all sorts.

[Hugo]

I would just like to say something here about advertising, especially TV advertising. The reason it works is not because of some magic in the television set, the reason it works is because people do not know enough about 90% of the things they deal with. A medieval peasant had a very simple life and he knew about everything in it. Our lives are infinitely more complex. There just isn't time in the human life to learn everything possible about cars, televisions, washing machines, VCRs, computers, mobile phones, cameras, beds, plumbing, wiring and so forth. Therefore, advertising works because people don't know any better.

People informed on a given subject won't be swayed by advertising. IT professionals are unlikely to buy Intel simply because of dancing men in spacesuits. Car buffs won't buy a Dodge Caravan just because TV said it was the best-selling vehicle in America. But people who don't know the first thing about computers or cars might make those decisions.

A reaction against advertising is basically saying to the common man, "since you are ignorant we are going to take away your right to make certain decisions and make them for you by way of restricting the information available, because we are concerned that you will make what we have judged to be the wrong decisions."

This is a very bad move for liberty and for democracy. Once we get the idea into our head that common wisdom is no longer to be trusted and that appointed experts should be making our decisions for us, we have undermined the idea that common wisdom should be trusted in government and democracy will be in danger. You cannot undermine economic liberty without undermining political liberty, and an attempt to "free" people from TV advertising will probably end up further enslaving them.

[August1991]

People informed on a given subject won't be swayed by advertising.

That's wrong. But you have to understand in what way you are swayed.

When you see someone driving a BMW, or wearing a Rolex watch, or using a platinum American Express - or when you see a framed Harvard diploma on the wall, what do you think?

IMV, that's advertising.

A reaction against advertising is basically saying to the common man, "since you are ignorant we are going to take away your right to make certain decisions and make them for you by way of restricting the information available, because we are concerned that you will make what we have judged to be the wrong decisions."

I'm in complete agreement with you.

[Michael Hardner]

H&A:

I don't think it's about dispensing information at all. What kind of "information" do commercials give ? Often, they show people in a certain demographic using a certain product.

Do you "learn" about soda by watching a commercial play volleyball on the beach. Of course nobody thinks that advertising affects them, but it does work so some of those people may be wrong.

There's an example in Al Franken's latest book of a political television advertisement that was used in a midwestern state to sway support against changing estate laws. It showed a young couple opening a letter from the government that said they owed money because they had recently inherited their parents' farm and owed estate taxes. Of course the couple was in distress because they didn't know what they were going to do etc. etc.

Such an ad appeals to the common wisdom, and as such I wouldn't blame anybody for believing it. But it was deceptive.

It didn't explain that there was a one million dollar exemption to the law, for one thing. And there were other issues.

Did the ad LIE ? No. But clearly, the couple wouldn't have been perceived as being millionaires. The commercial was an emotional playlet, using drama to depict a middle class couple beset upon by the government.

This is the type of thing that the forefathers didn't anticipate when drafting the constitution. Showing a mass audience a deceptive and emotional drama to sway their vote doesn't aid democracy IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

I should also note that even in the context of a debate, leaders use emotional arguments to the detriment of reason. Chretien's "no two teir healthcare" mantra was convincing to people, and he was able to largely shut down reasoned debate on that topic by appealing to emotions.

So even without televised playlets, emotional arguments can and do play a part. We're humans, after all, not computers. But there's enough room for that sort of thing without having to rely on one-sided filmed mini-dramas.

[Hugo]

Do you "learn" about soda by watching a commercial play volleyball on the beach. Of course nobody thinks that advertising affects them, but it does work so some of those people may be wrong.

I can see the objection, but the fact remains that any solution that I can see would be worse than the problem itself. Advertisers are not allowed to lie already. Apple Computer got in trouble for that, some of their ads were banned in countries like the UK and Dell just successfully filed a complaint with the authorities about their US advertising campaign, because it made false claims.

Anything else is basically censorship, dictating what may or may not be said besides an outright lie. Who is to say what is permissible? You? A panel of judges or experts? What right do they have to infringe upon economic liberty in the name of their idea of what makes a good advert?

And this is the crux of the matter. Any attempt to restrict advertising beyond actual falsehoods is an imposition of one group's standard on another group and a restriction of economic liberty which sets a dangerous precedent for further restrictions of liberties either economic, political or social.

After all, if you can pass judgement on communication for economic purposes, why not on communications for political and social purposes - religious texts, materials of certain political parties, and so forth? It is dangerous ground to be on. I would rather suffer the "ill effects" of advertising (whatever those are - it seems that as advertising grows in scope and extent, so rises the standard of living) in exchange for the preservation of my liberties.

[Michael Hardner]

I can see the objection, but the fact remains that any solution that I can see would be worse than the problem itself. Advertisers are not allowed to lie already. Apple Computer got in trouble for that, some of their ads were banned in countries like the UK and Dell just successfully filed a complaint with the authorities about their US advertising campaign, because it made false claims.

They are allowed to deceive, though. Showing healthy people eating junk food is basically deceptive, although I'm not advocating any restraints on consumer ads.

Anything else is basically censorship, dictating what may or may not be said besides an outright lie. Who is to say what is permissible? You? A panel of judges or experts? What right do they have to infringe upon economic liberty in the name of their idea of what makes a good advert?

I agree. I think that political advertising should therefore have strict objective limits, or be banned outright. It doesn't serve democracy to spoonfeed the public.

And this is the crux of the matter. Any attempt to restrict advertising beyond actual falsehoods is an imposition of one group's standard on another group and a restriction of economic liberty which sets a dangerous precedent for further restrictions of liberties either economic, political or social.

What if that "standard" is a healthy democracy with a well-informed electorate ?

As for precedents, we're setting them all the time. I have no problem with this aspect.

After all, if you can pass judgement on communication for economic purposes, why not on communications for political and social purposes - religious texts, materials of certain political parties, and so forth?

Because it doesn't serve the public good, that's why not.

It is dangerous ground to be on. I would rather suffer the "ill effects" of advertising (whatever those are - it seems that as advertising grows in scope and extent, so rises the standard of living) in exchange for the preservation of my liberties.

You really aren't getting any liberties in the regard that I'm discussing. I don't know you, but I doubt you have the means to buy network airtime. Your freedom to live in a healthy democracy, though, is being limited by this form of public discourse, such as it is.

If legislation isn't practical, then citizens should press for political parties to agree to restrict these types of communications.

[Moderate Centrist]

I have a totally unworkable and impractical idea - for the public to at mimimum question what they see on T.V. and at maximum ignore or not watch.

We live in a society today where people blatantly accept what they see. The old maxim "Buyer beware" should apply here.

The primary resposibility lies with the viewer or the consumer to put some research into their purchases. Certainly there should be some legislation (I assume there is now... I haven't checked) to protect the public from blatant lying.

This is a message that doesn't come out very often in these sorts of issues.

[August1991]

Do you "learn" about soda by watching a commercial play volleyball on the beach. Of course nobody thinks that advertising affects them, but it does work so some of those people may be wrong.

Of course you don't but that's not the point of the advertising either.

A TV advertising campaign requires alot of money. To have the money, the advertiser must be a successful business with lots of profits. That must mean their product is good because many people buy it.

IOW, only successful firms with good products have the money to advertise.

And you know what? It's true! People are wise to choose products or services according to which is advertised the most.

(Incidentally, are you American? In Canada, we say "pop".)

[August1991]

Modern Centrist:

We live in a society today where people blatantly accept what they see.

So you are smart and everyone else is (of course) stupid because they "blatantly accept what they see."

You seem to have just given yourself a compliment, compared to others. I tend not to accept such PR.

[Hugo]

I agree. I think that political advertising should therefore have strict objective limits, or be banned outright. It doesn't serve democracy to spoonfeed the public.

Do you really think the main part of that is political advertising and party political broadcasts, or television and news networks with obvious bias (e.g. Fox being right-of-centre, and CNN being left)? That being the case, is it your proposal to censor independent political opinion from non-partisan sources? I don't like the sounds of that.

You could end party political broadcasts, but I don't think it would make much difference to anything. They are rare and most people who'd take the time to watch them have already made their minds up who they're voting for anyway.

What if that "standard" is a healthy democracy with a well-informed electorate ?

So a minority will impose it's decision upon the majority in the name of democracy? That's an odd idea!

Because it doesn't serve the public good, that's why not.

You don't think it does, but what about everyone else? Do you think a case could not be made to ban Satanist materials because of their advocacy of criminal activity, cruelty to animals and so forth? What about a case that the Koran is full of incitement to violence against other religious groups (thus making it hate speech)?

It was already ruled that certain extracts from the Bible cannot be printed in newspapers for fear that they offend the homosexual community.

I have a totally unworkable and impractical idea - for the public to at mimimum question what they see on T.V. and at maximum ignore or not watch.

Yes, that would eliminate the problem at the source. The onus is on the citizenry. I blame the education system for telling students what to think, not how to think. Advertising only works as long as people believe it, as do soundbites and political broadcasting. The politically savvy are generally not taken in by soundbites and minute-long broadcasts, as IT professionals are not taken in by dancing spacemen.

[Michael Hardner]

Aug91:

I'm Canadian.

Hugo:

Do you really think the main part of that is political advertising and party political broadcasts, or television and news networks with obvious bias (e.g. Fox being right-of-centre, and CNN being left)? That being the case, is it your proposal to censor independent political opinion from non-partisan sources? I don't like the sounds of that.

No, not at all. Only paid political advertising and advocacy. If people don't care enough about an issue to read about it in the paper, find out about it through political party pamphlets etc. then don't spoonfeed them with political ads.

And your point on media bias and the stupidity of some of those shows is well taken, but CNN/Fox are still there after the election so presumably they have to try to guard their reputations. And those shows at least have some kind of back-and-forth, although I've read that Fox's show has a lame-duck liberal.

You could end party political broadcasts, but I don't think it would make much difference to anything. They are rare and most people who'd take the time to watch them have already made their minds up who they're voting for anyway.

I don't know what those are. Are those commercials ?

QUOTE 

What if that "standard" is a healthy democracy with a well-informed electorate ?

So a minority will impose it's decision upon the majority in the name of democracy? That's an odd idea!

What minority do you speak of ?

QUOTE 

Because it doesn't serve the public good, that's why not.

You don't think it does, but what about everyone else?

Well, I don't know what they think. I'm trying to convince people, starting with you, that political advertising is fraught with misinformation. Such advertising is the mainstay of political campaigns. Thus, something needs to be done either voluntarily (this would be the best way) or through public awareness.

Do you think a case could not be made to ban Satanist materials because of their advocacy of criminal activity, cruelty to animals and so forth?

If Satanist material actually caused any problems then perhaps people could be convinced to ban it.

Hate literature is banned in Canada for similar reasons.

What about a case that the Koran is full of incitement to violence against other religious groups (thus making it hate speech)?

...and the bible. I can see that's your next point.

It was already ruled that certain extracts from the Bible cannot be printed in newspapers for fear that they offend the homosexual community.

This isn't exactly true. I flipped TWICE on this issue.

First I heard that somebody had printed a tract that spoke against homosexuals and was prosecuted for it. I was FOR the prosecution.

Then I heard that the tract was from the bible. I was then AGAINST the prosecution.

Then I read the tract and saw the acompanying graphic. It was a tract of the bible that advocating stoning (or somesuch) of homosexuals. I went back AGAINST the prosecution.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with anti-hate speech legislation, in that it sometimes seems to amount to thoughtcrime legislation. But since it IS the law, the tract in question should have been prosecuted IMO.

Now. I only explained my vascillation above to illustrate that I'm not of one extreme or the other when it comes to censorship. In fact, I would say I'm mostly against it.

But the political process is the central nervous system for our society. It we allow it to deteriorate in the same way our entertainment has, then we're done for.

There are precedents regarding restrictions on television ads. Even in the US, for example, cigarette advertising is banned.

[Hugo]

But the political process is the central nervous system for our society. It we allow it to deteriorate in the same way our entertainment has, then we're done for.

What we are seeing is the democratization of the political process, just as deterioration of entertainment is the result of democratization of entertainment. I shall illustrate.

A few centuries or so ago, the arts were exclusively the privy of the rich, particularly landed gentry and old money. Nouveau-riche capitalists generally didn't have an awful lot to do with the artistic world, so it was left up to those who led a life of leisure and patronised the arts. It was more cultured and highbrow because these people were cultured and well-educated, the cultural and intellectual elite of society. Since they patronised art, the prevalent artistic trends reflected their tastes.

As the lower classes became richer, and as the proletariat disappeared to be replaced by the bourgeosie, so the average citizen came to be the primary patron of arts. He was not raised in high culture, was not highbrow or intellectual and worked for wealth. Therefore, art came to be dumbed-down as a direct result of that.

Same with political process. Back when one in seven men had the vote, and all of those had independent wealth and were landowners, things were very different. Men of independent means and plenty of leisure time can afford to devote time to political matters and, a few hundred years ago, practically everybody who could vote took every opportunity to read and educate themselves and to debate their peers about the issues and parties of the day. Soundbites didn't exist because they would not have worked on such a politically savvy people.

Since universal suffrage, though, the pattern has been repeated. The mandate has been given to those who do not devote much, if any, time to political thought, debate and research. I have heard innumerable people tell me how proudly they vote Liberal when five minutes in conversation will reveal how blitheringly ignorant they are on all political matters. As unartistic, uncultured people now decide art and cultural output, so ignorant and apolitical people now decide political process.

What is the solution? It's difficult to say. I believe that education is the best start, to try to educate children more in the arts, politics, literature and so forth instead of increasing amounts of sex-ed and multicultural-friendly activities, but we are on dangerous ground if we decide that certain people are not capable of cultural or political output of any worth and restrict their options or attempt to change the way they are influenced.

I don't know what those are. Are those commercials ?

In the UK, each major party is allotted an amount of airtime on the BBC for political broadcasts in the run-up to an election. No other advertising is allowed. Generally, the parties spend this time getting big-name celebrities to endorse them and have them dreamily gazing into the future of how wonderful Britain will be under the <insert the blank> Party. I assume that that is the kind of thing you have in mind?

What minority do you speak of ?

Whatever minority will decide what political content is acceptable.

I used to believe that a good solution for better democracy would be to have each voter answer a few simple, multiple-choice questions on political matters before they would be allowed to vote, to ensure that a voter was not voting in ignorance. However, I realised that this was going to be a bigger problem in and of itself. First, who would set the questions? Secondly, post-election time would be a complete farce and every losing party would be crying 'foul', saying that the questions were biased and so forth. The sort of flap we saw about the US 2000 Election would happen every single time, at every government level. This would not exactly lead to better and more efficient democracy.

I'm trying to convince people, starting with you, that political advertising is fraught with misinformation.

In principle, I agree that attempting to sum up political issues in soundbites is not a good idea. If you removed political broadcasting you would force the electorate to actually go looking for the answers to their questions, which might make things a little better. My concern is that then we will start looking at all partisan content and have a serious issue with freedom of speech. Moreover, it might not be "fair" to smaller parties if the biggest source of information on politics becomes the mass media, who are only concerned with the big, frontrunner parties. Parties such as the Green Party, Family Coalition Party, Communist Party and so forth would probably be severely damaged because there would be next to no content available on them except their own material, and if they can't make that available, they have a huge problem!

[Moderate Centrist]

"So you are smart and everyone else is (of course) stupid because they "blatantly accept what they see."

You seem to have just given yourself a compliment, compared to others. I tend not to accept such PR."

August 1991

That was certainly not the intent of my post nor is it a belief I hold about myself.

Rather than putting your thoughts in my mouth in the future it may be useful to ask me directly what my position is.

Does your post have a point?

With regard to political and commercial advertising I still maintain the responsibility lies with the viewer/audience to judge for themselves what is/isn't correct and accurate.

I am not informed on current advertising laws in Canada so I can't speak on that issue at this moment. As far as I know we do have laws against false advertising.

Politics is the business of lying so the public shouldn't be surprised by dishonest campaign ads.

"Back when one in seven men had the vote, and all of those had independent wealth and were landowners, things were very different."

Hugo

Interesting point. Do you think universal sufferage should perhaps have some restrictions?

Although there is much to turn one's stomach in modern day politics it is in reality no worse than anything that as come before it.

Governments are much more restricted today in their ability to inflict the kind of harm they once could on the populous.

Corruption and lying have been essential components of politics for thousands of years. There is no reason believe that this will ever change. This is something that should be acknowledged as a given before attempting to make substanial changes to our system.

The key factor, as Hugo stated, is a better education system which aids in the creation of an informed public.

[willy]

"The key factor, as Hugo stated, is a better education system which aids in the creation of an informed public."

Education is not always the answer but a thinking population would be nice.

A few questions:

1) In education what is the truth?

2) Are the academic elite the only group in society that does not control information by spinning?

3) Did Osama have a good education?

Who educates seems to have a strong influence on the reality an individual holds. Advertising, polarized view points, misinformation and a confused public. In my experience people look to opposing view points and think the truth is in the middle. The problem with that approach is the truth may be one to the opposing view points.

One should have the right to expression, but to communicate messages have to be trusted. Our biggest challenge in public institutions is the inability to trust anyone. The result is cynical, apathetic and a disengaged public.

I want to be an idealist and say we have some honest politicians that may not lie but just water down messages for fear of misinterpretation.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello Willy,

I favour a publically funded education system which is compuslory until at least grade 10. It should focus on the basics - math, reading, writing, science, history and civics with a component for languages as well.

I believe primarily in traditional learning. The enphasis should come off "computers in the classroom".

Students should have federally or provincially set criteria and standards. This should be the focus.

As for Osama his beliefs and and behavior are a result of a wider influence than education.

It should be remembered that education and morality are not the same thing.

[o.i.c]

For a while I also thought education was the answer, or an important part at least. I've even considered trying to develop a method of calculating just how much money it takes for laws to materialize from scratch. Dollars are convincing these days. I would then compare that number to the cost of truly educating people without bias. Seemingly naive and idealistic right? But I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the naivety or the unrealistic expressions I'm sure to get when this is read through.

However, I think I was tending towards willy - that a thinking population would be infinitely better. I find it almost amusing (nonetheless necessary considering my limited understanding of history) that there exists laws to ensure rights and freedoms. It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. How does freedom exist today when laws (with consequences) dictate so much of one's life - from pedestrian lights and noise bylaws to genocide. If a thinking population existed, capable of what I loosely defined as true freedom, and was able to survive, you can see that this discussion would have an entirely different context.

And I agree advertising generally works astonishingly well. There are massive amounts of literature on this topic - adequate for me to know I haven't read enough. However, just stop and look at an average urban center. At every corner, there are signs convincing consumers that they must consume more and more without once contemplating the effects of such behaviour. Mass media is a complicated predicament.

Or maybe I'm wrong?...Hence my reason for posting here.

[Michael Hardner]

What we are seeing is the democratization of the political process...

Hugo there is much truth in what you say. However, if we expect the common person to take an active role in deciding the governance of a country, we must expect more of him/her than public television ads do.

I asked what minority would trump the majority. You answered:

Whatever minority will decide what political content is acceptable.

By banning political ads on television across the board we take that danger out of play. If television can't be trusted to handle cigarette ads, why is it trusted as a medium of political discourse ?

As a side note, the people seem to have had their fill of purient entertainment and it's on the wane. The same can't be said for the entertainment that is politics...

[KrustyKidd]

I find it almost amusing (nonetheless necessary considering my limited understanding of history) that there exists laws to ensure rights and freedoms. It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. How does freedom exist today when laws (with consequences) dictate so much of one's life - from pedestrian lights and noise bylaws to genocide. If a thinking population existed, capable of what I loosely defined as true freedom, and was able to survive, you can see that this discussion would have an entirely different context.

I don't think there is a actual true form known as 'freedom' when in a situation of two or more people. Unless they are identical in every way they will have differences. Freedom is a perfection that will be forever unattainable. We try to balance it with democracy, but when an agreement is made, somebody loses their freedom and another gains more of it.

Even democracy is unatainable. We cannot have a referandum on every issue so we vote in whom we believe will act in the majority's interest. This leaves the minority without their freedom in many issues and even the majority have no freedom until the next election.

What is interesting though, is that the only time that we are truly free is when we are in the voting booth. Those few minutes are the sum total of all the suffering, of all the victims of tyrany throughout human history, multiplied by the sacrifices and efforts of those who fought to achieve freedom. And how many don't even bother? Victims all. Their one chance to be free for a moment and they give it up, letting us have an opportunity to have our way, however narrow our choices are.