Is propaganda free speech?

[Union Yes]

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. The "YES" answer is so obvious I decline to register a vote

[mitchum]

2. Of course

[Writer]

3. It's illegal for American governments to propagandize to citizens.

Well... officially.

But if you're referring to Fox News, then the issue there is how will government determine what is and is not news WITHOUT tripping a constitutional challenge to the First Amendment?

There be the rub.

[defendandprotect]

15. And Bush also ignored that law . . .

[defendandprotect]

16. ... And at least in WWI, US put 75,000 propagandists on streets to push war ...

and soldiering vs those who had been speaking against it --

In fact, I think they finally arrested many who were against the war???

[saltpoint]

4. It is but some of it makes me puke.

I voted 'Other.'

[liberal N proud]

5. Unfortunately

But you can't stop it without prohibiting free speech.

If we have an educated voter base, the propaganda is ineffective.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. NO.

Criticism of the government is free speech.

Stating any opinion and labeling it as such is free speech.

Making a guess and labeling it as such is free speech.

Lobbying for a position and labeling it as such is free speech.

Lying in order to get Americans to harm themselves or innocent others is NOT free speech!

It's like yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater.

It is the end of American democracy.

And it is just about complete.

[NoNothing]

7. Question is ambiguous

Are we talking about official, government-produced propaganda?

Or are we talking about private speech designed to persuade through manipulation?

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Yes, as long as it is spoken by a human or a corporation...

The U.S. govenment is not allowed to propagandize American Citizens.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Qualified "yes" unless other modes of information are prohibited by law to discover

disclaimers.

[Throd]

10. Only propaganda I agree with.

[upi402]

11. Yes, but the media isn't free anymore and THAT is different

The 4th estate is a protected business by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. But now big business controls and limits this "freedom" and it's a facade and a charade.

We were ranked 36th in "Freedom of the Press" rankings by Reporters Without Borders in 2008. Propaganda needed to be limited, but Clinton went the other way and we have scant free press now.

[Froward69]

12. Sadly Yes it is.

the trick or the responsibility of the reader is to translate and decide for themselves.

This requires critical thinking skills. sadly critical thinking is only taught in College (these days) and majority of republicans never learned this skill.

[Marr]

13. Propaganda is not necessarily false information.

It's just a sales pitch. Anyone making a political argument is advancing propaganda.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Okay then, is deliberate lying -- where material harm can result -- protected speech?

[denverbill]

14. Other. Propaganda can be anything from a cereal ad to a faked news report.

A cereal ad, however, can't make false claims. Wheaties can't claim it will give you X-ray vision and use that as a marketing ploy.

The same standard should apply to news and political advertising and talk radio. Knowingly misrepresenting the truth should never be allowed, especially in broadcast media, which has only limited numbers of station licenses.

[Mojeoux]

27. This is why I'm an "other" as well.

But you said it the best.

I like the idea of politicians wearing logo gear like a pit crew. The bigger the donations, the bigger the patch. Or just full donation info inserted in all pol ads.
As If.

[Puregonzo1188]

18. Technically, propaganda is merely the use of information

"to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." While it is usually used to refer to something that is "of a biased or misleading nature," a wide variety things would fall under the category of propaganda that most of us would consider free speech. In the post-WWII it's usually used in a derogatory manner, but that wasn't always the case. For example, no one would label their own political screeds as "propaganda," but people (and governments) used to do just that.

[timtom]

19. I voted "No"

just out of plain cussedness.

If we admit that propaganda is free speech, we have to allow hate speech or screeds against one group or another. If it doesn't incite violence or rebellion against the government, that is.

[Mari333]

23. first amendment and all. have to disagree.

[timtom]

25. Specifically, with what do you disagree?

(Remember, my reply was borne out of "cussedness")

[Warren DeMontague]

29. "we have to allow hate speech or screeds against one group or another."

Yeah.

We do.

[Pryderi]

20. Hopefully people will read/listen/watch more than just propaganda..or at least read/listen/watch all

propaganda, fact check and think.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. That's what we try to do here

Do you think we can teach it to the teabaggers?

[BlooInBloo]

22. I'm pretty sure all speech I don't like is not free speech, and ought to be banned.

[melm00se]

24. whether something is

propaganda or the gospel truth is a matter of interpretation.

the USA has directly or indirectly created propaganda almost since before day 1.

WWII - the US Army hired Frank Capra to create a series of documentaries shown to inductees called "Why We Fight", they most certainly qualified as propaganda. Hollywood produced innumerable long, short and animated features that also were propaganda.

as well as posters like this:









highly manipulative, emotional and not to mention highly racist

[KharmaTrain]

26. It's Not Who Says It, It's Who Listens To It...

As others, I stand firmly on the side of the First Ammendment. What's one side's propaganda is another side's "undisputed truth"...all depends on whose listening and how they interpret it. For some, the bile that comes out of hate radio and the rushpublicans are more reinforcement of decades of mind numbing and thus why they're so effective. It's not what they said but ears that want to hear it.

If propaganda was so potent, why are there so many of us? Other than our abilities to think for ourselves and look objectively at many issues.

[LWolf]

28. Good question.

Possibly, but it brings up a better (to me) question.

What constitutes "speech," and what forms of speech are protected, or should be protected, by the first amendment?

What are the limits to any right?

A discussion of those questions will inevitably lead to where propaganda falls.