Government sponsored propaganda is now legal: HR 5736

As of may of 2012 the government has the right to dominate all media. Propaganda is now legal on any medium including the internet,radio,tv etc.



Apart of the NDAA act.

Remember the zero dark thirty movie?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

I could be wrong, but I think the HR 5736 was not enacted in may 2012(when it was introduced), but was included in the NDAA 2013. I am sure someone here can correct me.

There are so many shady things going on in our government these days, I am really starting to fear for our future.

Well they've been doing a good job for years already.

But this should make it even better !!

Can't wait for the juicy stories to start rolling hot asphalt.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


The way I understand it is, that it is aimed at propaganda that is meant for abroad, yet still might possibly be available to Americans, over the internet for instance.

This new law says that this kind of propaganda is legal despite the reasonable possibility that Americans might get exposed to it.

It is still not legal to make and distribute propaganda domestically.

This is sill in the law,

No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

And this is the important piece of the amendement,

b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948

And some more info,

Controversy has swirled around the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act since it passed mark-up as an amendment to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act on May 18. The bill is now before the Senate. The Smith-Mundt Act, which established public diplomacy and international broadcasting as activities of the U.S. government, has been in force since 1948. One of its provisions prohibits U.S. citizens from accessing the public diplomacy products of the U.S. government, whether in print or on the airwaves. The purpose of this provision was to prevent domestic government propagandizing. Yet, in an age when global news and information flows are available 24/7 in print, on the airwaves, and online, this prohibition has become an anachronism. Critics on the left and right alike have charged that modernizing the Smith-Mundt Act will lift the floodgates for U.S. government propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens. Not so. Rather, the amended act will force greater government transparency and accountability and it will allow Americans insights into what Washington is communicating to audiences around the world. Join us as our panel examines these and other aspects of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

www.heritage.org...

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


There's a related thread here:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by Bilk22
started on 7/15/2013 @ 12:18 AM

B-U-Z-Z !!

The United States government operates an entire network of broadcasters that distribute news in languages from English to Uzbek, but an "anti-propaganda" law has prevented their news from being aired domestically — until now. Earlier this month a legal change went into effect that many are worried will enable government-run organizations like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe — all arms of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) — to distribute their federally-funded radio and TV shows to the unsuspecting public. But even with the change, major advocacy groups don't think that the government is planning to flood the airwaves with propaganda..........................


.......The broadcast restrictions were done away with by an amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act, which was passed last year but didn't go into effect until July 2nd. In a piece commenting on the amendment, the ACLU suggested that more safeguards could be included to prevent propaganda — but it didn't really think that the BBG's news would become an issue: "The American public will be able to take government public diplomacy communications with a sufficient grain of salt."

__________

The outward motive is transparency, not propaganda

__________

Voice of America could air in the US as anti-propaganda law is dropped


Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012

reply to post by NeoParadigm

yeah, NO, not quite.
i do believe there is a thread about it here somewhere but the search engine and i don't get along very well.

however, this should give ya a clue ...

link
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: [color=amber]an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

reply to post by Honor93


Is that a joke?

I just qouted from the bill, explained what the exact point behind this is and you respond with a link to some random site with a guy giving his opinion that is based on nothing but his ignorance.

This should give me a clue?

You MAY soon be hearing and seeing government made news, though you might not always know it was government made.

And then this,

But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

Examples, proof? Or is this made up speculation maybe?

Why don't you get a clue instead of posting nonsense.

reply to post by NeoParadigm

nope, no joke and apparently, you didn't bother to read it either

here's another snipit ... from the same link

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously.

Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported The Post.

don't believe it ???
fine, enjoy your delusion.
there will be plenty from which to choose.

posting script and understanding it are two separate activites.
you appear to have grasped one of those tasks, perhaps you should practice the other.
or, you could just read the latest about Kerry and his phony pics ... here

ETA -- just in case you are REALLY interested, you might want to follow the current legislation before the Senate, known as S 3254 or you can read it for yourself here

(ok that wasn't fair, S3254 is not 'before the Senate', it passed with/inclusive of the NDAA for fiscal 2013, but, point is, it passed)

ps ... the Smith-Mundt act has been repealed via S3254 ... hence, it is no longer in effect.
what goes out, goes everywhere now and we're paying for it don't ya know



oh yeah, i forget you youngins prefer wiki of one kind or another so here ya go:

source
Ban on domestic propaganda overturned

The 2013 NDAA overturned a 64-year ban on the domestic dissemination of propaganda (described as "public diplomacy information") produced for foreign audiences, effectively eliminating the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences. Amendments made to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 allow for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within US borders.

your kind apology and a thank you would be greatly appreciated

and now, back to your regular programming ...

I see this from Sec. 1078 the amendment to 208:

‘(a) In General- No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

As said before, what the amendment does is allow the State Department or the BBG to continue to disseminate information meant for foreign audiences even if it may "expose" Americans to it. Without that provision it would not be possible to do so.
www.govtrack.us...


Even the ACLU seems to like it as a positive first amendment step.

First, the current ban (which also exempts covered material from release under the Freedom of Information Act), has its origins in the red-baiting days of yore. Imposed by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the ban was motivated by fear of subversive elements at the State Department, which was seen at the time by many Cold War hawks as a Communist redoubt. When the first incarnation of the Smith-Mundt Act was introduced by Rep. Sol Bloom (D-IL), Rules Committee Chairman Eugene Cox (D-GA) decried giving the State Department the ability to engage in public diplomacy because it was “chock full of Reds” and the “lousiest outfit in town.” Although we should certainly be concerned about any arm of the government pushing a particular viewpoint on the American people (be it left or right), the absolute ban on Americans even accessing this material was an overreaction born of this kind of hysteria.

www.aclu.org...

Even the ACLU thinks we're smart enough to not fall for propaganda.

reply to post by Honor93

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously.

What does this have to do with government propaganda if it was done by a owner of a private company?

Absolutely nothing.

nope, no joke and apparently, you didn't bother to read it either here's another snipit ... from the same link

You are now talking about a link that was in your initial link, I didn't see it buddy.

Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported The Post.

I still don't see any proof or a direct link to this.

posting script and understanding it are two separate activites. you appear to have grasped one of those tasks, perhaps you should practice the other. or, you could just read the latest about Kerry and his phony pics ... here

Politicians lie and have always been lying. It has nothing to do with the amendement of this law.

ETA -- just in case you are REALLY interested, you might want to follow the current legislation before the Senate, known as S 3254 or you can read it for yourself here

I just qouted from the legislation in my previous post, I don't need a link.

ps ... the Smith-Mundt act has been repealed via S3254 ... hence, it is no longer in effect. what goes out, goes everywhere now and we're paying for it don't ya know

I know it has been repealed, that's what I explained and posted.........

your kind apology and a thank you would be greatly appreciated

That's too bad for you then.

reply to post by Phage

16 months ago (May 2012), ppl thought about alot of things, differently.
heck, nearly half the country were ready to fry Zimmerman without a trial

and Phage, while no NEW monies will be spent from the General Fund, that doesn't mean we aren't PAYING for it through other means, as we have been for decades.

so, if you think propagandizing the US population is a good thing, fine, enjoy the show.
some of us, don't necessarily agree.

reply to post by Honor93

so, if you think propagandizing the US population is a good thing, fine, enjoy the show. some of us, don't necessarily agree.

This is annoying. It has been explained to you in detail, multiple times. No noone here is saying that propaganda is a good thing.

It doesn't even really matter because they are going to lie to you anyway.

and Phage, while no NEW monies will be spent from the General Fund, that doesn't mean we aren't PAYING for it through other means, as we have been for decades.

So what did this new law change then?

The only reason they changed the law is because their foreign propaganda was becoming availale to the American public over the internet. This created a sort of legal paradox for them so they made the amendment.

reply to post by NeoParadigm

absolutely nothing ??
yeah ok.

just ignore the fact that it was the PENTAGON's top propaganda contractor that set up the private company employees

forget the fact that the co-owner of the PENTAGON's TOP propaganda contractor ADMITTED/confessed to it.

yeah you're right, it has nothing to do with it at all

as mentioned previously, practice is a good thing.

What does this have to do with government propaganda if it was done by a owner of a private company?

because it was generated by the PENTAGONs TOP propaganda contractor.

What does this have to do with government propaganda if it was done by a owner of a private company?

because that private company is the PENTAGONs top propaganda contractor.

do you a more explicit explanation than that ?

NO, i quoted it, not talked about it.
did you bother clicking the 'additional info' link at the bottom of the story ???
if not, try it, you just might find it yourself.

so, which part of the confession is a lie ??
and, since when is this story or my commentary about 'politicians' ?
strawman much ?

wrong legislation but carry on ... you'll find out the hard way

if you 'know' Smith-Mundt was repealed, then why don't you understand the implications ?

that Act prevented outbound propaganda from being directed at the US population ... not so much anymore.

nah, overly high expectations maybe, but at least i tried.

reply to post by NeoParadigm

It has been explained to you in detail, multiple times

what has and when ??????

So what did this new law change then?

but, didn't you just say ...

I know it has been repealed

so i'd have to ask, what NEW law ???

The only reason they changed the law is because their foreign propaganda was becoming availale to the American public over the internet. This created a sort of legal paradox for them so they made the amendment

hahahahaha, i can hear the gurgling from here

reply to post by Honor93

yeah you're right, it has nothing to do with it at all

Were they doing it on behalf of the state or were they just covering their own backs as their company received bad publicity?

I would say the latter.

www.usatoday.com...

The company's co-owner, Camille Chidiac, was suspended for a time last year for admitting that he launched an online smear campaign against USA TODAY. The campaign, which Chidiac said in a letter to the Army, was started by public relations firm he had hired and wasn't his fault. The campaign began after the paper learned that Chidiac and his sister, Rema Dupont, the company's co-owner, owed the federal government $4 million in back taxes.

They paid their tax bill, and Chidiac agreed to put his ownership stake in a trust and relinquish management of the company. That satisfied the Pentagon, which dropped its suspension of Chidiac and continues to do business with Leonie.

You can't call this domestic government propaganda. Do some research instead of repeating the same story that is posted across all these dumb sites without even sourcing it.

and, since when is this story or my commentary about 'politicians' ? strawman much ?

I'm pretty sure you wre talking about Kerry. Is he not a politician?

or, you could just read the latest about Kerry and his phony pics ... here

Do you remember?

if you 'know' Smith-Mundt was repealed, then why don't you understand the implications ?

Wth do you mean. myself and others have explained exactly what it means.

that Act prevented outbound propaganda from being directed at the US population ... not so much anymore.

No it was meant to do so in earlier times. It was obsolete now because Americans were getting exposed to foreign aimed propaganda anyway because of the rise of the internet.

That's why they changed it. This has been explained multiple times already. It also hasn't been repealed, it has been modernised. I only used the word repeal mistakenly because you used it,

so i'd have to ask, what NEW law ???

The amendments they made, it was also posted already.

b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948

hahahahaha, i can hear the gurgling from here

Are you saying that that explanation is incorrect?

Cause that would be very funny indeed.

reply to post by Honor93


So no more hihi´s and haha´s?

You know what they say about having the last laugh.

i bet edward bernays is loving every minute of this, probably blushing from his grave as we speak, that prick.

reply to post by NeoParadigm

yes, i would agree, responding to this nonsense is annoying.

you first incorrect statement ...

It is still not legal to make and distribute propaganda domestically.

has been proven wrong repeatedly, so if you don't get it by now, keep trying.

It doesn't even really matter because they are going to lie to you anyway

not according to your opening declaration.
glad to see you're coming around to accepting the reality.

so, for 30 odd years, (since the internet has been worldwide) it was NOT ok, but then, all of a sudden, this year, it's necessary ??? are you really buying that BS ?

The only reason they changed the law is because their foreign propaganda was becoming availale to the American public over the internet. This created a sort of legal paradox for them so they made the amendment

believe whatever you want, you will anyway

oh, and because you asked, here ya go
need more ?

btw, when you link off-site information, a SOURCE is required ... nice of you to avoid the important stuff.
thanks again.