President Obama Legallized Propaganda

a reply to: Vortiki

How does it legalize propaganda when the bill specifically states:

"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."

Other than that this is really old news...I don't think government driven propaganda is any more or less legal than it was 6 years ago.

originally posted by: Vortiki
a reply to: theantediluvian

So I assume that the new "legalization" only means that now the government is legally allowed to appropriate funds specifically for swaying public opinion.

The specific language about the material produced not being used to sway public opinion is still in there. It doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling but compared the flood of privately funded propaganda since the Citizen's United verdict, I'm not sure how much of an issue this is.

a reply to: links234

I guess I misread that particular part, but it just states they can't direct funds to a propaganda department, it doesn't say they can't use their own "personal money" to public and advertise propaganda.

a reply to: Vortiki

Yeah, SCOTUS said that was free speech in the Citizens United case. You can use your own personal money for all the propaganda you want. Government driven propaganda, publicly funded propaganda is still illegal.

If I read the original and the updated versions of the law it seems like it was illegal for the state department to broadcast what it says overseas in the US. Now, with an internet connection, you can just look it up. The updated law removed the restriction. So now, the State Department can show you what it says about America in Germany. The wording is a lot more nuanced than my dumbed-down explanation. I think that's how it works.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Vortiki

How does it legalize propaganda when the bill specifically states:

"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."

Other than that this is really old news...I don't think government driven propaganda is any more or less legal than it was 6 years ago.

The best example of Government propaganda is the DOJ hiring protesters for the Travon Martin trial.

JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requested with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:

March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”

April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”

April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?

Propaganda is protected under the first amendment except when it suggest violence or extra-constitutional removal of politicians.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Do you have any evidence that they were actual protestors or just providing support roles to the local government?

a reply to: Vortiki
Are you actually trying to suggest that propaganda, per se, has previously been criminalized? What an absurd notion.
Who are or have been the arbiters that distinguish truth from propaganda? Bullocks! (And I say that as an American.)

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
Propaganda is protected under the first amendment except when it suggest violence or extra-constitutional removal of politicians.

NOT!!! I repeat NOT! When it is the government using lies to manipulate the population! You might be fine with it now because you worship the current Dictator, but I can guarantee you will scream bloody murder if and when the next Dictator of an opposing political religion replaces your current God!

Get over it!

FFS! When are you drones going to realize THEY don't care about ANY of us? Look at how the Corporations fund political campaigns and tell me that these criminals actually represent the people!

Every one of you whom blindly support a political CHURCH, are nothing more than lemmings that do the biddings of electing these criminals!

Keep sticking up for them and see what difference it makes when the SHTF!!!

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Do you have any evidence that they were actual protestors or just providing support roles to the local government?

March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

To work Marches, demonstrations? Isn't that what that means? Thats what I get out of it anyway. These were docs from FOIA request by Judicial Watch..

a reply to: MarlinGrace

What We Do

CRS also works with police chiefs, mayors, school administrators, other local and state authorities, community-based organizations, and civil and human rights groups. CRS is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice that does not take sides in a dispute, and it does not investigate, prosecute, impose solutions, assign blame, or assess fault. CRS represents the Department of Justice in one of its most important missions-providing assistance and support to help state and local governments prevent violence, resolve destructive conflicts, and promote public safety.

Sounds like they provided conflict mediation between the local government and the protestors.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Not what this is about...this allows the State (Our Government) to produce and distribute propaganda legally.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

What We Do

CRS also works with police chiefs, mayors, school administrators, other local and state authorities, community-based organizations, and civil and human rights groups. CRS is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice that does not take sides in a dispute, and it does not investigate, prosecute, impose solutions, assign blame, or assess fault. CRS represents the Department of Justice in one of its most important missions-providing assistance and support to help state and local governments prevent violence, resolve destructive conflicts, and promote public safety.

Sounds like they provided conflict mediation between the local government and the protestors.

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”

Does that mean support for protesters of local government? Are they support for the start of protesting or are the helping local LEO's with this statement?

I would except what you're saying if they hadn't already appealed the FOIA request by Judicial Watch, but as usual with this administration transparency isn't reality. I also find it interesting that cost were so low for a government operation, does this sound covert or overt to you. Sure seems odd to me, and if reducing violence is the benefit of their involvement why didn't they run right down to PA in 2008 when voter intimidation outside of a polling station was taking place they knew about it the day it happened.

The suit was filed under the Bush administration but attempted prosecution under the Obama administration. Do you not find it odd that none of the NBP even showed up for the trial, which should have been a slam dunk but the case was dropped? hmmm Prior knowledge maybe??

This doesn't pass the smell test for preventing violence this is just selective government intervention when they should have kept their noses out of it. This definitely qualifies as government propaganda, and in true government fashion lets cover it up by appealing the FOIA request.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Vortiki

WRONG

Supreme court did that a while ago.

They ruled that the media had NO obligation to tell you the TRUTH. That was legalizing propaganda.

One Particular Story About That.

~Tenth

With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.”
― Henry A. Wallace

An interesting quote from a former progressive vice president. No one has mastered this better than the US government.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Vortiki

How does it legalize propaganda when the bill specifically states:

"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."

Other than that this is really old news...I don't think government driven propaganda is any more or less legal than it was 6 years ago.

The only person actually reading and paying attention.

They didn´t legalise domestic propaganda. The point was that Americans were being subjected, or were at least possibly subjected to their propaganda that was meant for abroad, because of the internet, creating a legal paradox which had to be fixed, since it was illegal to subject Americans to any propaganda domestically.

The bill purpose is "to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences"

en.wikipedia.org...

If they hadn´t done this their foreign propaganda would have become illegal because it could possibly be viewed by Americans.

And yes it is old news and discussed before on ATS.

a reply to: SuperVizorr

So you are saying there is no propaganda created for and aimed at American citizens?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I am saying that this bill does not legalise domestic propaganda.

It even states specifically,

"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."

I don´t know how to be more clear.

Is propaganda used domestically? Off course, all the time, this bill just didn't legalise it.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

WRONG

There is absolutely no reason for you to shout wrong in all caps, at least not based on the content of your post.

Supreme court did that a while ago. They ruled that the media had NO obligation to tell you the TRUTH. That was legalizing propaganda.

The OP is obviously talking about state propaganda, you are talking about lying media outlets. One is not the same as the other.

originally posted by: SuperVizorr
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I am saying that this bill does not legalise domestic propaganda.

It even states specifically,

"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."

I don´t know how to be more clear.

Is propaganda used domestically? Off course, all the time, this bill just didn't legalise it.

All it says is that those two bodies are not authorized to use "funds" to influence public opinion, it does not cover other departments or agencies that certainly have the ability to influence public opinion; we see it done on this website with certain posters who are not who they purport to be - influencing and shaping opinions to suit their hidden agendas.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: SuperVizorr
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I am saying that this bill does not legalise domestic propaganda.

It even states specifically,

"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."

I don´t know how to be more clear.

Is propaganda used domestically? Off course, all the time, this bill just didn't legalise it.

All it says is that those two bodies are not authorized to use "funds" to influence public opinion, it does not cover other departments or agencies that certainly have the ability to influence public opinion; we see it done on this website with certain posters who are not who they purport to be - influencing and shaping opinions to suit their hidden agendas.

You just say that because it's true...

What is a lie but deception to promote propaganda.
-Marlin Grace "Cigar smoking trouble maker"