Flouting First Amendment Sets System For Disaster

Only Humans Deserve Right to Free Speech - Earned by Personal Pertinent Responsibility.

(SEASIDE, Ore.) - The First Amendment has always been the shining jewel introducing and reflecting the glories set forth in the American Constitution. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing --and WHY.

That is how come it IS the FIRST --not further down-the-list of their great accomplishments, still recognized world-around for the invention and intervention and inevitable impacts on individual life and liberties set forth in this superbly sensitive and surely unique document in history.

That Right -- to "free speech" and all it has come to mean -- and now still further portend-- doth NOT "stand alone", isolated and limited as it would be if so set forth for generations to come: As the First --and thus surely then seen as the supreme Right, as it has proven over the past two centuries, it rests surely and certainly on its foundation of strongly-implied personal and professional responsibility for that "free speech".

THAT is what maketh it to be "free": No action nor failure-to-act, in human confrontations, can escape the inescapable fact of human consequences; they follow, in all too natural and unavoidable fashion, whatever is done --0R SAID.

The "free" reflects brilliantly from that unmistakable fact of full consequence for every action by every human --unavoidable as surely in any act-of-speech as in any other action whatsoever.

It is the unavoidable responsibility for the act --and its content-- that cloaks that act with its power and strength and any impact it may engender; every component of all those characteristics refers directly and reflects back to the person who uttered or wrote it.

THAT is why, literally for centuries --and increasingly always-there in modern-day materials-- the standard by-line is so sacred, so solidly presented, and so utterly ubiquitous (no pun !)

For many kinds, levels, tones and content which we find widely received (heard, read, seen !!) now, the name of the originator may well be the best possible guarantee we can ever get for its truthfulness, as well as clarity, tone-and-style, by which we recognize the authentic from any attempt at deception.

Thus "the byline" becomes our well-sought and thankfully-received best possible guarantee of quality and reliability. Its characterization of the creator is of such major importance that "the by-line" is wisely and widely recognized as an important element recognized in all copyright law worldwide.

WHATEVER is said-or-done, after the actual fact-of-occurrence, carries with it the full weight of consequence --surely a fact-of-life well understood by the Founding Fathers, caught up in the full dangers of a radical revolution: Remember canny old Ben F., insisting "We must hang together or surely we will all hang separately" ??

Far too many politically and economically-motivated matters-of-content, in many forms and modes, and at every level, are now circulated on the Internet and via other open modes, with no real statement of responsibility for content, and very obscure or difficult-to-use means to determine WHO is REALLY uttering what we read, hear, or see. It is a simple fact-of-life, now well documented, that malign political/economic groups are seeking to use every possible tool and mode and method they can to distort and pervert growing public reliance on the rapid development of many new channels and much more public participation in what should be honest, open, democratic dialog and "heated" discussion.

SO why is it we find so many seeking the "Right" of "free speech" but fleeing openly and obviously from the responsibility thus entailed by that very fact-of-action demonstrated in the resounding words?

Surely it is obvious that, for demonstrated speech --whether actually by-sound or in-writing-- there is no possibility whatsoever of escape from that inevitable following-responsibility.

Application of "anonymous" to a written or printed form of free speech has for many years, in propaganda analysis, been recognized as simply a cover, and a sure sign of intent to escape that widely recognized natural and unavoidable responsibility.

Every modern print channel and many Internet and broadcast modes of communication have come to realize the necessities for knowing " Who-is-saying-WHAT", not only as fundamental protection and quality assurance for receivers of content, but also for reasons of legal protection for themselves from very rightly-reported consequences for anything allowed to be irresponsible and damaging.

Arrival of the Internet and the advent of many channels for dialog, most offering all-too-free right-of-comment, has allowed the use of single-name ID --with absolutely no further information-- re many who participate, unfortunately allowing also both unintentional and clearly-intended avoidance of any method or manner of defining and demanding due responsibility for any such consequences. In fact, it is that truly overhanging and sometimes even threatening legal responsibility which has now rapidly increased demand from publication producers and sponsors, too, for simple, checkable, convenient and entirely honorable means for those participants proposing comment or continuation of dialog to ID themselves --precisely and just as comfortably as one does in any polite social conversation.

SO NOW HOW-and-WHY should "anon" or "single-name/NO ID" be further allowed on any truly responsible communications channel?

IF, indeed, it is simply a courteous extension of what we all do whenever we begin a new conversational contact ("I'm Hank Ruark"), why should anyone object to precisely that use of honest name (and further ID-information when requested) on any channel or from any source?

THAT should be the very-least of actions in open, honest appreciation of the large, and expensive, and time-consuming, and legal-problems/generating, contribution to receivers from those who produce and provide for open, honest, democratic dialog.

SO, friends, just as you wish to receive from known, reliable, trustworthy and honest producers of content and providers of open communications channels for YOU, be personally prepared to reciprocate with fundamental, shaping and qualifying information about your own identity when sought on those channels from which you demand integrity by your very participation.

At 21, Henry Clay Ruark was Aroostook Editor for the Bangor, Maine DAILY NEWS, covering the upper 1/4 of the state. In the ‘40s, he was Staff Correspondent, then New England Wires Editor at United Press-Boston; later Editor for the Burlington, Vermont 3-daily group owned by Wm. Loeb, later notorious at Manchester, New Hampshire UNION LEADER for attacks on Democratic Presidential candidates.

Hank returned to Oregon to complete M. Ed. degree at OSU, went on to Indiana University for Ed.D. (abd) and special other course-work; was selected as first Information Director for NAVA in Washington, D.C.; helped write sections of NDEA, first Act to supply math, science, foreign language consultants to state depts. of education; joined Oregon Dept. of Education, where he served as NDEA administrator/Learning Media Consultant for ten years.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 650 written since then.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Hank Ruark August 25, 2011 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Mark Lee: Your latest solidly substantiates my ID of you early on. You wrote: "Unfortunately it is a handful of misguided folks who do their best to harm this free market process. From my observations, it is usually people who have been unsuccessful in some part of their lives, or some mental defects are at work. " Then you add that last sentence,,,uncited here just so readers intrigued by this one will check the sentence out right at the end of its deserved context ! The entire Comment clearly reflects the mental status and current process situation noted in my just-preceding note --and with this further demonstration I do believe justifies further action forthcoming. Have a great day, Mark Lee !!

Mark August 25, 2011 6:51 am (Pacific time)

Hank you wrote: "Mark: First shot for you: There never was a free market, and never will be. It is economic myth [spun from whole cloth]." So what force was involved in spinning and creating this "whole cloth"? The free market system creates and drives an economy, and from that process governments are ultimately created. It is the guidelines that man creates for these governments that determines how well the free market system proceeds. History provides countless examples of how the free market system is created, how it engages and how it proceeds. It is up to us in the contemporary world to help create mechanisms to see the free market system continue to work and create the wealth that benefits all. Unfortunately it is a handful of misguided folks who do their best to harm this free market process. From my observations, it is usually people who have been unsuccessful in some part of their lives, or some mental defects are at work. Why do you think big governments harm the process Hank? Is it because big and growing governments need more and more free market revenue to feed their spendthrift lust? Or maybe because those unhappy, mentally defective people want all to be unhappy like them? Of course, it all could be a natural evolution, just like the up and down economic cycles that happen regardless of the market system? But we who look at history know it is government policies that get us in these down cycles and it "has" been policies that have returned us to positive territory. So how do you like Obama's policies? He will not run on his policies, he will run on distraction, and that is how the unhappy and defective people live their lives, through deception and distraction, in my opinion.

Hank Ruark August 23, 2011 7:54 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: Sir, you have the advantage of me since I have no knowledge of your full ID while you have not only my writing but also my ID-squib with story ! Please now correct that unfair advantage by telling me what's your profession, where you live, what's your level of education, and short summary of your working experience. I note you make sweeping general statements with nothing to inform reader of your right to hold opinion as well informed by all those characteristics. If you wish to continue dialog, I welcome that background, which is precisely what I usually seek from anyone with whom I engage in professional exploration as a consultant --and thus surely fair, square and should be welcome chance for you to set up frame for your own stuff, prior to my return to this dialog.

Hank Ruark August 23, 2011 4:57 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: First shot for you: There never was a free market, and never will be. It is economic myth spun from whole cloth. Second shot: There ARE some things only government can do, and we do well to make commonsense decision on what, when, how, how much, and at what costs. Those are rational decisions based on checkable fact-of-matter, which is where proponents of distorted "conservatism" fall off the wagon...

Hank Ruark August 23, 2011 4:50 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: NOW we come to heart-of-story--and you distort and pervert the solid centuries-long record. It's same old screw/tape heard ever since pre-Colonial days, and deserves line-for-line refutation, since it strikes at heart and head of real democratic-small-d ! commonsense and deeply recorded history of development in detail. Will undertake to offer rebuttal in depth, line by line, and with documented historical links...but must also point to inescapable reality of mine own time/meds restrictions, which will delay response over a few days... Welcome opportunity to displace your multiple myth and meaningful distortion and perversion, but cannot do otherwise than promise meaningful remediation on the way ! Meanwhile check out long line (more than 650) Op Eds at S-N, many of which do partial job for which you now offer such a tempting target. You might even find other points in preparedness for what should be a real exposure to reality for you. To coin a phrase. "you lie in your teeth, sir !" whether you know it or not..

Mark August 22, 2011 11:43 am (Pacific time)

Hank, the 1st Amendment, as viewed commonly by proponents of wealth redistribution do not care (or do not believe in my opinion) that taking money from the rich will result in a less productive economy. Economic history is viewed differently by Liberals and Conservatives Liberals look at the free(er) market days of Reagan and see growing deficits (ignoring Carter's deficit policies) while Conservatives see record breaking government income and the creation of over 20 million jobs that vastly increased revenue far into the future. The R and D funding during Reagan has been the antecedent driving force of current technology. Remember the unemployment rate was slightly over 4% when the dems took over congress in 2007. It has gone up ever since. But the simple fact is that any time government passes laws that attempt to force people to act against their natural human nature the results will be contrary to the intended outcome and most likely counter productive. (Look at recent EPA rules, rules that ignore congress). Note: Oregon get's approx. 50% of their power from coal plants in eastern Oregon. Now look at the EPA R and R's slated to come online. Brownouts and blackouts are coming. Was this planned? Civil unrest coupled with Martial Law? Tyranny or democracy coming? When government taxes the production of a good or service it creates a disincentive for the production of that product. If the tax is too high it may totally eliminate the production of that product or create a black market for that product. The same is true for unsustainable union salaries and benefits. They have outstripped the ability of the private market to fund, thus change must be made. Why is that so hard to understand? Government’s intervention in the economy is nearly always counter-productive. It certainly cannot be shown to be productive in any historical example. Economic productivity is maximized when government taxes minimally and people are free to pursue their own self interest without (or very minimal) government intervention. As our government has been growing we have been loosing precious freedoms. When the unemployment rate goes up during the summer months, as it has been Hank, that is when no amount of spinning is going to work. The far left has dialed up the demonizing of their opponents. It will not work. Change has been happening since 2009, and is picking up unstoppable speed. America will be back bigger than ever. Wisconsin has shown us that in even very blue states, common sense starts to surface.

Hank Ruark August 22, 2011 11:22 am (Pacific time)

To all: Would not want anyone to think that shift to rational search for consensus is found only in few places, per report added last night. SO here's NYT this morning on the same situation. Please note how exceedingly easy and rapid it is to become immediately informed on the current reality situation, thus avoiding the embarrassing exposue of what is usually termed "a belly-button opinion...because everybody has one and they tend to be much alike." After Bruising Political Fights, 2 Governors Alter Their Tones Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin in March. A Republican who took office this year, he stirred fury by taking on labor unions. By MONICA DAVEY Published: August 21, 2011 SAYNER, Wis. — After Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican in his first months in office, announced early this year that he wanted to cut collective bargaining rights for public workers, relations between political parties in his newly red State Capitol fell into a long, deep frost. But after six months of bruising partisan fights, Mr. Walker seemed to issue an utterly different message this month. He said he wanted to meet with Democrats and to find shared agenda items — an invitation that has been met with polite acceptance and deep skepticism. “My thought is, you start out with small things, you build trust, you move forward, you keep working on things and you try and pick as many things that are things that people can clearly work together on,” Mr. Walker, who may face a recall election next year, said in an interview. In the months after a flurry of Republican wins of governors’ offices and state legislatures in 2010, perhaps nowhere was the partisan rancor more pronounced than in the nation’s middle — places like Wisconsin and Ohio, where fights over labor unions exploded. But now, at least in those states, there are signs that the same Republicans see a need to show, at least publicly, a desire to play well with others. In both states, critics dismiss the moves as desperate attempts to shore up sinking popularity ratings or disingenuous, tardy strategies to appear agreeable after already ramming through their agendas. “It’s all P.R. — none of it is substantive,” Mark Miller, the Democrats’ minority leader in the Wisconsin State Senate, said earlier this month, before Mr. Walker held what some described as a “cordial” meeting with the Democratic leaders last week. Whatever the true substance of the offers, the recent tones in Ohio and Wisconsin do appear to show one thing: With threats of recalls and bill repeals, with public dismay in recent months over the partisan stalemate in Washington on the debt ceiling, and with battleground-state presidential politics looming in 2012, governing with majorities has turned out in some states to be more complicated than it may have first appeared. Across the nation, partisan relations in statehouses where Republicans made significant gains last fall have varied widely, and in many cases there are no signs of softening messages — or even the need for such a thing. But leaders in other states, including some that are expected to consider limits to unions in the months ahead, are closely watching what unfolds now in Ohio and Wisconsin, the states that became the unexpected battle zones for an earlier season of divisions.

Hank Ruark August 22, 2011 10:10 am (Pacific time)

To all: Checking and discarding files has its benefits...in '87 was engaged in another dialog re suppression of Letters to The Editor. This quote from that dialog fits well here and now, it seems to me: "Each day I find myself drifting closer to the 'use it or lose it' school of free speech. Every freedom is only as strong as its use is vigorous. Free speech is the first of freedoms because it allows us to discuss the others. Each time we are intimidated or distracted we erode free speech and, with it, our other freedoms. We must not let others set our agenda and our standards. What is left of free speech if all we can freely speak about are the antics of the event managers of elected charlatans ?" That's Scott Armstrong, in Columbia Journalism Review's 30th Anniversary Issue on the First Amendment (Nov/Dec '91, p.46). He's co-author of The Brethren (with Bob Woodward) and founder of the National Security Archive." ----------------------------------- His "event managers" reference is to the political field ("elected charlatans" of that time; but, as we well know today, there are "event managers" at other levels in all the communications media, increased in numbers, cash resources, still-raidly/growing influence --and, for some, malign intent-- even more dangerous, destructive and potentially (even if more covertly) evil. Perhaps this reflection from efforts in the "80s, reflecting interest and involvement personally from previous decades even then, may help current readers to understand extremely strong motivation to continue dialog here-and-now --given closely parallel "elected charlatans" behaviours and far too apathetic attitude and interest from the general public. That's what an open, honest, democratic clear-channel can help to remedy, today more than ever, via Internet and strong continuing dialog. As we continue to demonstrate, that's our intent, plan, program and publication behavior here at Salem-News.com Thank you all for your thoughtful, conscientious, ethical and strong participation.

Alberto August 22, 2011 8:42 am (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark you wrote: "WIs. citizens too smart for him [Gov. Walker}, and turned attempt into fiasco for GOPs with recall {changing bal. of power in state senate...}" The balance of power was not changed Mr. Ruark, the GOP still has a statistical majority in both the Senate and the House. Even if the Senate democrats won a majority, they still could not have changed any policies currently now law. Even if Walker is recalled (very unlikely), the House GOP majority would have to also be changed, even more unlikely. To change a law is a very difficult process if you don't have a comprehensive majority. Then of course if both the House and Senate changed power and Walker stayed, they would have to deal with the Governor's veto power. Mathematically it's unlikely current laws will be changed, plus the bottom line is that the word is getting out to the voters that jobs have been saved and the state budget has been balanced, and most importantly, private sector jobs are increasing. Please note how the union also attempted to defeat a sitting supreme court judge, they failed big time. To write once again Mr. Ruark, what is a better outcome, to have a job with benefits, or be on unemployment and on food stamps as our tens of thousands, soon to be hundreds of thousands (as trending)of public union workers, in states like California and New York, states that are controlled by democratic governors and legislatures? Please note that as per the Federal Election Commission, elected democratic officials receive the majority of their political campaign cash from "unions." So whose really calling the shots? As per the AP, the most frequent visitors to the Whitehouse are union officials, namely Trumka as number one. My wife teaches History, and her comments, and many of her associates, on the book "Dutch" is that it is not favorably received by professional historians.That there are available far superior and more accurate biographies that are not agenda-oriented as is Dutch. As far as Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers, they were fired under national security reasons, plus let's remember that federal union workers have "no" collective bargaining rights. Also Wisconsin has some of the strongest civil service protection laws in the country, which superceed any union agreements. Maybe if our economy was in good shape the unions would still be strong and powerful. It appears we are now seeing what a second Jimmy Carter term would have looked like, we cannot give another term to current policy makers, in my opinion, they have really blown it. Respectively Mr. Ruark, history shows what has happened when the opposite policies were taken during economic downturns, and the 1980's is a profound example that promulgated remarkable success. Put this in any internet search engine: Union head "trumka white house visits"

Editor's note: This individual using the name 'Albert' posts from a single IP and there are no aliases involved.

Hank Ruark August 22, 2011 1:37 am (Pacific time)

PS to all: DUTCH is title of the biography, not the author ! You expect me to recall author, too ? This time of night ??

Hank Ruark August 21, 2011 9:24 pm (Pacific time)

Alberto et al: Here's one for you all, easily accessed on Internet: Major Backlash at Right-Wing Ohio Governor Has Him Scrambling for "Compromise" With Progressives Sunday 21 August 2011 by: Sarah Jaffe, AlterNet | Report Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich talks on the phone before speaking at a press conference with his running mate, Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce in Columbus, Ohio, Nov. 3, 2010. (Photo: Yana Paskova / The New York Times) Kasich, elected in 2010 with just 49 percent of the vote, pushed through an attack on public workers similar to the one Wisconsin's Scott Walker championed. Senate Bill 5 (SB5) was passed and signed into law in March, and eliminated most collective bargaining for state workers, as well as increased the amount of money they had to pay for their pensions and made it harder for unions to collect dues. It turns out that wholesale attacks on workers' rights aren't nearly as popular in a rough economy as conservative governors thought. The latest one to realize he's overstepped his bounds and offer “compromise”? Ohio governor John Kasich. It spawned mass protests that might have been overshadowed in the public imagination by the sheer size of the Madison resistance. But progressives sat up and took notice when Ohio activists, led by the coalition group We Are Ohio, collected 1.3 million signatures on a petition to allow Ohioans to vote on the bill themselves, putting it on the ballot in November's election. Ohio's "Citizen Veto"is an unusual law; it gave activists 90 days to collect a minimum of 231,149 signatures to stop the bill going into effect until the voters have a chance to decide. The results were so outstanding—more than five times the required number of signatures--that the group and 6,000 supporters held a parade through the city of Columbus to deliver the signatures to the secretary of state's office.\ ============================== Please note last sentence in last pgh --that tells it like it really is nationally on this whole attack on public service workers as extension of longtime GOPster-gang objective to kill off all unions...started with Reagan's attack on air traffic controllers, swift reversal from his previous personal/professional stance as Hollywood union leader...bought off when career began to collapse by years of GE sponsorship for visits to their plants to preach their conservative views to workers. That's straight honest history...check for yourself. See biography of Reagan by his selected biographer: DUTCH.

Hank Ruark August 21, 2011 7:56 pm (Pacific time)

Alberto: You misinterpret here throughout, sir, by intent or ignorance hard to tell. Re W-Gov., he one of twelve bully boys set up to perpetrate radical redesign of govt. structure in states with strong public sector unions. WIs. citizens too smart for him, and turned attempt into fiasco for GOPs with recall changing bal. of power in state senate, and wise other changes underway via determined resistance re unfair attack on public sector unions who earned what they got, granted by a totally representative govt. structure, now undermined by Koch and other dollars and with balance of power shifted surely against GOP. Can document every statement here from authoritative national sources with decades of interpretitive and reporting experience. What's yours, sir ?? Never claimed to be guru in any of those areas, simply reporter using solid sources proven over time to bring friends here what I see happening, salted a bit with what one learns via 60 working years in media and education. What's your experience, sir, qualifying you for erroneous summary you cite ? You wrote:",,, and how the 1st Amendment works for those who have a different perspective. ! It works precisely the same for all of us, with same burdens of responsible respected for its endowed privilege by telling the truth in our public utterances rather than designing politically-bent propaganda statements unprovable when compared to professional reporting. Heavy impact of unemployment in these states is wash-over from general world economy conditions swamping US right along with all others, as that professsional reporting clearly declares; and no state is controlled by any union, public or otherwise --last time reported, every state was still under voter control via its own legislature...Where you getting this stuff ?? But respect your record here of single-name and sensible signup and thank you for it...that's what we all must do just to begin each on our own level the kind of open, honest, democratic (small-d !) dialog in which we share what we see...as you honestly did...and try to learn from each other...which for those who will but dig/history is where the Founders came from...dialog among those determined to see the nation rightly launched.

Alberto August 21, 2011 1:06 pm (Pacific time)

I see that being "anonymous" causes much poloraiztion for some. I guess ultimately it is a decision management makes on this site. Hank I see you do not have many kind words for the Wisconsin' governor and how the 1st Amendment works for those who have a different perspective. I would like to point out that in many states like California and New York, literally tens of thousands of public union workers have been layed off because they simply ran out of money in these union-controlled states. That has not happened in Wisconsin, because the governor in tandem with the legislature developed a process where people could keep their jobs. In fact there has been a net growth of jobs in the private sector (more revenue!) which was just the opposite of what was going on before the new governor and legislature took control. Obviously the high wages, benefits and pension programs for state union workers, compared to the average private worker, around the country, is unsustainable. The Wisconsin governor could have maintained the status quo, but what's the better scenario, a job, or unemployment and food stamps, along with the uncertainty of being put back to work? Yes, some people have made some adult decisions, and some incapable of grasping financial reality don't like that one bit. The governor ran on fiscal responsibility, it is the unions that have created their own demise, and everyone will be better off for that change. Again, a job, or unemployment and food stamps? I'm sure the voters will continue to understand what they need to continue doing with their secret ballot.

Editor: Alberto has exclusively posted under one name and one IP. That is a start, the idea of people using different names and representing different identities is one of hte big problems that arise form this, surely our desire to avoid that makes sense.

Hank Ruark August 21, 2011 12:34 pm (Pacific time)

Mark et al: You wrote: " Now as Mr. Ruark provided his opinion that for him one should provide their full identification when posting a comment on a privately owned publication, well that's a private policy issue, not a U.S. Constitution issue, which some get confused on, it appears." Right on, friend Mark...but there are other issues also wrapped inexorably in that decision for any private publication and bearing heavily on an open, honest , democratic channel serving for public-issue discussion in our unique S-N position. IF we allow current "easy-on, fire when there, then run", we allow abuse of the First Amendment responsibilities surely more clearly distinguishable after this ongoing full-bore dialog here and now. Those responsibilities DO exist, as yours surely points out. IF we allow abuse-by-covert/sniper, we then put those readers who participate in good faith and with trust and confidence for S-N into jeopardy of being made into ""fall- persons" by too-simple access to too-powerful pipeline targeting all others acting in that good faith. We take that responsibility serious here at S-N, just as seriously as we do that for providing wide-open, easily- accessed, hone and DEMOCRATIC channel for poignant and pointed sharp and open dialog on key issues. Your comprehensive summary of other areas where very similar ID-demands are routine should surely result in much better recognition of our reality-based, participant-aimed consideration here in seeking further ways to assure protection and promote full-and-proper respect for the real privilege (read: Right) guaranteed to Americans by the First Amendment --which doth not exist in any closely-similar pattern elsewhere in this now/more-confused/then-ever world !!!

Mark August 21, 2011 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark regarding your inference (your post @ 8:19 am)that corporate political donations are much higher, and that they are not reported to the FEC is an interesting, but unproven allegation. There have been numerous investigations in this matter by congress, law enforcement, and many publications, including the NY Times and Washington Post, but nothing has been proven. Do you have a reliable source in this matter? What I have seen over the years, at least during public testimony (under oath), has been a clear deception process. I call your attention back to the over 100 people associated with Clinton who took the "5TH" when asked about political donations, and some of their "bundling processes." Also a number of people associated with the above referenced individual have gone to prison, and numerous warrants have been issued to foreigners. Hey wouldn't it be great to depose Mark Rich who our current Attorney General got a pardon for in the last days of the Clinton Admin., and who donated millions to Clinton's library? There have been numerous investigation requests forwarded to Holder about the 2008 donations made to his boss. So far nothing has been done, though a House sub-committee is now looking into some serious allegations. Regarding thuggish acts by corporations and unions (your post 8:44am), that is a sad part of our history, but have you seen who has received the largest corporate political donations for the last 15 or so years? The FEC lists those, and it has been mostly to democrats, and Obama has received the most. The union political donations are nearly 100% to democrats. On balance, financially speaking, the non-democrats hardly demonstrate any deception on where they get their money, but maybe someone has info on that, for if so, I'm sure Holder would be moving very quickly to investigate. Otherwise it's just allegations that are more for distraction purposes than real legal substance.

Hank Ruark August 21, 2011 12:14 pm (Pacific time)

N. et al: WHY do you think THIS Op Ed and resulting dialog got underway HERE, RIGHT NOW ? At S-N we try hard to sample REAL public opinion by following our own set of principles for open, honest and democratic dialog...to which assent by comment or dissent by same is fully welcome. We thus learn-from-participants, rather than accept even detailed reportage from others at other levels, in other circumstances, with other motivations. I.e., we listen and learn from our own... To facilitate this process, and ready ourselves rightly, we often indulge in wide/open detailed "interior only" dialog...and sometimes we then follow same into full-shot with readers --for whom, in all truth, we exist. Example: For original of my Op Ed series here, we discussed in some depth, and then I did detailed communications project plan for further study, examination and clearance by consensus, used ever since as basis for our operation. Yrs points up some of both our discussion and our listening to YOU, and is welcome since it further underlines for Him (guess who ?) what some of us have been stating for some time. Any seeming reluctance arises simply from making damned dead sure that this open, honest channel stays that way despite the malign intent of a few in distorted/perverted political groups to make of it a sewer for more of their misbegotten and mistaken and misaligned-with-real world views obviously already creating greater and greater damage to our democracy. SO thank you for your perceptive answer, friend Natalie,,,and please continue to comment, perhaps with even more detail to build in strength and credibility for your perceptive instinct.

Natalie August 21, 2011 1:06 am (Pacific time)

That's a good question, Hank Ruark. Please forward it to your Editor-in-chief. I'm sure he'll provide you with all the details re WHO, WHEN and WHY. If he doesn't... well,...then you can forget about honest and open communications channels, at least for now.

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 8:02 pm (Pacific time)

Natalie et al: WHO is comfortable with pseudonyms? Latest national trend shows many using Internet are learning same lessons suffered much earlier in print-mode, with consequences via law suits, drop-off in site visits, and strong complaints to site management...as with S-N in recent months. Most commenters, national surveys show, would just as soon use own first-names, then follow with further ID if requested later, if so instructed by the site on prominent-note well displayed. They appreciate honest, open, democratic site-use and are eager to protect that new capability from those few who will abuse any privilege and avoid any responsibility, for whatever reasons, valid or simply psychological. The use of pseudonyms began long, long ago in early newspaper days, when Letters to the Editor first came into vogue --and it was not long before many of the same abuses we now suffer on Internet channels also began to occur, for the same reasons they do today: To avoid direct and certain responsibility for comment that then appeared in printed form. Owners soon learned there was inevitable strong legal consequence for irresponsible non-ID'd comment, as many print/mode legal eagles pursued profitable patterns of slander and damage suits, threatened or realistic. Newspaper management associations soon made damned sure all such printed material followed into pages only when writers supplied checkable name and address, which has become demanded pattern ever since for practically the universal print-mode usage. For Internet channel use, any name rapidly supplied and entered became the easy-way early-on, and the bad habit built its own entry, also rapidly, as the channels multiplied and projected into life, even far more than newspaper-letter oages grew,,,there's something so easy via keyboard and quickie/note that many fell into the basically irresponsible pattern. NOW consequential and far more serious abuses are being widely perpetrated by malign political (and some social) groups, meant to intentionally build on this very natural Internet vulnerability. We need to recognize and roll back this essentially irresponsible bad habit, while preserving the easy-rapid capabilities built into our beloved Internet mode. We will explore ways-and-means to do so further, and in some full detail, here soon...as time allows, and if my next assignment doth not arrive too soon...!!!

Natalie August 20, 2011 4:39 pm (Pacific time)

Oh, c'mon, you can't expect everybody else to use their full names when you are quite comfortable with using pseudonyms. You know I'm telling the truth, right? Besides, why does "George Sand" sound better than "Tuesday Junior III"? As long as it's not one person creating a crowd...

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

R.S. et al: You wrote: " Proponents of corporate personhood have argued successfully over the years that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, should have the same rights as natural persons, as for example, the First Amendment rights determined by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Imagine how different the economic and political landscape of the United States would be without the Santa Clara County decision and its progeny." This entire process, creating what is surely a false precedent, was the major longtime project of corporate interests (led early on by the railroads) for some decades prior to the Santa Clara debacle, which many qualified legal and other students now contend was obvious intentional action by an "interested party" recording a garbled interpretation of an oral statement to him by the judge, I now understand. It has become the generative heart of the matter via the "Citizens United" decision, which is proving to be so glaringly controversial and anti-commonsense that I will confidently predict that somehow means will be found, legal or otherwise, to overturn this most damaging act by the Supreme Court since the shaping days "before the Civil War" --and you know how that turned out ! Ralph, don't you find it blindingly ironic that the Court's disastrous debacle here comes via the Fourteenth Amendment -- the "civil rights" vehicle generated specifically to protect the rights of black citizens following the Civil War ??? !!!

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

To all: This intriguing dialog has already turned up some references to ethical and moral principles for behavior and actions. Just for your convenience, the best reference I have unearthed in that area is one which also organizes the whole plan and process of dealing with controversial issues. Seek out "The Ethical Process: An Approach to Controversial Issues", Second Edition; Marvin T. Brown; Prentice Hall, 1999. It was still on offer some months ago at several Internet book sites. This book invites participants to explore the basis and the value of their disagreements through the creation of "argumentative dialog". (Does that sound like S-N ??) This slim little one is only 83 pages, since it is designed as a workbook, to provide very direct working instructions and graphic pages to lead participants through the ethical process. Like many other useful tools, I stumbled on this one via a colleague when we were both participants in a corporate le arning seminar The first and most important step is choosing to engage in dialog; the entire working tool constituted here does an admirable job of showing how to make of dialog the essential determining tool in the entire process of arriving at an ethical conclusion.

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

Further to Stone et al: My preceding work on question of corporate personhood includes, in huge pile of filed materials now being disposed of properly prior to "my next assignment" (!) , some items which strongly hint at very improper actions by the clerk to whom you now attribute this overwrought declaration included in his notes, I cannot now lay hands on those, but memory tells me they indicate that he was, in fact, more than a legal clerk, and had prior close association with a decades long effort to bring about precisely the final statement re personhood which he incorporated -- as if a statement of the court for which he was clerking-- this conclusion now by concentrated effort over years of legal haggling built into what appears to be part of the court's decision, when in actuality it was a confused note, at best. Sorry cannot offer documentation on hand, but will continue to seek it out; meanwhile check on my preceding Op Eds in this string for S-N - I'll run check and list dates and titles when time here allows me to do so.

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 12:17 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph et al: Thank you for that sure direction to the most damaging and now especially highly controversial action affecting both directly and indirectly what the First really stands for as the strongest bulwark for our free speech freedoms. Happens my story list here covers some previous events in this ongoing "personhood" struggle, for which your is a very solid summary. Simple diagnosis here applies: " If it does not urinate, defecate, feed by mouth, and fight with wife it ain't human !" (Disclosure: That comes from Chicago press-rooms....) Not to beat hole in drum, but First responsibilities as direct heritage driving ethical and moral free speech "right" also implies full civil rights application under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the one under constant attack via those immorally, unethically, and undemocratically demanding the immoral, unethical and undemocratic interpretations so casually perpetrated by this Supreme Court. We will examine this "Citizens United" decision soon and in that process also consider and evaluate from a citizen's point of view what their distorted, perverted action now means as reflection on the First Amendment, with its real and realistic responsibilities on every citizen enjoying our American heritage of freedom, in speech as well as other areas. But for the record here-and-now, let us agree that each and every Right so granted to us as Americans has its opposing side of the coin, with equally demanding responsibilities. "There ain't NO free lunch, anywheres !" when it comes down to ethical and moral human behavior.

Douglas Benson August 20, 2011 11:38 am (Pacific time)

People are corporations . All courts are civil ,except appeals courts . Take a look at the uniform court procedures ,the very first statement clearly defines the courts function as ruled by the UCC. In order to fall under these laws all people are corporate entities therefore you are given corporate personhood by your SS# . Free speech should be just that - and hiding behind a moniker can be an important tool to protect people from retaliation by government and other interests [like Anon, March, august, or whatever your government fake name is ] You put yourself on front street using LEDS to pull my record in an attempt to discredit me. You are a coward ,and a government shill . Every time you post your trash ,I will expose you. I have no fear of the truth and post under my real name . Have some courage and do the same . Turnabout is fair play.

Editor: Doug and Hank and I as well as DJ and other staffers, have little to no respect for people who are willing to write heavy comments without using their name. We believe that anyone willing to write a comment should be willing to be a sincere person and state their name.

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 8:44 am (Pacific time)

Anon: You wrote: :.... why should they be allowed to trample on our First Amendment rights?" Just because they spend money via contributions doth not bar unions from political activities inherent in their right of association as well as in their personal First Amendment right. IF you are to apply that criterion to unions, must also then bar corporate and Koch Bros. heavy-flow-of-cash ! BTW, my long journalistic experience with thugs ran more to corporate-kind. in-suits-and-tie than to union members seeking American right to free speech.

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 8:37 am (Pacific time)

M. et al: My reference was to what is produced under First-protection, as is very obvious in the text. To adduce any other interpretation in the face of obvious statement indicates its own purpose. Re link, useful but provides no direct or even indirect further information on this point --which extends obvious intent here. Re state protection from abuse, intent of Op Ed is to point out personal involvement with responsibilities demanded as part of the right involved...which also should be obvious to any reader beyond 3rd grade level...judgment made by once-practicing teacher !! Did you ever teach?

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 8:26 am (Pacific time)

Colli et al Not only anon for lack of courage, but it is easy way to conceal special interest when at play, as is far too often the case in channels like S-N. Even simple notation like "I'm a banker" or ",,,an architect" or "...a retailer" helps to capsulize what we need to know about each other simply to facilitate honest, open, democratic dialog here. After all, we start with fairly good image of each S-N writer with ID-squib at head of evey piece --surely thus giving the Commenter a clear view of the person to whom comment is addressed...which is why we perhaps should insist on some simple similar pertinent information for any commenter, as "the other side of the coin" (as in First !) for the unhampered free, honest and democratic right allowed by the fact of comment here !

Hank Ruark August 20, 2011 8:19 am (Pacific time)

"Anon": You confuse the protective right for secret ballot, surely a basic principle worth full attention, with the open, principled, democratic dialog which should surely precede any protected secret vote. Surely you do not extend the "secret" right to those who speak on the issue ? Can you imagine "We must hang together, or surely we will hang separately" -- if it had been signed Anonymous ???? You are in error re contributions totals, too. Surely you are not so naive to think the totals made available, especially by the corporate structure and corporations themselves, is completely, cleanly and always in mode or form or channel demanding that it be reported to the FEC ? From professional participation and interior knowledge, I can assure you that perhaps as much- again as reported is made available via "other modes and methods" --quote from colleague also engaged at that time within this industry which doth surely exist, as any honest politician will admit --if you can find an honest politician ! "Anonymous" statements widely spread wherever they are accepted has been a standard tool for lobbyist action ever since my (very early) days in D.C. The current situation indicates very heavy use by Koch Bros. across the nation, and we've even detected a few here in S-N... Your final comparison is simply invidious, demeaning the "anon" to which I referred rather than to the constant effort to avoid 'the other side of the First Amendment right" --that heavy responsibility which hangeth also right on the same hook, to tell the truth and BE responsible, in full light of the great freedom thus supporting and strengthening our democracy.

Ralph E. Stone August 20, 2011 8:17 am (Pacific time)

Another angle on the First Amendment is the well established precedent awarding personhood to corporations within the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and have, therefore, First Amendment rights. The corporate personhood legal concept has been codified in 1 U.S.C. §1. What does corporate personhood mean? It means, for example, that laws prohibiting or limiting corporations and unions from spending their funds for political campaigns violate the First Amendment. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. How did a corporation become a natural person? Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Corporate status enabled shareholders to profit and gave limited liability to directors, officers, and shareholders for the corporation's debts and obligations. For over 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control over corporate chartering. Then came the controversial 1886 Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Although the Supreme Court supposedly did not make a direct ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," the misleading notes of a clerk finding corporate personhood were incorporated in the Court's decision. Whether this is myth or reality doesn't matter at this point. The Supreme Court has often cited this case for the proposition that a corporation is a "natural person." Thus, a precedent was set. The Santa Clara County case became the basis for a long line of court cases giving a corporation personhood. It is now firmly embedded in the law and neither the Supreme Court nor Congress is likely to overturn 123 years of precedent. The corporate personhood debate now centers on what subset of rights of natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. Proponents of corporate personhood have argued successfully over the years that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, should have the same rights as natural persons, as for example, the First Amendment rights determined by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Imagine how different the economic and political landscape of the United States would be without the Santa Clara County decision and its progeny.

Mark August 20, 2011 7:19 am (Pacific time)

In my younger years I expended considerable time studying the U.S. Constitution, and also reviewing my state constitution. During this time period I encountered many experts, some even recognized as experts both academically and in court proceedings. It seems that they all held different opinions, some quite diverse, but they all said to me that the "secret ballot" was something that should never be compromised, ergo, that one who wants to be anonymous should be afforded that ability when possible. Now as Mr. Ruark provided his opinion that for him one should provide their full identification when posting a comment on a privately owned publication, well that's a private policy issue, not a U.S. Constitution issue, which some get confused on, it appears. A poster made a comment on unions wanting to see how union and potential union members vote is a pretty scary notion, considering the thuggish behavior of union operatives and the intimidation that promulgates. What does rankle me some, more so than someone who wants to invade my privacy for whatever reasons, but certainly not of significance if they just want to evaluate opinions, why are we issuing voting rights to people who do not provide comprehensive ID? Just think how often in your day to day activity that you are required to show identification: banking, drivers license, hopping on a plane, taking books out of the library, etc. etc. So if you are compelled to show ID to vote (you still have the secret ballot), what's the beef about doing that? In many states who have passed laws on this matter, they have personnel that will come to your residence and provide you picture ID on the spot as long as you provide documents proving who you are. Back to Mr. Ruark, I guess those who are not part of the staff here still decide how they want to ID themselves as per the policy. I just don't see the problem, because opinions are opinions, and if they source those opinions, then all the better for our learning process.

COLLI August 19, 2011 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

There are obvious limits even to "Free Speech" e.g. you cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The reason is becuase of the potential for harm. Another thing to consider is that using Anonymous as an identifier implies that the speaker does not have the courage of his or her convictions, whether they do or not! Hank's point is well taken and I feel that this piece was well written and needed to be written.

Hank Ruark August 19, 2011 7:23 pm (Pacific time)

Simple truth overtakes both objections based on politicking: Makes a hell of a difference when you know who is speaking. Dialog is not elective action, doth not demand anonymity but does profit from information re speaker. Secret ballot was first designed to provide protection when needed. Your usage here reflects misunderstanding of the essential difference, reflecting also on recent behavior of others who share that misunderstanding, basically revealing reliance on aggressive confrontation vs friendly compromise, in itself reflecting a wise mutual journey to consensus --which may well be what the Founders had in mind !

Anonymous August 19, 2011 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

Good question: "SO NOW HOW-and-WHY should "anon" or "single-name/NO ID" be further allowed on any truly responsible communications channel?" Also why should we have the secret ballot? If you agree with the principal of the "secret ballot," then what's your take on unions asking to see how you vote on matters of joining a union? Considering that unions are the biggest political cash contributors (approx. 95% to democrats), why should they be allowed to trample on our First Amendment rights? Just go to the Federal Elections Commission to verify the union cash contributions. What really impacts our freedom more, someone making an anonymous comment, or some union thugs strong arming one's right to anonymity? No tough call on this one.

Mannix August 19, 2011 4:00 pm (Pacific time)

The First Amendment was never a right to be seen or heard nor was it ever a shield against laws that define the abuse of the freedom. Every state constitution makes provisions for government to define the abuse. See: http://federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

[Return to Top]

Flouting First Amendment
Sets System For Disaster

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News