Campaign Finance

Selective Freedom of Speech on the Left and the Right


The other day I marveled at the inconsistency of left-liberal journalists who love the First Amendment when it protects their work but suddenly consider it not just optional, not just inconvenient, not just pernicious, but utterly outrageous when, as in Citizens United, it protects the speech of (nonmedia) corporations. Writing in the Boston Phoenix, civil liberties attorney (and Reason contributor) Harvey Silverglate likewise highlights "the rocky marriage between the political left and the First Amendment," asking, "What good is the First Amendment if it does not allow citizens, individually or organized as a corporate entity, to disseminate political speech (and in the case brought before the Court, a video broadside against Hillary Clinton) during an election cycle?" But Silverglate notes that the Supreme Court's conservatives are not consistent defenders of free speech either, making exceptions for "obscenity" and for such dire threats to public safety as a banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." "The right and left each has its own favorite form of speech deemed worthy of protection," he writes, "and the twain do not often meet."

Silverglate notes that Justice Samuel Alito voted in 2007 to uphold a high school principal's authority to punish a student for unfurling the aforementioned "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at an Olympic torch relay rally on a public street, even though the student came to the event on his own and was not under the school's supervision. But as an appeals court judge in 2001, Alito took a different view of a student who challenged his high school's harassment code, arguing that it inhibited his freedom to express his moral views on homosexuality by banning speech "which offends, denigrates, or belittles an individual" because of his "sexual orientation." Since there is no "harassment exception" to the First Amendment, Alito wrote for the 3rd Circuit majority, the code was unconstitutional.

Silverglate thinks Alito's politics explain why the homosexuality hater got more sympathy than the bong booster, and he may be right. But I think drug phobia, which afflicts liberal as well as conservative members of the Court, helps explain the outcome in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, where the vote was 6 to 3. The tally was the same in the 1995 decision upholding random urine testing of student athletes, which attracted the support of the ostensibly liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Alito's fear that "illegal drug use presents a grave and in many ways unique threat to the physical safety of students" is not limited to the justices commonly described as conservative. Nor is it true that the conservatives are always eager to uphold restrictions on speech that conservatives stereotypically do not like: The 1997 decision overturning the Communications Decency Act was unanimous. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy voted twice, in 1989 and 1990, to overturn bans on flag burning, while the supposedly liberal Justice John Paul Stevens (leader of the pro-censorship side in Citizens United) dissented from both decisions.

There is another possible explanation for Alito's apparent inconsistency in the two student speech cases. While the banner-waving student admitted his message was just a joke, the Christian student who considered homosexuality a sin was seeking to express heartfelt beliefs about a matter of public debate. In other words, the latter student's speech was closer to the heart of the First Amendment. I still think the school had no business punishing the kid with the banner, and I'm not sure Alito would have voted differently if the banner had said "Legalize Pot" or "End the War on Drugs." But there is something to the argument that the First Amendment is first and foremost—though not only—about political speech (which is also why conservative judges tend not to worry very much about the impact of laws aimed at pornography). And on that score the free speech inconsistency of liberals who supported McCain-Feingold looks worse than the inconsistency of conservatives who support obscenity laws.

In a 2007 column, I cited both campaign financial regulation and the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case to illustrate "the perils of making excuses for censorship."

NEXT: Chasing Salinger, Losing Youth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

    Marijuanna? That was my idea ya know.

    1. wow. Jesus really does love me:)

  2. Neither your school or your job should be able to punish you for anything you do away from their property and not on the clock.

    1. Preach it, brotha!

    2. To be honest your boss should be able to fire you for any and every reason. Even if it is trivial or nonsensical.

      1. You mean like if I were a Methodist and my boss hated Methodist hymns?

        1. Especially that.

      2. Preach it, TRhawk!

  3. I disagree with the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I think the school’s action was a terrible infringement on the autonomy of the family. The kid wasn’t in school. It is not the principle’s job to govern his behavior outside of school. It is his parents job.

    That said, the right to political speech is more important than any other form of speech. Just because the government can ban obscenity doesn’t mean it has to. As long as you have the right to political speech, you can petition your government to change bad laws. If you don’t have that, you don’t have anything no matter how much porn your overlords let you watch.

    1. the right to political speech is more important than any other form of speech

      Leaving aside the problem of defining what is and is not ‘political speech’, I have to disagree. Just because you want to talk about politics and I want to talk about sex does not mean that your speech deserves more protection than mine.

      I would guess that the number of people who have been damaged by repression of political speech and the number of people who have been damaged by the repression of sexual speech are comparable.

      1. The Court has moved away quite a bit from the old hierarchy-of-speech days. Except for the exceptions around commercial speech, the only real legal distinction left is protected and unprotected speech.

      2. What exactly *do* you want to talk about Aresen?

        It’s OK, we won’t judge.

      3. But if I can say anything I want politically, I can argue that obsenity laws should be loosened. Just because a law can be made doesn’t mean that it has to be made. The right to political speech is the bedrock of civil society. If I live in a world where I cant’ get porn, but can say what I want politically, I can try to change things. But if I dont’ have a right to political speech, I can’t even try to change anything. If you value porn more than you do your right to speak freely about the government, your priorities are seriously fucked up.

        1. Without porn, mankind will die off.

        2. John, there should be 3 classes of speech:

          1. Speech
          2. Fraud
          3. Libel

          That’s it. Anything else is just jerking off (no pun, I swear!) and inviting the statists to pigeonhole your speech into the “not allowed” category. See “Miller test.”

          1. Don’t forget Klingon. Nerds need freedom too.

            1. Never! They must be crushed!

              1. That is only because you want Romulan taught in all the schools.

                1. That’s bullshit, John. I want them to teach Organian.

                  1. I hear Organian keyboards suddenly get too hot to touch when you’re typing missives against the Obama.

                  2. Fuckin’ Organians! Goddamn pacifists!

                    1. Pacifists? You mean the guys with infinite power that just fuck with lesser species for kicks? Don’t tell me you fell for their “peace” propaganda. The Organians are all for a piece, all right. A piece of your revenues and a piece of ass.

            2. Hab SoSlI’ Quch!

            3. Just had a Trekkies flashback, where they had a course in Klingon at a convention. There was an uber-nerd, with full “Next Gen” Klingon headgear, and, oddly enough, three girls in the class. The nerd was singing songs in Klingon and sadly oblivious to the girls. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap him.

              1. BakedPenguin speaks Vulcan, which is the saddest thing of all.

                (sad face)

                1. Kroykah, Episiarch!!

                  Maybe I’m just jealous because my language skills suck. But my last attempt to learn a language helped me get one of the most attractive girlfriends I’ve ever had.

                  1. Jive is not really a language, BP. At best it is merely a patois.

                    1. Sucka, I know your trip. You be frontin’ for The Man.

            4. It is a good day to die, Episarch.

            5. Pro Libertate,

              Ensign Crusher and myself had another fine adventure together today. Perhaps you would like to hear about it?

              1. bans non-English speech.

              2. Ye gods, please no.

          2. So my publishing a pamplet criticizing the government is entitled to no more protection than my right to set up a all nude gay sex show with a guy in a G-string walking around in traffic handing out free drink coupons in front of a grade school?

            Things like zoning laws are forms of speech restriction. I would absolutely say that a town has a right to say, we are going to have a particular type of business but we are going to zone it to one area of town. If there is no difference between obsenity and political speech, you can’t do that. No one would argue that we are going to allow political speech but only in some parts of town.

            1. Sorry “Harry,” but yeah. The moment you start deciding on content what is good speech and what is bad speech, the game is over. Let the compartmentalizing begin.

              What if the all-nude-sex-show guy in a G-string out in front of the school is handing out pamphlet criticizing the government? Does that make a difference? Is the dress code really that important to whose speech is protected?

              1. That is a false choice. Free speech doesn’t mean that there never can be any standards of public decorum. The framers sure as hell didn’t mean that. Further, there are competing claims to the public space. I am sorry but I don’t see how telling you to take your strip club to one part of town so the rest of the town can have a certain quality of life is really infringing on your rights. And to the extent that it is, it is nothing compared to telling you what political views you can hold and where you can say them.

                1. John, I wasn’t talking about your zoning hypothetical.

                  I always thought the “stripping as speech” argument as rather silly. It’s a commercial activity and shouldn’t be banned either. If the nakidity makes you all tingly, go to church or kick a dog, or something.

                  1. We may actually agree. Take away the strip club example. Do you have just as much right to write a dirty novel as you do to write a political screed? I would have to say yes now that I think about it.

                2. “Quality of life” is a slippery slope that rationalizes all kinds of paternalism.

              2. Harry is John. And shit, John, seeing some sex won’t kill you or your children. Even if it’s goatse sex. It might horrify you, but it can’t hurt you. Except for seeing Steve Smith rape. THAT can hurt you.

                1. Harry is John.

                  Yes, I know. I just like putting things in quotes.

                2. I actually agree with you about that. I am just not sure that that is what the Constitution means.


                  1. I can do ya one better, Steve… I hired this one-eyed hooker one time, and she took off her eye patch and gave me a wink job. Only cost the taxpayers $75!

            2. “No one would argue that we are going to allow political speech but only in some parts of town”

              Free speech zones at the RNC Convention (set up by the state) put that theory in the dirt.

              1. And free speech zones on campus. And those things are bullshit. And they are a lot bigger deal than telling JW to move his gay strip club.

                1. telling JW to move his gay strip club

                  Hey! You said you wouldn’t tell!

                  That’s it John. You’re fired. Go dance at Stud Muffins for all I care.

                  1. That is okay. Steve Smith was my only lap dance customer and his credit card rarely cleared.

          3. So if Mr. KKK was to say that ‘Jews control the media’ is that technically libel because some media companies aren’t run by Jewish people? Or is it fair comment because many media companies are owned by Jewish people?

            Most ‘hate speech’ is based on lies of some sort, so are you saying that ‘hate speech’ should fall under libel?

  4. To me, it’s fairly obvious that talk about drugs IS political speech, quite close to the heart of the First Amendment. I agree that some liberal justices are likewise caught up in the drug war mentality.

  5. “The other day I marveled at the inconsistency of left-liberal journalists ”

    Why, it’s always the same with the progressives (I hate calling them Liberals!). One set of rules for them. One set of rules for everybody else. It should always be assumed. Marvel no more.

    1. it’s always the same with the progressives (I hate calling them Liberals!)

      And I hate calling them ‘progressives’, because what they are aiming for is a return to the days of the ‘God King’ with unlimited power over the lives of individuals and to whom they owe everything.

      1. Regressives?

        1. “If I’m supposed to fight and die for a word, then my word is poontang.”

          1. Isn’t that some sort of Canadian dish?

            1. Some of the best are…

            2. Depends on where you put the gravy and melty cheese.

              1. You all disgust me.

              2. I don’t know if I will ever think of poutine the same way again.

                1. Sorry, man, but it had to be said. You can find another cuisine, somewhere. I understand that haggis is now available.

              3. Be sure to pull out the cat’s teeth before pouring gravy over your vagina.

            3. What about eating the peanuts out of my shit? I think it’s Saskatoonian.

            4. Poontang, poutine… whatever baby, as long as it comes with cheese curds it’s all good.

              1. Sug, some of those “cheese curds” might mean it’s time for a trip to the friendly neighborhood gyno.

                1. That’s why I always bring my own cheese curds. Baby.

              2. Get your fresh organic smegma here. just two dollars.

      2. How dare you righties besmirch the word “progressive”! That’s just like you right-wingers! You hate America because you hate government, and vice-versa!

        Be sure to watch my show on MSNBC!

        1. No! Watch MY show on MSNBC! Ed Schultz is a poseur! He used to be a right-winger! You can’t trust him! My slice of cheese told me so!

          1. No no no!!! It is Chris Matthews whom you must watch! I say stupid shit at least once a week! But I’m a loyal liberal! And I forgot Obama is black!

            1. Obama is Swahili for Hitler, and I pooped myself.

      3. It doesn’t make sense to call them either “liberals” or “progressives”. The best thing I can think of is statists but that doesn’t really distinguish them from “conservatives”, whatever that means.

  6. Being liberal means never having the rules apply to you.

  7. John, you douche –

    Even leaving aside free speech, the state has no legitimate power to restrict the use of my property and tell me I can’t open a strip club.

    WTF, dude?

    1. You are arguing against zoning laws, which is a different subject than the First Amendment. And honestly, you may have a right to open a strip club. But I think you will have to pay your neighbors for any lost value of their property due to your activities. If you open a strip club on a cul-de-sac and the value of my house goes down and I have a problem getting into my driveway, you should have to pay me, even if doing so means your business is no longer viable.

      1. That’s idiotic.

        You have absolutely no claim to expect a certain market value for your property.

        You have a claim to the right to unfettered ownership and use, including the right to sell it. But you don’t have the right to expect any value, or to demand that I curtail the use of my property in order to raise the value of yours.

        The value of my property would rise if you were forced to give head daily to anyone who bought it. But that doesn’t mean that your refusal to give head to my property purchasers is some kind of actionable loss for me that I can use the power of the state to correct.

        1. So if you start a garbage dump on your land and the value of my property goes to zero because of your activities, I have no claim? It is called nuisance law. And it has been a part of the common law for about 500 years. Whether it is a strip club or cattle ranch, you are and should be responsible for damage your activities do to the value of your neighbor’s land.

          You are a lunatic fluffy.

          1. The value of my property would rise if every property between it and the Atlantic ocean were razed to the ground and restored to wilderness.

            But I have no right to expect all of those other property owners to be fucked out of their property for my benefit.

            The situation does not change if I build on my property FIRST.

            1. If your nuisance is there when I buy my property, you don’t owe me anything. But if I am already there and your activities harm the value of my property, you owe me for the lost value. Your stip club is creating the externality of my lost property value. You have to pay for that.

              1. Making the value of something go down does not equal harming it.

          2. John, you are a fucking lunatic. Unless the garbage dump is actually damaging your property, like making it smell, then you have no right to punish the garbage dump owners.

      2. You don’t get to sue me over hypothetical value, sorry. Your property is worth what the market will bear as the world is, not the imaginary world as you’d like it to be.

        1. Bullshit. If my house is worth 100K and you create a nuusance that reduces its value to $50K, you owe me fifty thousand dollars.

          1. If part of the value of your property was based on my property being vacant or not used, that portion of your property’s value was always stolen and you have no right to it. Period.

            You really aren’t much of a libertarian at all, John.

            If you have a property a half mile from the ocean and it has an ocean view, if I build on my own beachfront property and you can’t see the ocean any more and your property decreases in value, as far as I am concerned that’s too damn bad. The higher value of your property was always stolen from me to begin with. And the same applies to every other possible claim you might make to restrict my use of my property in order to enhance and maintain the value of yours. You’re basically decreeing that YOUR property is more important than MY property, and that’s bullshit.

            1. You don’t know much about property law. The beach example is not the same. The line of sight is actually a property value in itself. If I own the sight easement over your land, you can’t build into it because you don’t own the space above your land. If I don’t own it, you can build a 20 sotry building and block my view and that is too bad for me. That is a different issue than nuisance.

              But, if you build something on your property that creates a nuisance either through smell or increased traffic or whatever that reduces the value of my property, you should have to pay for it.

              You could argue that maybe the strip club isn’t a nuisance. Maybe it increases the value of my property in which case, you don’t owe me anything.

            2. And if you think that it is your right to infringe upon other people’s property rights at will, you are not a libertarian. You are just an anarchist.

              1. “Nuisance” as in noise I will give you. Increased traffic is bullshit though. I have an empty lot next to me. I dont want anything built on it, so when I get the cash, Im going to try and buy it. But if the owner builds on it, its going to increase traffic, even if by just 1 extra homeowner on my street. My property value may depend on that house, been thats none of my damn business and I knew that risk when I bought my house. The risk was already built into my price. Build A and my value shoots up, Build B and my value plummets, but both options were already built into what I paid.

              2. John, you do know that there is a difference between opening a strip club and infringing on someone else’s property right? Increased traffic does not effect the property you own, therefore you have no right to seek payment. A decrease in value when no physical harm has been done does not justify payment.

          2. So, who is everybody in California suing because their houses aren’t worth what they paid for them? You have no right to a future expectation of value. That is not a property right. Your right is in the property itself.

            1. You completely miss the point. It is not about a drop in market. It is about your actions on your property adversly affecting what the market value of my house.

              1. Like painting my house neon green?

                I dont live in an HOA, I havent agreed to any paint color rules. If I (or my neighbors) want to paint my/there house an obnoxious color, they have that right. It might piss them/me off, but they havent violated my property rights even if my property value drops.

              2. So if I’m the only person selling iPads, and then someone else comes along with a similar product, and then the value of my iPads go down, I can sue my competitor for lost value? Retarded, John.

      3. A natural part of the risk of owning private property is that outside influences may affect the perceived value of it. That doesn’t entitle you to compensation when the use of adjacent property changes.

      4. Traditional property law is not the same thing as what is right or wrong.

      5. A railroad merger is happening. All the yuppie homeowners within five to ten miles of the line are pissed off that train traffic will increase. Are they entitled to compensation? Should the government block the merger? Or should people actually be forced to accept the completely ludicrous expectation that trains will actually run on the tracks behind the house that they purchased? This actually happened in my area recently. The bitch-fest was entertaining.

  8. All speech is political speech.

  9. Further, there are competing claims to the public space.

    My strip club isn’t in the public space.

    The fact that it might abut public space is too damn bad.

    I am sorry but I don’t see how telling you to take your strip club to one part of town so the rest of the town can have a certain quality of life is really infringing on your rights.

    Because if I have property on this side of town, I have a right to use that piece of property for my strip club.

  10. BTW, I hope everyone will join me in boycotting the Superbowl this year.

    No matter how much fun it might be to watch Manning lose, CBS just sucks too bad.

    1. Why? What did CBS do?

      1. CBS approved an advocacy ad where Tim Tebow talks about how bad abortion is, but is rejecting an ad for a gay dating service because gays are gross.

        1. So what? It is a free country and they are a private corporation. They can chose to run whatever ads they want. You are free to not watch of course. I am sure they made the decision based on ratings and public perception. They don’t owe anyone a dime in lost profit to support their cause. And really can’t be blamed for acting in their business interest.

          1. I’m too busy boycotting the federal government. Besides, I’m a Florida alumnus.

            1. Besides, I’m a Florida alumnus.

              Now I know whats wrong with you.

              1. If it makes you feel any better, I used to work at The Ohio State University.

                Which, of course, I mocked regularly, particularly when it came to Their sports programs. And Their academics, for that matter.

                1. If it makes you feel any better, I used to work at The Ohio State University.

                  Nah, ThaTs just an additional layer of wrong. BuT aT leasT you mocked Them.

                  1. Also, on the football side, my alma mater is 23-9-6 all time vs UF.

                    1. Six ties? That’s sick.

                    2. I can’t figure out which school that’s supposed to be. I thought Georgia and Auburn were the only schools with a significant advantage in the W-L column.

                    3. Georgia Tech.

                      We dominated UF back when we were in the ess-eee-cee (spelled phonetically for graduates of SEC schools).

                    4. From perusing the records at, the 14 game lead GT has on UF is the largest lead any school has on the Gators. Georgia and Bama are both +7.

                    5. 1938, 1953 and 1957 were 0-0 ties. That is really sick.

                      1923, 1924 and 1979 were all 7-7 ties. So, not exactly shootouts.

                    6. I miss the tie.

          2. You are free to not watch of course.

            Isn’t that what I just said?

            I must have missed the part where I did anything but say I wouldn’t watch and asked others to not watch either.

          3. Eventually, the FCC will decide what gets on the public airwaves. It’s just a matter of time.

          4. I always liked what D. J. Hugley said about the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfuntion, All the Superbowl commercials are for beer and Viagra. If I’m drinking beer and eating Viagra, I’m gonna need to see a titty.”

          5. Except I think Fluffy’s whole point was a boycott, which is exactly what you call someone ‘being free to not watch’.

          6. I don’t see why you have a problem with Fluffy and Friends boycotting CBS.

        2. If Tim Tebow’s mom had used a gay dating service, she might not have become pregnant.

          1. Depends which kind of gay person she got, now doesn’t it?

            1. So if she got the type of gay person that can’t produce sperm, she wouldn’t get pregnant. On the other hand, she could’ve gotten the type of gay person who wouldn’t have sex with her.

    2. Fluffy and John-

      I’m with Fluffy on the strip club.

      However, Fluffy, what is your problem with Peyton Manning? I’m a Patriots fan who cannot stand the provincialism of my fellow New Englanders when it comes to things like appreciating the greatness of guys like Manning or Derek Jeter. In these here parts, if one asseverates that Peyton Manning is a great quarterback,one will frequently be greeted with a response like, “Oh and Tom Brady sucks?”

      Please don’t tell me its those commercials. My mother-in-law can’t stand Manning and she cites all of the commercials as reason no.1. She cites the ESPN commercial, several years old, where Peyton and ELi are with their parents at the ESPN offices. In the commercial, Peyton flicks his fingers and hits Eli and ELi pushes Peyton and then Peyton kicks ELi and when the parents turn around Peyton tries to blame the commotion on ELi. That’s just the schtick.

  11. Re. the joke vs. “heartfelt” speech distinction, I think that’s a really stupid and dangerous line to draw. The courts shouldn’t be the arbiters of what is and is not important to a given individual.

    1. Personally, jokes are very heartfelt and important. But that’s because they’re all that keep me from engaging more… directly, shall we say, in politics

  12. really, there is no right of free speech. There is only the right to act in a way that does not violate the property rights of others. I may put whatever restriction on your speech I care to as a condition for your remaining on my property.

    Government creates problems by 1)imposing limits to speech on private property (eg. possession of obscene materials, nude dancing, etc.) and 2) owning property. Everyone owns it, so everyone has a legitimate say in what kind of speech is allowed on the property.

    The solution, as it so often is, is less government.

  13. John, there should be 3 classes of speech:

    1. Speech
    2. Fraud
    3. Libel

    That’s it. Anything else is just jerking off (no pun, I swear!) and inviting the statists to pigeonhole your speech into the “not allowed” category. See “Miller test.”
    reply to this


  14. Like Lenny Bruce said, if you can’t say “fuck,” you can’t say “fuck the government.”

  15. The Democrats are throwing the ACLU, Amnesty International, and other liberal incorporated advocacy groups under the bus. The Republicans will drive the bus over them. It’s a bipartisan effort.

  16. The Democrats are throwing the ACLU, Amnesty International, and other liberal incorporated advocacy groups under the bus. The Republicans will drive the bus over them. It’s a bipartisan effort.

    The plan is (once they’ve disposed of those pesky Constitutional limits) to craft language in the statue which silences evil, profit-seeking, republican-backing, corruption-engendering, election-buying corporations but leaves the good, not-for-profit, democratic-backing, true-desires-of-the-electorate-expressing, grassroots-motivating corporations free to do their thing.

    And hope really, really hard that neither the text of the law nor its interpretation ever expand to cover their pet advocacy organizations.

    If you believe hard enough, you can save Tinkerbell.

  17. The feminist attorney Gloria Allred has attacked the free-speech rights of two corporations ? CBS and Focus on the Family. You see, CBS is planning to run a Super Bowl ad by Focus on the Family starring football star Tim Tebow and his mother. Mrs. Tebow was a missionary in the Phillippines when she was pregnant with Tim, and doctors there advised her to get an abortion, which she refused to do. Allred sent a threatening letter saying that she’ll report the ad to not one, but two federal agencies unless it mentions that abortion was a crime in the Phillippines at the time. Apparently, failing to mention the illegality of abortion in the Phillippines would make the ad “misleading,” warranting the attention of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

    Bear in mind that, as Allred acknowledges, she has not seen the ad and doesn’t know whether it will mention Phillippine abortion law. But she knows the relevant facts ? the prolifers are about to exercise free speech, and it’s time to stop them!

  18. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.