Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a 1787 letter to Edward Carrington, that if he had to choose between, “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
That statement, and the sentiments behind it were undoubtedly the basis for the First Amendment prohibiting the federal congress from making any laws restricting freedom of the press. From day one America has relied on the fact that the federal government could not censor the press as one of the vital checks on government. It was reasoned that a free press would always be a source of true information with which a free people could resist governmental abuse. States could still outlaw certain ideas, but some disgruntled citizen could start up a paper in a neighboring state and still get that voice heard, so such censorship was rarely tried.
That was our system, and it served us well in the early days of the republic. With the invention of electronic media, however, the benefits of a free press were slowly lost, not to big government control, but rather to control by the rich and powerful. How a truly free marketplace of ideas works and why it is such a boon to society is, as a result, almost lost to our modern minds. There is a way we could recover that free marketplace of ideas, and ironically enough, it entails using our high tech communication capabilities in a new and revolutionary way. The proposed solution, one to which other societies have turned in time of crisis, is to establish a true public forum.
The genesis of this concept was a 1971 article in “The Berkeley Barb,” an alternative newspaper at that time in the San Francisco Bay area. That opinion piece called for us to establish a kind of instantaneous democracy where all the people could instantly vote on every issue using modern technology. The idea of instantaneous electronic democracy was immediately rejected as being inherently subject to demagoguery and emotional manipulation of the masses. The idea of harnessing our modern high-tech communications technology to erect some kind of true public forum, however, intrigued and inspired many, and the concept has been getting refined ever since. We will look at the nuts and bolts of how we can set up this forum, which has been dubbed “The Open Media,” after a brief look at how our government has failed to finesse media law into producing such a forum, and why that failure is so important.
In the beginning of the nation there were a seemingly unlimited number and variety of newspapers. They were relatively inexpensive to get started, and if what the publisher was printing found an audience, even a small profit could keep the presses running. As a result almost every voice was heard.
That started changing with the invention of the telegraph in the 1840's. Almost immediately some enterprising newspapers laid their own telegraph lines from places like Washington DC to New York. The papers that did so could have much more up to the minute news than their non-telegraph competitors. Consequently they sold more papers. With that (much) larger circulation they could charge more to their advertisers and could then charge less for the papers sold on the streets. Better news at less expense drove most of the competition out of business, and those who survived did so by affiliating with one of the national wire services. The number of newspapers started to decline, and most disturbingly the surviving papers had in common that they were either owned by or beholden to the wealthy classes. The free marketplace of ideas started to become muted or even snuffed out in some places.
Into this mix came the new inventions of radio and television. Due to the fact that both of those broadcast mediums used the relatively limited resource of bandwidth to broadcast on, the number of voices heard in the public square was once again diminished, and once again, the voices that were heard tended to be those controlled by the wealthy.
Even as early as the 1920's, a thinking person could see that the emerging electronic media, radio with television on the horizon, could so powerfully influence the hearts and minds of the people that if we didn't find a way to ensure they contained a free marketplace of ideas, they would jeopardize our entire way of life. A hundred years and many technological advancements later we still don't have that free marketplace of ideas, and our society and our way of life are indeed in dire jeopardy. This is probably the single biggest cause of our current national dysfunction, and it is one the founders did not foresee. Indeed, they probably could not have foreseen it.
“The Fairness Doctrine” was a policy enacted by the FCC in 1949 which attempted to ensure that the electronic media of the day, radio and television, would bring controversial subjects to the public's attention and do so in a way that ensured all sides of a controversy got a full hearing. The Fairness doctrine was abandoned as an unworkable failure in 1987. The fact that it was a failure is fairly easy to demonstrate.
Rush Limbaugh rose to national prominence as a radio talk show personality immediately after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. With the changed policy he could then take openly partisan views and didn't have to offer opposing opinions, so he cleverly took advantage of the new media environment. Love him or hate him, it has to be admitted that he attracted a huge audience. Those of us around at the time know what happened. He was like a breath of fresh air, saying things with which many folks agreed (I disagreed with much, but not all, of what he said.) but that hadn't previously been heard on the public airways.
That then is the proof that the Fairness Doctrine failed. Limbaugh's immediate success at attracting a huge audience because he brought forth a previously unheard point of view is proof that the Fairness Doctrine had not successfully encouraged the media to produce that fabled “free marketplace of ideas.” Even if you hate his point of view, it is undeniable that his point of view, a point of view shared by many millions of people, was not allowed to be voiced under the Fairness Doctrine. Therefore the Fairness doctrine was a failure at producing that free marketplace of ideas.
Even though the advent of the internet offers the promise of a free marketplace of ideas, the reality as it has developed is that so few monopolistic big tech companies control such a large share of the internet, and openly engage in censorship, that that fabled free marketplace of ideas has yet to materialize. In fact, most of the discussion about media law these days is trying to figure who to censor and why. Mis- and dis-information must be squelched, don't you know? It should be obvious that an intelligentsia engaged in fighting disinformation by rationalizing censorship can not simultaneously be engaged in establishing a free marketplace of ideas. It is time we took a couple of lessons from the ancient world.
In Athens, while they were under siege from Sparta, out of desperation the ruler Pericles set up a public forum open to all free males as an attempt, one must assume, to generate new ideas and to strengthen the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the people. It worked quite well. Athens survived the war and we still benefit from the thinking that came out of that small (50,000 people) community. Names like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle came to prominence during the resulting Golden Age of Pericles, and it all grew out of the establishment of a true public forum.
The second lesson we should learn from history is also from the ancient Greek world, specifically ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great. When confronted with the Gordian Knot, a knot of rope tied so intricately that no one could figure out how to untie it, and yet only the one who could undo it would be considered worthy to rule that city, Alexander simply drew his sword and cut it in two. Problem solved.
In that same way we should consider what a century of trying to finesse media law in hopes of generating a free marketplace of ideas has accomplished, which is a big fat nothing. Our present morass of regulations, algorithms, shadow banning, disinformation, censorship and cancel culture are simply too great a knot of issues to untie. So we should instead follow the example of Alexander the Great. Rather than continuing to try (and undoubtedly failing) at finessing the media market into producing that fabled free marketplace of ideas, we should simply use our system of government to cut through the morass and directly set up a public forum ourselves. That is what the Open Media Amendment will accomplish. What follows is what it will look like, how it will function, and how we can get it established.
The Open Media Amendment
The Open Media Amendment is a proposal to establish a national public forum on electronic media. Two aspects of the Open Media ensure that it will be a true public forum. First of all, everyone would have an equal opportunity to participate (be heard and seen) on the unedited, uncontrolled live web stream forum. Second, every one who is a part of the designated audience (more on that in a bit) gets to vote on the participants, and those participants who receive a majority vote get another opportunity to participate on the forum. So the basic concept is simple; everyone gets a chance to be heard, and the people as a whole get to decide who gets another chance to be heard. What's most exciting is that we can eventually do this on a nationwide basis, using our high tech electronic capabilities.
Right off the bat, some will rightly object to the words “designated audience”. That must mean some are excluded, right? No, it does not mean any will be excluded, but to explain that improvement on the basic concept, we must back up a step. The first obstacle to be overcome is the numbers of people the forum must accommodate.
In a nation of roughly 350 million people, using quick and sloppy math, if everyone got just 10 seconds on their first opportunity on the forum, it would take more than 100 years, running the forum 24/7 for an entire century. Most folks wouldn’t live long enough to ever get a turn. And ten seconds? That would hardly be conducive to developing well reasoned debate, or truly hearing out those with something important to say.
So the first major improvement on the basic concept, an improvement intended to make it workable (and there will be more of such modifications to the basic concept) is that we set it up with local forums, where everyone can get that first chance, then state forums for the top winners, and then that all important national forum for the state winners.
It would be set up like a never ending national high school basketball tournament. Most folks wouldn’t follow every speaker in every podunk town, just as the small town teams in a mythical national high school basketball tournament wouldn’t get much notice, at first. However, as some new thinker won in the qualifying rounds, they would gain increasing notice as they earned a national hearing. In this way the Open Media would amount to an ongoing national political debate, with the winners being determined not by the elite at Harvard or in Hollywood or New York or Washington DC, but rather by a vote of the people.
With that in mind, let’s start filling in some of the details of how the Open Media would actually work, and why it belongs as a new amendment to our Constitution.
The material requirements for a forum would not be great. A web site or two for every locality is all it would take. If it takes thousands of web sites, we would not find that an insurmountable obstacle, not in this age of information. There will be more about the logistical and legal requirements of the Open Media in a later section.
Every local participant is guaranteed two minutes when their turn comes up, and by design this should be approximately every two years, so the opportunity is seen as a precious one, not to be squandered by acting a fool. While on the forum, the participant is live streamed on the web, with no editorial control. It is all recorded and cached for future reference and viewing.
While on the forum, the participant can say anything they want. No editorial control, and not having to answer to charges of slander or liable or indecency or hate speech or anything. Just like a member of congress while speaking on the floor of the legislature. That privilege is extended to congress people to ensure a truly free and open debate. We must extend it to forum participants for the same reason. That is also one of the prime reasons this must be done by constitutional amendment.
While anyone can watch any local webcast, only the people who live in that area can vote in that local election. (That’s what is meant by the “designated audience“ phrase from earlier). That vote determines two things. First of all, any person who receives a majority of the votes gets more time on the local forum. Those who don’t receive a majority of the votes go back in the line, if they so choose, and have to wait another two years to get on the forum again.
Voting is by website or phone, with PIN authentication. There is allowed only one vote, per viewer, per participant, per opportunity on the forum.
Winners get another opportunity to speak on the live forum webcast the next week.
When on the forum for a second or subsequent appearance, the participant once again gets to speak to the citizenry in an unedited and legally non-indictable way. Once again, every time one participates on the forum, the people in that area get to vote on the presentation, and those who win a majority of that vote get another appearance on the forum in the near future.
In addition to determining who gets more time on the local forum, the vote determines which presenter won the most votes that week. That local winner then gets a turn to appear on the statewide public forum.
On the state forum, winners from all over the state get to present to a statewide audience. Once again it is a live, unedited and uncontrolled webcast, recorded and cached for future referral. Everyone in that state is eligible to vote on that state forum, and that vote determines the same things that the local vote did. Those participants who win a majority of the state vote get another opportunity to appear on the state forum. Those who lose at the state level have to go back to their local forum, where they have one more slot reserved to appear on the local forum. No one can have more than one slot, on all forums combined, at one time. Each person is eligible for only one local, state, or national slot at any one time. The participant who gets the most votes at the state level gets an opportunity to appear on the national forum.
On the national forum, the same rules hold. The participants get to make their presentations on a live, unedited and uncontrolled nationwide webcast. All the people in the nation get to vote, yes or no, regarding each participant, and that vote determines which participants get more time on the live nationwide public forum. Every time a person is on, there is another vote, and that vote is the only control on the presenter. The people as a whole are the only editorial control on the presenters, since the people decide who gets more time on the forum.
There is no upper limit to the number of appearances any particular person can make on the national forum, so it is likely that someone with a popular idea which challenges the powers of the ruling elite will continue to get more appearances until either a new law is passed, or some other way of addressing the issue is found. This same phenomenon would hold true on the state and local forums as well, since some issues are of only local or state concern.
If, either in the future or even at this time, it is seen that some kind of world wide forum is feasible, then the person receiving the most votes in the national forum would win a slot on the worldwide forum. Needless to add, one might hope, is that the same rules of the forum would apply on a worldwide forum, which is why a worldwide forum might not be possible at this time. Many nations would be loathe to allow uncontrolled speech on public media.
Advantages of an Open Media
Before going on to consider some additional modifications to the basic concept of the Open Media, let’s look at the many strong reasons this kind of public forum is such a good and timely idea right now, and how it might empower us to find solutions to our many problems.
First and foremost, once the Open Media is up and running, the mythical little every man, whoever she is, comes to think that they themselves, and their ideas, might be worth something someday. They would then be likely to take themselves and their thinking more seriously.
That kind of change in perspective on the part of the little people could be the start of a revolution, and so a revolution is what to call it. In fact, technically speaking, an open forum of this sort is definitely a necessary part of any true revolution that might be made; but it might also be the sufficient cause of a modern revolution.
Let’s unpack that last statement a minute, as it contains a couple of technical terms from philosophy. One good definition of “revolution” is this: Take an honest look at history, figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it. Figure out what we did right, and do more of it. Then carry on.
With that definition of revolution in hand (and can you really call some episode of violence that doesn’t end with a truth filled dialogue revolutionary, or can you question that a time of honest dialogue is revolutionary, even if it wasn’t arrived at with violence?) think about an Open Media in operation. Wouldn’t it, at least potentially and probably in truth, result in that kind of revolutionary dialogue? That is the necessary part. Some kind of honest and truth filled dialogue is necessary for a true revolution.
Moreover, an Open Media might be a sufficient cause of a true revolution, which means that it might be the only thing we would need for one. A true public forum like this would be a way to express new ideas, and it would be a way to seek justice. With an Open Media established, those who have been subjected to injustice would have a means to bring their issues to the public mind. Corrupt police officers, corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt churches, mosques or temples, corrupt corporations and industries, environmental offenders, corrupt insurance companies, and the multitude of other oppressors, grand and petty, could no longer rest assured that their crimes would never see the light of day.
An Open Media might not change everything on day one, but after a couple of good old boy malefactors and bullies were found out, and lost, either in later court actions, or just in the court of public opinion, we would undoubtedly see a reduction of injustice. In short, an Open Media might be the only thing an aroused populace would need to affect an on going revolution. At the least, an Open Media could give us a way to keep the masses aroused and informed; which by itself is revolutionary. There is nothing a tyrant fears more than an aroused populace.
Imagine that, a high tech communications tool being used, in this time of high tech communication, as a necessary and sufficient cause of revolution. With this Open Media Amendment ratified, with a true public forum up and running in this nation, the sky would literally be the limit to what we the people might do with it. It might work so well, with so many benefits, that it launches us and the world into a new golden age.
A true public forum as the way to initiate a golden age in a culture has been done before. The Golden Age of Pericles, mentioned earlier started when King Pericles set up a public forum in the Acropolis and produced some truly great thinking. Athens had only 50,000 people at the time. Consider what might happen if all 350 million Americans, of every race, ethnicity, religion, class and gender, were engaged in a similarly free and yet orderly forum today.
It is almost impossible in our sad times to do so, but take a moment to imagine what society might do with this kind of freedom. What would you say on the forum? How many good ideas, about medical care, or race relations, or education, or how to ensure jobs in an age of robots, or how to build a just, clean, and peaceful society would emerge if the rich and powerful couldn’t silence good ideas?
Now, think about what it would be like if this forum actually continued for a while; that those same rich and powerful interests couldn’t kill it. What might our nation be like if all the little people come to expect a chance to actually be heard? If no one can be silenced, the odds for all kinds of justice really do increase a lot. Most forms of oppression depend on being able to silence the victims.
Then consider another point. What would a free, powerful, aroused and angry citizenry do with these tools; to strengthen freedom and self government, for today and for far into the future, if we put our minds to it.
Just imagine what might happen if someone, like Tom Paine, or Thomas Jefferson, or anyone with that Spirit of ’76 flowing in their veins, was able to get their hands on our modern technology. Let them behold what the oligarchs have done to the people, and to the spirit of liberty, lo these past 150 years. Then let’s do what those patriots would do; pick up these modern tools, and that old flag again, and use them the way our Creator intended: to establish liberty and justice for all. We start that process by taking that flag, that old tattered and disparaged flag, and using it the way it was intended to be used; which is jamming it down the throats of those who would enslave us, and making them like it. That, in a figurative way, is what ratifying an Open Media amendment could do.
It would be a process of us standing up and creatively and peacefully (and constitutionally) using our technological capabilities the way they should be used; to empower ourselves, amplifying our free voices and freeing our public mind. With an Open Media thus established, we could proceed confidently as a free people in to the future, well able to deal with all the other problems that our emerging planetary culture and our on-growing technical capabilities might bring us.
Another benefit of the Open Media would involve just that; our on-growing technological revolution. A great deal of the industrial revolution has been and is being generated by the system of patents initiated by the founders in Article I, sec.8 (8) of the U.S. Constitution. Our patent system has worked very well over the years, perhaps too well. It has been said that our most pressing modern challenge is that our technological powers have outrun our moral and ethical thinking, allowing the technology to be as much a threat and burden as it is a blessing. The Open Media would help very much in that regard, as it would function like a social and cultural patent office, encouraging orderly social innovation and allowing our moral thinking to catch up to our technological capabilities.
Additionally, an Open Media could provide a way to have a slow motion convention for the enactment of new constitutional amendments. Instead of a single convention, which could easily be co-opted by our beloved oligarchs, the Open Media could be used to raise the thinking of the people, mobilizing them politically and empowering them to open doors that the academic, media, judicial, bureaucratic and political elite simply won't open, but that they could no longer keep closed. Someone advocating for a new solution would be able to get that concept out, over and over even if it was opposed by some very powerful interests. As long as the people voted to hear more, it could not be silenced.
Thus, ideas and concepts raised on the Open Media could easily become movements to ratify new amendments, and those movements could, with the Open Media up and running, become unstoppable, This would be far safer course than an Article V convention ( a flawed process which could easily be used against us). That’s why it is appropriate to present it as an alternative to such a convention.
One final point regarding the benefits of an Open Media. Some might object that folks would simply be too apathetic to tune in, vote, and make it work. That might be somewhat true, at least at first, and on the local forums. However, as we worked up to state, and especially that nationwide forum, public interest would probably grow immensely. Once some truly radical thinker had won in Texas, or California, and was slated to appear next Tuesday, many would watch. If that same radical thinker won another round, your interest would increase, even, or maybe especially, if you disagreed with their thinking. We would all feel compelled to participate in a dialogue in which we could really influence the course of our nation. The Open Media would be truly dramatic and very entertaining.
Why an Amendment?
Leaving the potential benefits of a true nationwide public forum for future discussions and imaginings, we should focus for a section on how utterly appropriate it is for the Open Media to be established by way of a constitutional amendment.
Harking back to the beginnings of our republic, the reason behind establishing third class postage, which has much lower rates than first class, is because it was seen that an informed populace was indispensable to a healthy republic. The people simply had to have access to newspapers, journals, and other forms of information, so it was decided to subsidize the costs of mailing such literature. These days third class postage is still used for that purpose, in addition to being used to send ridiculous amounts of junk mail. So it would be in the finest traditions of our nation to use the amendment process to establish this electronic national forum, and to have the costs (there would be some relatively minimal costs) be paid by the federal government. There will be a more in depth discussion of the costs in the next section, which will also detail more of the modifications needed to make this concept workable.
The second reason that this concept should be an amendment is because some localities definitely will not want to have a free forum in their area. This will usually be due to the local establishment not wanting their actions held up for public examination. Consequently, the localities most objecting to a true public forum are probably the ones most in need of one. This is perhaps the most important reason we should use our constitutional process to establish a true public forum.
Another major reason the Open Media should be a constitutional amendment is because the participants really do, like members of congress, have to be exempt from libel and slander laws while speaking on an official platform. It is the only way to ensure a free and open debate. Without these exemption, a single individual could easily be intimidated into silence. Some wealthy group or corporation could sue for slander, and even though they had a weak case, the phalanx of lawyers they could bring to the effort would simply bankrupt the little person before the trial was even held. Establishing the Open Media by constitutional amendment would render those exemptions instantly lawful, protecting the little people from corporate intimidation.
While this might give some pause, since it would allow hate speech and even threats to be uttered, consider this. Even if someone gets up and spouts hate, think of how therapeutic it would be for that individual, and society in general, when that speaker loses by a very lopsided margin. The hater would realize he or she is in a distinct minority, and the rest of us will realize that we really aren't like that.
On the other hand, if the hate spout-er gets a positive response, that would also be good. Maybe they present a point that should be considered. Or, if not, isn't it better for the larger society to know that pockets of hate still exist, rather than to force those same pockets to stay hidden and festering, to eventually come out as violence? I say we must always believe in open debate and freedom as the best way to grow and heal as a society.
Another reason hate speech and threats should not be seen as much of a problem with the Open Media is because every participant on the Open Media would be required, every time they are on, to present a current photo of themselves along with their name and hometown. But this segues in to the next topic, which is modifications to and improvements on the basic concept.
Modifications and Improvements
As mentioned, the first modification to take note of is that no one will be anonymous while presenting themselves on the Open Media. This is not to control content in any way, but rather to ensure that no one is anonymous, which is a real good way to balance the fact that they can say, or do, anything while presenting.
That's right, “do” is also included when allowing for absolutely free expression with no editorial control. Some folks are maybe not so articulate, but would like to present a painting, or sing, or dance, or play a video they have created. All of that would be acceptable, but to ensure that no one is operating in an anonymous way, the first and last five seconds of every presentation would be required to show that persons name, face and hometown.
Another modification that should be made to the basic forum is to recognize that some ideas might generate much more enthusiasm and public support than others. The best way to take that factor into account would be some sort of sliding scale allotment of time on the forum, based on margin of victory in the vote, and the number of overall votes. As the forums got bigger, fitting all the winners in every week could become difficult if not impossible, so the sliding scale would determine how soon a presenter got on a particular forum again (based on the amount of overall votes) and how much time the participant was allotted (based on margin of victory). That way someone who won the vote 200-3 would get more time, sooner, than someone who won 4-3. Every winner would get more time, at least two minutes, but ideas which generated a lot of public interest would get on sooner, and ideas which appear to be wildly popular would get more time, sooner, than other ideas. If an idea gets a lot of public interest, but a lot of opposition, it would get on again sooner, but not get a lot more time. Say a vote of 305- 297 is recorded. The winner would get two minutes on the next weeks forum.
That brings up the amount of time that would be provided by the various levels of the forums. It would be wise for the amendment to call for an original minimum allotment of time on each forum, with more time reserved for the winners each week. Along the lines of sixty minutes for each level each week, so there would be thirty presenters the first week locally. The second week another thirty locally, with thirty at the regional or state level. Each week the next level forums could be filled, and then time provided to last weeks winners. If the Open Media proved to be popular, with a growing audience and more folks wanting to participate, it should have the ability to be expanded.
If any readers have done the math, they would realize that a local/ state/ national setup would still not provide enough forums to accommodate 350,000,000 participants. So another modification to the original concept would be that the national high school basketball championship model would have to be followed even more closely. If every high school in the nation were to be included, there would have to be way more than three or four levels to the tournament. In the same way, a true national public forum would have to have at least twelve or thirteen, or maybe more levels to be workable. Each of the local forums would be set up to reflect the population, so that everyone in the nation has an equal chance to be heard and advance toward the national forum. Maybe based around congressional districts, or even smaller, more numerous divisions.
We would have to discuss and agree on how many levels, because while we would want all to have a chance to be heard, we would want the opportunity to be rare enough to be seen as precious. The equation to handle the numbers and consider how many levels of forums we should have is as follows. 350 million divided by 60 (per week, 2 min and two hours a week) divided by 104(two years of weeks)
What's more, that 350 million figure includes many young children,and a lot of other folks that either wouldn't want to participate as a presenter, or young children whose parents might veto the idea. After a short time in operation we would have a much more clear idea of how we can set up this nationwide electronic public forum.
This brings up the issue of paying for the forum. First of all, the entire expense should be borne by the federal government, which is another reason it belongs as a constitutional amendment. Second, the cost really should not be that high. Mostly it would involve designating websites, which are almost free these days. The real expense of a web site is the software to run it, and the servers to serve it. As far as the software to run all these forum websites, that can and should be open and transparent boilerplate software, written by the federal government, identical for every website, and plugged in to each web site. After that the only real expense, and it might become significant if the Open Media becomes popular, is to provide the servers. However, if the provision of servers does become expensive, that would be a wonderful problem to have, because it would mean the people are becoming aroused and engaged citizens of the republic again.
As a slight aside, since we have all this basically unused or misused internet capability, we could eventually go with two full forums, one based on geography, which has already been detailed, and another based on interests. That way, if some one is living in a part of the country where very few agree with their ideas, they might still get their voice heard. That is just a suggestion at this time though, so we can't allow it to distract us from the main narrative.
Another stipulation that must be added to the basic concept is that everyone who signs up for a slot on the forum must be allowed to have their allotted time. Even if they are in jail or prison. Also, while those in prison are not allowed to vote in usual elections, they must be allowed to vote in these forums, since we want every voice to be heard, and since these votes would not enact any new laws or put anyone in office. This is especially true for those presenting, since we would not want to allow some corrupt local government to be able to silence the voice of someone with whom they disagreed by arresting them just before their turn came up.
It is almost certain that further modifications and improvements will be incorporated into this concept as we give it serious consideration, but at this point it is time to start calling for a new amendment to our Constitution. Wow, a new amendment to try to solve our problems. Where have we heard this before? This one is different though, because this one could enable us to find our way to all the other reforms our nation needs.
Basically, this forum, this Open Media Amendment, is proposed as a way for our free nation to deal with the challenges that an emerging one world culture, and all the turmoil new technology is causing our culture. Instead of responding to the turmoil by trying to figure out how to control what is expressed,(setting up some kind of Ministry of Truth) and thus allowing our great freedom to threaten us, we must realize the solution lies in the other direction; in fighting confusion and misinformation by empowering the voice of freedom. Instead of figuring out who to censor, let’s just ensure that at some point, some public forum, freedom can prevail and every one can say whatever is on their heart. Additionally, the people as a whole get to decide where that discussion goes. The people speak, and the people direct the conversation. That is the way, ensuring that the people have a real voice in forming public opinion, that we can work our way out of this morass.
The great cause of our turmoil and social morass is also its most obvious symptom; We have no agreed vision about where we are going as a nation. Our present national confusion and division is caused by, in fact cultivated by, a powerful elite class using their control of almost all the means of communication (media, big tech, education) to accomplish that odious goal. The obvious best response the people can use is to empower the people to generate their own information in an orderly, rational and meaningful manner. Then the truth can come out and the lies will be found out. All should be in favor of this, all that is who actually believe that what they advocate for is true and would win the day in a free and honest debate.
The movement to enact an Open Media amendment will necessarily not proceed in isolation, but will be most likely to succeed if we make it a critical part of a much larger agenda. What we really need is an honest, revolutionary wide ranging national dialogue about all of our problems, the proposed solutions and the real desires of the people. We could see a kind of Ready- Aim- Fire process.
Ready. Have that wide ranging revolutionary discussion. Even without an Open Media up and running, let's make the effort to understand and unite with each other, at least for the duration of this initial process.
Aim. Look at an order of reforms, what we should do first, second, etc. Some ideas/ solutions will open the way for others, so they come first.
Fire. Establish the Open Media first, because it will give us the means to tackle all the other issues, one amendment or reform at a time, in the order we have agreed on.
With the frustration and anger of the times, we might (if we don't fall to civil war, separation or tyranny first) unite in common cause and probably get one big thing. The powers that be will give that up if it seems that is the only way for them to hold on to everything else. If that one thing we force them to give us is an Article V convention, our reform movement will fizzle. The powers that be will fight like Brer Rabbit did to stay out of that brier patch. Only after we have committed to it will we see how comfortable they are in “conventions.” Then they will undoubtedly bamboozle us anew. The elites controlling the media, courts and education will be too big a barrier to real constitutional reform via an Article V convention.
Likewise, ending corporate personhood is another vital, timely goal, but will be just as big a battle to accomplish as opening the media. However, in the end it will not enable further change and would probably (because the elite would still control the zeitgeist) be reversed in a few short years.
If, on the other hand, we came together and united to demand that an Open Media is that one big thing, we could then have a real chance to win. That would give we, the people a way to affect, if not dominate, the zeitgeist. Then we would have a chance to bring up all those other revolutionary ideas and reforms, which the elites couldn't stifle. One of the first things we could do would be to end corporate personhood, but we wouldn't have stop there. It really could provide us with a means to conduct a slow motion constitutional convention, with none of the risks of an Article V convention, and more time to soberly consider the reforms that are proposed. Opening the media truly could give us a way to arouse the populace, and to keep ourselves aroused.
The reason that an Open Media Amendment can realistically promise such great rewards is that it aims at the heart of the overriding question of our time, which is will the powerful technology that we have developed be used to liberate or enslave the people. The Open Media Amendment is an agenda that will not only use our high tech capabilities to liberate all the people, but it will give us the means to continue to further liberate ourselves.
The interesting thing is that we can actually do such a thing today, while it might have been impossible just few short years ago. Also, we should heed the warning that this historical moment might pass, and we could decline into a totalitarian nightmare, where opening the media is not possible. It is understood that the Chinese character for “crisis” is a combination of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity”. We are in that kind of a crisis today, with an opportunity open to us at the same time great danger looms. Establishing the Open Media, TODAY, is our best hope of avoiding that totalitarian nightmare.
In conclusion let me make this one final point. I lived through the 1960's, and in fact came of age in that turbulent decade. The primary lesson of that decade, which not everyone learned but should have, derived from the political assassinations which marked that time. We saw that those who would lead us out of the political wilderness, such as John Kennedy, or Martin Luther King, or Bobby Kennedy probably become targets for an assassin's bullet.
The conclusion we must reach from that is that it is imperative that we, the people find a way to lead ourselves. God knows we have the technological tools to do so, but the question is whether or not we can find the determination to seize the tools and use them aright. Opening the media would encapsulate that revolution in one first step and provide us a way to continue it. The real question is if we, and that means you and me, can hold on to and spread this truth even if the media mind controllers are not spoon feeding it to you. That is the final question that will determine everything.
The real question is if we, and that means you and me, can hold on to and spread this truth even if the media mind controllers are not spoon feeding it to us. That is the final question that will determine everything.
