Comments on: Separation of Press and State http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/separation_of_p_1.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: A.J. Sutter http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/separation_of_p_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-43399 A.J. Sutter Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:06:31 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/separation-of-press-and-state.html#comment-43399 Isn't there an obvious problem with the theory of Cardin's proposal: that in order to save free expression it would be necessary to curtail it? Moreover, your satisfaction with the notion that Internet outlets are equivalent ignores the the economics of ad revenue. Internet ads don't permit enough income to support the large journalistic staffs that made newspapers worth reading. It's also deeply troubling that you apathetically conclude "this seems like a situation where the market should be allowed to work its will." Even Harvard Business School professor John Quelch, who makes a bizarre argument in a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Greater-Good-Marketing-Better-Democracy/dp/1422117359/" rel="nofollow">recent book</a> that marketing is more "democratic" than US democracy, recognizes (in Ch. 8) that market forces have on balance not been pro-democratic in their impact on news media. Cardin's proposal is clearly flawed (and not-so-subtly designed to protect incumbent legislators). But your heightened solicitude for market values over democratic ones is very depressing to see in a law professor. Isn’t there an obvious problem with the theory of Cardin’s proposal: that in order to save free expression it would be necessary to curtail it? Moreover, your satisfaction with the notion that Internet outlets are equivalent ignores the the economics of ad revenue. Internet ads don’t permit enough income to support the large journalistic staffs that made newspapers worth reading.

It’s also deeply troubling that you apathetically conclude “this seems like a situation where the market should be allowed to work its will.” Even Harvard Business School professor John Quelch, who makes a bizarre argument in a recent book that marketing is more “democratic” than US democracy, recognizes (in Ch. 8) that market forces have on balance not been pro-democratic in their impact on news media.

Cardin’s proposal is clearly flawed (and not-so-subtly designed to protect incumbent legislators). But your heightened solicitude for market values over democratic ones is very depressing to see in a law professor.

]]> By: A.W. http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/separation_of_p_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-43398 A.W. Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:19:28 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/separation-of-press-and-state.html#comment-43398 Well, there is no constitutional value here. The establishment clause applies to religious freedom and not freedom of expression. So if the government says "Catholicism is better than protestantism" that is a constitutional problem, but if it says "capitalism is better than communism" it isn't. And i don't take you as disagreeing with that point. I think policy-wise, i agree about 100% with your thinking. Well, there is no constitutional value here. The establishment clause applies to religious freedom and not freedom of expression. So if the government says “Catholicism is better than protestantism” that is a constitutional problem, but if it says “capitalism is better than communism” it isn’t.

And i don’t take you as disagreeing with that point.

I think policy-wise, i agree about 100% with your thinking.

]]>