Gov't want to legalalize Proaganda

[revelarts]

Gov't wants to do more propaganda than the MSM already provides via reporters just taking gov't notes and project mocking bird etc..




...NDAA 2012 CODIFIED INDEFINITE DETENTION. NOW NDAA 2013 LEGALIZES DOMESTIC PROPAGANDA.

What the Democrats and Republicans agree on is far more damaging and dangerous than the wedge issues on which they supposedly don't. We saw that last year with the enactment of Public Law 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012), which had bipartisan sponsorship and sailed through both House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan majority support. Now acceleratedly close on its heels comes H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA 2013), which glided through the House with broad bipartisan support on May 18 and is now in the hands of the Senate:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310) - GovTrack.us (http://tinyurl.com/6rt9xzt)

Attached to that bill is a bipartisan-sponsored amendment summarized as follows:

"Amendment No. 114 - Reps. Thornberry (R-TX) and Smith (D-WA): The amendment would amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (known as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to clarify the authorities of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information [propaganda] abroad and to strike the current ban on domestic dissemination of such material. The amendment would clarify that the Smith-Mundt Act's provisions related to public diplomacy information [propaganda] do not apply to other federal departments or agencies (including the DoD)."

H.R. 4310amdts: Amendments to H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov (http://tinyurl.com/6ndk8lr)

The full text of the amendment is assumed to be H.R. 5736, euphemistically labelled the "Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2013". You can read that here:

Full Text of H.R. 5736: To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize ... - GovTrack.us (http://tinyurl.com/7k98kqs)

Thornberry amendment to allow domestic distribution of propaganda - full text (http://tinyurl.com/7eqx3fl)

This amendment legalizes what many think the government has been doing for years anyway: using false propaganda to influence the decisions and control the minds of its own citizens. ...

[jimnyc]

I could be wrong, but I believe this is directed at information being disseminated abroad. In fact, here's a list covered by the original act:


Entities Covered by the Act The following are administered by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors), an agency of the US government.


Voice of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America), a radio and TV network broadcasting worldwide, outside of the US
Alhurra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhurra), satellite TV broadcasting to the Middle East
Radio Farda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Farda), a radio station targeted at Iran
Radio Free Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia), a radio network broadcasting in Asia
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty), a radio network based in Europe and the Middle East
Radio Martí (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Mart%C3%AD) and TV Martí (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Mart%C3%AD), a radio and TV network broadcasting in Cuba
Radio Sawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Sawa), a radio station broadcasting in the Middle East

No other department or agency of the US government is covered by the Smith–Mundt Act. The United States Agency for International Development and Millennium Challenge Corporation have said they are not sure whether they are covered.



Here's a link to the original act specified, which unless I'm reading wrong, pertains to propaganda to global audiences aka foreign countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act

[revelarts]

It's not the origianl law its the new amendment i'm pointing to here .
the amendment reads quote

Amendment No. 114—Reps. Thornberry (R-TX) and Smith (D-WA):The amendment would amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (known as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to clarify the authorities of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad and to strike the current ban on domestic dissemination of such material. The amendment would clarify that the Smith-Mundt Act's provisions related to public diplomacy information do not apply to other federal departments or agencies (including the DoD).

That us Jim, as in U.S..

There are are couple of the amendments to the NDAA that aren't all bad.
This aint one of um.

[jimnyc]

It's not the origianl law its the new amendment i'm pointing to here .
the amendment reads quote


That us Jim, as in U.S..

There are are couple of the amendments to the NDAA that aren't all bad.
This aint one of um.

You're still reading it wrongly. That portion just means it won't be banned here - as in there was a ban in place for the dissemination of FOREIGN BOUND propaganda. Now, with this change, FOREIGN BOUND crap will no longer be banned from being disseminated domestically.

Here, let the ACLU explain it better:


Throughout the country, many of us have rightly been long concerned about the danger of the government using taxpayer funds to covertly influence public opinion. This issue came up again recently as part of this year’s defense authorization bill, which passed the House of Representatives on Friday. Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) included an amendment that would remove an existing ban on the domestic dissemination of foreign-bound “public diplomacy” materials produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Reactions to the amendment have been mixed, with critics saying it would allow the government to pump “propaganda” into our own country. With only minor tweaks, however, the Thornberry-Smith Amendment is on balance a very good thing for free speech.

It is crucial to understand two things.

First, the current ban (which also exempts covered material from release under the Freedom of Information Act), has its origins in the red-baiting days of yore. Imposed by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the ban was motivated by fear of subversive elements at the State Department, which was seen at the time by many Cold War hawks as a Communist redoubt. When the first incarnation of the Smith-Mundt Act was introduced by Rep. Sol Bloom (D-IL), Rules Committee Chairman Eugene Cox (D-GA) decried giving the State Department the ability to engage in public diplomacy because it was “chock full of Reds” and the “lousiest outfit in town.” Although we should certainly be concerned about any arm of the government pushing a particular viewpoint on the American people (be it left or right), the absolute ban on Americans even accessing this material was an overreaction born of this kind of hysteria.

Second, the Thornberry-Smith Amendment contains an express prohibition on the use of any appropriated funds to “influence public opinion in the United States” (see new Section 208). Further, the amendment narrowly applies only to the BBG and the State Department, which both operate under existing checks on their authority that would prevent what we would consider “propaganda.”

The BBG is an independent entity that oversees outlets such as the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba. Its board is comprised of nine members. Eight (split four-four, Democrat-Republican) are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State serves ex officio. As an independent agency, the appointed members are legally insulated from White House pressure. The BBG also operates under a charter that protects objectivity and journalistic integrity. As applied by the VOA, the charter imposes a number of safeguards to prevent propagandizing. For instance:

• VOA operates under the two-source rule. No journalist may present information as fact without two corroborating independent sources (unless directly confirmed by the journalist).
• VOA has a “legal” obligation to present news accurately and in an unbiased fashion; and
• VOA explicitly requires journalists to present alternative opinions or responses when reporting on a charge or accusation by one group or individual against another.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-government-propaganda-bill-positive-step-first-amendment

[revelarts]

hmm,
I'll have to take a closer look at this. I may have been wrong here. something still doesn't seem right. thanks for the info.

[jimnyc]

I HOPE I'm right any you're wrong, not to win the "debate", but so that the freedoms are better, and protected from being used against us. So we'll be privy to all the material, and guaranteed it can't be funded to be used towards us. At least that's how I read it. I was somewhat aware of this amendment and knew I read the ACLU article.

Just to add, I have no problem with them devising cool plans to spread propaganda in other countries. That's kinda funny. And probably why any foreign countries report to like Obama, it's just the shit propaganda they've been reading! LOL