"Don't let our Constitution die" adThis is a featured page

The script and visuals for the ad were finalized on July 12-16; see threads here and on the getfisaright discussion boards.

Thanks to SaysMe.tv for all their help on this -- and the 20+ people who gave feedback and great suggestions here, in the discussion thread, and in email.

  • 1-5 The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • 6-10 On July 9, 2008, the Senate passed a bill to amend FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • 11-15 This new bill permits warantless wiretaps -- illegal searches -- with little oversight
  • 16-20 and mocks the rule of law by not holding telecom companies accountable.
  • 21-25 Don't let our Constitution die. Join us at getfisaright.net

The ad was covered in techPresident, on NPR, Wired, Slashdot, Third Pipe, and the National Journal.

The postscript


One version on YouTube had an additional postscript, a direct appeal from a member asking people to join us at getfisaright.net. Our plan was to do multiple versions of this over time, to take advantage of the diversity of people involved in Get FISA Right by appealing to different audiences; that hasn't happened (yet). There were sound quality problems with the original version featuring John Joseph Bachir, and so SaysMe.tv shot an alternate ending. Here's the script-in-progress for the first one:

Get FISA Right person:

Don't let FISA interfere with our constitutionally protected rights... That's the message we present in this ad.

I'm ___name___ from the Get FISA Right movement, and we'd like you to join us. With the FISA bill recently passed, making warrantless wiretapping legal and giving immunity to telecom companies, we need to get this on the air now.

shift to SaysMe.tv person:

And I'm ____other name___ from SaysMe.tv, and we're excited to be working with Get FISA Right to give you one more way to help.

SaysMe allows anybody to run ads on TV, with your name attached as the sponsor. It's an easy and extremely effective way to do something meaningful in the fight to keep our Constitution alive. With the battle continuing after the vote, it is urgent that we fight back and make sure everyone knows what's at stake.


shift back to the Get FISA Right person

Here's how it works. Go to the SaysMe application found on getFISAright.net. Just fill in some information, like when and where you want your ad to run, and you'll get to see how it will look on TV. You'll get an email with the air times you can forward to your friends, and you can ask them to run ads as well.

Please join us -- the time to act is now.

To run your own anti-FISA ad, and to find out other ways you can fight for freedom, join us at getFISAright.net.


JonPincus
JonPincus 		Latest page update: made by JonPincus , Nov 21 2008, 7:56 PM EST (about this update About This Update JonPincus add references and update history of the postscript - JonPincus

53 words added
15 words deleted
1 widget added

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
MooseOfReason Why does it say "Republicans" instead of "Senate"? 10 Aug 30 2008, 3:44 PM EDT by MooseOfReason
Thread started: Aug 21 2008, 2:16 PM EDT  Watch
I know it's been submitted for approval already, but why does it say "all the Republican senators voted to..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXgMUwlwazk

I mean, if the Democrats had all voted against it, the vote tally wouldn't be 69-28. It's not the Republicans' fault the bill passed.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
Show Last Reply
Moriji Framing 8 Jul 24 2008, 9:08 AM EDT by JRockett
Thread started: Jul 16 2008, 12:27 AM EDT  Watch
Hey guys, I'm new here. I've been involved with George Lakoff's work involving framing and asked for some feedback on the ad from someone who's studied under Lakoff recently. Here's what she had to say about it:

"The biggest problem with all the anti-FISA stuff is that they don't address the propensity of humans to adapt to a new state and take it on as a new reference point. (it's part of Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory, discussed by Lakoff in chapter 16 of Political Mind)"

"It means that we take the 4th amendment for granted so much that we've forgotten why it matters. So their job is to remind people that this hasn't always been the case."

"I also think that the tombstone humanizes the 4th amendment (empathy) but then, everyone dies. We have phrases like, 'All good things must come to an end.' But a bill shouldn't die. I guess that's the point they are making, but it also diminishes the bill. There isn't any one human who can protect every citizen, but the power of the Constitution is to protect every single citizen. I'd rather see that highlighted. But the fact that we take our privacy for granted is more important. "
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
Show Last Reply
lemondrift More clarity? 3 Jul 23 2008, 6:08 PM EDT by Anonymous
Thread started: Jul 15 2008, 4:40 PM EDT  Watch
How about this:
• 1-6 For more than 200 years, the Fourth Amendment has protected us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• 7-13 But on July 9th, 2008, the Senate passed a bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
• 14-18 This new bill would permit unwarranted wiretaps with little oversight
• 19-23 and telecom companies that enabled them will not be held accountable for breaking the law.
• 24-28 Don't let privacy die. Join us at getfisaright.net

And would it be too difficult at this point to add a little something to the visuals? I love what you have, but if the words "unreasonable searches and seizures" in a Constitution font could float across the screen when they are uttered, fading or shrinking to nothing as they move toward the base of the tombstone, I think it would make more clear where those words are coming from--or simply reinforce the point.

Then again, perhaps that'd be too busy.

I think the words "Don't let it die" work well on the screen, whether or not the audio clarifies what losing Fourth Amendment protections amounts to. I think "privacy" would boil it down pretty well.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
Show Last Reply

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

Showing 3 of 7 threads for this page - view all