Republicans Rejoice (1 Viewer)

[laxster]

How in the world did you infer that from my post? How does my post make the government seem altruistic?

Your post doesn't make the government seem altruistic. But the unintended side-effect is that those in government could have possibly created this to keep dissenting voices out. The government is also an entity, with people in it having their own agendas. It must be kept in check.

How do they not have their say under what I suggested? I as an individual can say anything I want. Any corporation can say anything they want. Free speech is not restricted.

When you're taking away someone's means of speech or restricting the amount they can spend, you're restricting their speech. To refresh your memory on the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

McCain-Feingold specifically targeted TV ads. If you want to know what NRA's take on an issue is, you can easily connect to their website or call them or write them and they can provide you with their view.

You're still restricting their speech. It's difficult to let people know what an organization is without letting them spend money in public arenas in which ideas are exchanged (IE: television). The Constitution draws no lines about who this applies to, and it's clear this applies to all speech.

I don't like most corporations and I don't like most unions. But we can't legally limit their speech. How can anyone just ignore the entire first amendment when it's not convenient for their viewpoint? Why attempt to eradicate dissenting opinions because they have more money to play with?

Let the person with the best ability to communicate shine. Money is something, but not everything. Scott Brown spent significantly less than Martha Coakley, yet he still held a decisive victory, mainly because in the free marketplace of ideas his were the best.

 

[Adam Caramon]

When you're taking away someone's means of speech or restricting the amount they can spend, you're restricting their speech. To refresh your memory on the first amendment:

If the moderators on this site ban you, did they restrict your speech? Sure. Did they violate the 1st Amendment? No. If a law is passed that prevents advertisements to be sent via text message, did the law restrict the speech of the companies? Sure. Did they violate the 1st Amendment? No.

Freedom of Speech = You have the right to say what you want, and the government will not stop you from saying it. Trying to claim that blocking ads that contain 1 of 4 or 5 different words 60 days before a general election is quite a stretch.

You're still restricting their speech. It's difficult to let people know what an organization is without letting them spend money in public arenas in which ideas are exchanged (IE: television). The Constitution draws no lines about who this applies to, and it's clear this applies to all speech.

Says you. It's far from 'clear'. Did the government restrict the Free Speech of the tobacco companies when they were prevented from televising ciagarette commercials?

I don't like most corporations and I don't like most unions. But we can't legally limit their speech.

Same question as above.

Let the person with the best ability to communicate shine. Money is something, but not everything.

Let's say there was a statistic that showed that 75% of the time in an election, the candidate that spent more on advertising won, would you change your mind?

 

[Banana]

If the moderators on this site ban you, did they restrict your speech? Sure. Did they violate the 1st Amendment? No. If a law is passed that prevents advertisements to be sent via text message, did the law restrict the speech of the companies? Sure. Did they violate the 1st Amendment? No.

...

Trying to claim that blocking ads that contain 1 of 4 or 5 different words 60 days before a general election is quite a stretch.

To be explicit, the right to restrict speech, as provided in first example, stems from private property rights.

However, the second law seems to me to be at odds with either. If a mobile company want to run advertisements in their network, that's their rights to do so- they own the network, just for same reason a moderator has right to ban any poster.

Bandwidth is a bit more complicated because technically government regulates the bandwidth via FCC and companies must bid for a given bandwidth/region/whatever to have their towers & stations so a case can be made that bandwidth is public property and thus domain of government. Looking through this lens, government can then regulate what kind of content goes through "their" bandwidth by forcing the companies to comply with the contract granting them permissions to use those bandwidth but with conditions. Again, private property rights. (Whether one agrees if government really can regulate such is entirely other topic; the point here is that it's still a domain of private property rights in question of whether government can regulate the content).

Says you. It's far from 'clear'. Did the government restrict the Free Speech of the tobacco companies when they were prevented from televising ciagarette commercials?

Indeed, as explained above, government owns the bandwidth and therefore they can do whatever as they please with it just as Playboy can do whatever as they please with their publications because it's their property.

Want to take away the rights from corporation? Abolish corporate personhood then it has no standing and thus does not qualify for freedom of speech as well other amendments. Remember, corporation is a government privilege granted to those who apply for it and therefore this can be taken away. Unlikely that it'll happen as I do think that politicians and CEOs are very comfy together in the bed so they quite enjoy the reciprocal arrangement they have going on.

The irony? It's the everyone else that get fscked!

 

[statsman]

For those of us who live under the Parliamentary form of democracy, what occurred in Mass. is not that difficult to understand.

When a bye-election is held (an election for just one seat after the sitting member has died or resigned) it's not uncommon for the electors to reject the party that is currently in power (in this case the Democrats) as a signal to that party that they don't like the way they'e running the country.

The acid test will be if the Republicans hold onto that Senate seat during the next general election.

 

[Rich]

The acid test will be if the Republicans hold onto that Senate seat during the next general election.

The world hopes to Christ not

 

[Steve R.]

It seems to me that the US has degenerated to bread and circuses. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to have people who actually try to work on behalf of the American people.

I don't know if Brown is "good" or "bad", but he struck a couple of positive sound bites, the "people's seat". So will he really work in the name of the public interest? Who knows? Only time will tell.

What is interesting is that a few days after Brown's win, the New York Times published a disingenuous opinion piece remarking on the stupidity/lack of knowledge of the Massachusetts voters. A commentator to this ridiculous article responded, "Weren't these the very same voters who were considered smart/informed by the Times when they voted for Obama!"

My main interest in responding, both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be trying to out-do each other with grandiose tax-cut proposals. But neither party seems to be really willing to disclose in any detail what government programs/services will really be cut. But my biggest visceral reaction is when Republican now call for fiscal responsibility. Where has this concern been for the past 8 years?????

 

[statsman]

The world hopes to Christ not

Until the 1960's, the New England states voted solidly Republican (with the exception of the City of Boston).

There was an old saying that the lonliest man in the State of Maine was the Democrat.