free speech

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Think about that statement. Should any news organization endorse a Republican or Democrat canidate? (Think about Fox's slogan "Fair and Balanced") Fox news is a little to "dumbed down" for me. Too much celebrity news and other crap.

---

Media outlets should be able to endorse political candidates. Preventing news chanels from supporting political candidates would be/is a restriction on free speech. As long as the support is not breaking laws, that restrict airing materials that are viewed as harmful to minors, I do not have any problems with a news station endorsing a candidate.

As for Fox news, you are correct. But unless you are content with listening to only one view, and that being liberal, you are not left with much choice after listening to the other News Networks.

Now I've heard that the National Rifle Association is
looking into buying newspapers and TV stations to
promote their views, because these traditional media
outlets are exempted from the new regulations,
because, obviously, there is "freedom of the press"

So the gov't will have to either
[list=1][*]Let them (and everyone else) get away with it.[*]Deny "freedom of the press" to the press., or[*]try to decide which newspapers are "legitimate" press, and which are not.[/list=1]

Either way, we're in for a rough ride before it's all over.

BTW, the "soft money" regulations will apparently help
the Republican party, because they get more of their support
from a huge mailing list of small donors, while the Democrats,
who supported this law fervently, depended more on the large
"soft money" donations. Irony there.
:cool:

They are also funneling money into 527 groups. The Democratic party has already begun to look at the process. I am very confused here. If you look at finance lists BOTH partys have been actively engaged in securing soft money for decades. Modern technology even let's vters track where it's mostly coming from. What is the real motivation behind this bill turned to law? I am seeking that answer but I can say this, the notion it's not about the first amemdment is not in line with my thinking. While well inteteded, I can only see the first amendment issue.

Quote:

---

Organizations as diverse as the National Rifle Association and Greenpeace, which exist largely to advocate on behalf of their members, now cannot do so in the media in the crucial final weeks before elections. Why not?

---

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...4959-8656r.htm

Why indeed? And what happens when the news media themselves
blatantly campaign for and against candidates and issues?

All of the money (which is deemed to be so corrupting) will flow away
from parties and private interest groups into the media, because the
media are still permitted to campaign with absolutely no limits.

The press will become more politicized than ever. Would the government
dare to close this last "loophole" and shut down the free press?

So what we have is a situation where ordinary people like you will
have less influence because your contribution to your favorite
political party or interest group is heavily regulated while
Disney can embed political advocacy in children's movies if they
please, and campaign in the evening news with unlimited money.
:cool:

The media, police, army and courts are all tools of the state.

The less we understand the easier we are to control.