free speech

Quote:

---

"Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government," Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent.

---

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0515-6355r.htm

It's all over but the shouting. The first amendment is dead.
:cool:

very good point man. This is how i see the government. The government doesn't want the people to be "smart" they want the people to be ignorant, so that there is no uprising of the people, and the government can make laws/control everything without them having to worry about the people rebellion and disapproval. Just like basically our first ammendment is gone, but i dont see anyone fighting for it. And all the government is doing is making new laws to "cover up" our rights and eventualy taking them away. This is just my opinion, please dont take it the wrong way.



"ignorance is bliss"

Did any of you read the aritcal in question? This is isn't a free speach issue its a bribery issue, we are actuly making it esier for the indavidual without major resources to have a say in goverment and to get their voice heard.

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person. Then I come into the Cosmos, and I feel like I just got off the short school bus....:)

I agree it's not about the first amendment, but where does bribery play into it? As far as I can tell, it's about regulations that lessen the influence of special interest groups. I do also agree it MIGHT allow lesser funded causes into the picture.

As I read this, the official issue is to suppress "possible or suspected" corruption between individuals seeking political offices and big businesses that are using loopholes to circumvent the current laws designed to prevent extravagant donations from said big businesses.

However, I cannot fathom how preventing politically funded ads from airing, within a 30 day time period prior to the election, will prevent these monies from reaching the aspiring politicians election accounts.

I do believe that this directly attacks our freedom of speech. If I want to pay for an add supporting a political candidate, it should be my choice of how I want to spend my money, as long as I am not breaking the law. Now I'm being told that I cannot publicly endorse a political candidate if I spend any Money while endorsing the candidate, within 30 days of an election. Does this mean I have to walk to the area where I am going to publicly endorse my candidate of choice, because gasoline costs money; therefore I am indirectly supporting my candidate's campaign by spending money to get to where I am going?

Of course Liberals should love this move, seeing as how only Fox news channel is the only natioinal news that comes close to endorsing Republican candidates. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Of course Liberals should love this move, seeing as how only Fox news channel is the only natioinal news that comes close to endorsing Republican candidates. ;)

---

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.

groovicus: sorry should have made myself clear, I consider all lobbying forms of legalized bribery.

Ok, in that context, your statement makes sense..

This forum sometimes really does make me feel.....(um...I don't know what the current politically correct euphamism for 'retard' is)

I think the issue boils down to "we're going to do this just to make it look like we are earning our paycheck"

Hey Guys,

It is your country and all.....If the First Amendment is "dead" I guess you will just have to go to the Second?..."spirit of '76" and all that?

We have exactly the same issues over here, in our own little way :)

I remember one election, which should have changed the government, and on election day our major "tabloid" newspaper published a picture of the contender with a light bulb superimposed over his head. The banner headlines read, "If this man is elected today, will the last person to leave the Country please turn out the light" This was on the entire front page of a national daily with about 5.5 million circulation in a population of say 60 million. You must guess that 25% of the electorate saw it, and another 25% who did not, would naturally vote the other way in any case.

I think that this might be the issue?

Anyway, I have had had three Christmas cards so far. On from my former neighbours and very good friends. One from a very old ornithologist and drinking pal and the last from my congresssman (Member of Parliament over here)..............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

It is a winter scene (snow) and has a picture of his motor car on it...it is a 1961 Studebaker Hawk...right hand drive export model as well!!!

Preliminary forensics indicate that he signed it personally with a fountain pen!!!

Maybe he thinks I can get spare parts through AO?...........or is he after some "support" and I don't mean "suspenders" (American usage there NFG :D ) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$???????

OH well..........seems there isn't that much difference between us?

Take care

"I agree it's not about the first amendment, but where does bribery play into it?"

have you ever seen a list of the political contributions made by the RIAA?

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.