Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

Thread: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

  1. #11
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Speech is speech. The 1st amendment doesn't allow censorship just because the speech is paid for, or paid for by a corporation. if it does, that's news to me, and probably to anyone else who spends maybe two seconds thinking about it.

  2. #12
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,128

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    Speech is speech. The 1st amendment doesn't allow censorship just because the speech is paid for, or paid for by a corporation. if it does, that's news to me, and probably to anyone else who spends maybe two seconds thinking about it.
    So then you're a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated?

  3. #13
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    No. That's interference with the media, something which I'm shocked the government was ever permitted to do. Dark times.

  4. #14
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    I don't think it will win, since giving money to someone else is not speech. Using money to buy an ad is speech.
    Using money to buy an ad allows corporations to create "advocacy ads" on specific issues, which can then be used against a candidate's opponent.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    I think it's very unlikely he'll win this one, and the journalist who wrote the article isn't too bright, .
    Then he got the right advocate in Mitch. A perfect match.

  6. #16
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,128

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    No. That's interference with the media, something which I'm shocked the government was ever permitted to do. Dark times.

    But speech is speech. The constitution doesn't allow for censorship because someone can't afford the microphone.


    Let me be clear, I'm against both Citizens United AND The Fairness Doctrine, but if you allow the former the only correct balance is to allow the latter...

  7. #17
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    So then you're a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated?
    I agree with francois, that the "Fairness Doctrine" would be government interference. Everybody is allowed their own voice and whatever other constitutionally allowed advantages they may wrangle or achieve, but it is not the right of government to step in and "equalize" everyone, that is not freedom.

    Besides which, fairness could never be achieved, one cannot even define "fairness" in light of campaigns...who would determine this fairness...well, I do not have to explain/argue that to you as you have indicated that you are not a fan...

    However, the fact that corporations, much like media corporations, would be able to express themselves freely at any time and not be limited, should be assured. That certainly would be more "fair", not government assured but achieved through the effort of groups and individuals. Freedom of assembly is one of our first amendment rights as well, should those we choose to assemble with be shut out of the process? That would just leave the field wide open to others who do, collectively, enjoy that right.

    If we shut off these various collections of like minded folks, such as some corporations, private groups and unions...should we then also shut down media 30 or 60 days before an election? We all know media has bias, it comes from humans and therefore simply cannot help it...so if the media can spin things, insert themselves deeply into influencing American public opinion...and they most certainly and obviously do [ remember Her-icane Crowley ], there should be freedom to counter that from the other side or sides...
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #18
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Using money to buy an ad allows corporations to create "advocacy ads" on specific issues, which can then be used against a candidate's opponent.
    And media allowed to insert itself, to sway public opinion should be un-countered? The mess Candy Crowley created right before the election, the fact that the News Media as a whole ignored, pretty much still ignores, Benghazi when some concerned group could have put together a nice video with facts, with just the right questions that should have been asked, but were ignored, by a media still fawning and salivating over their chosen one... that effort by concerned groups right up to election day should be excluded because...why?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  9. #19
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    But speech is speech. The constitution doesn't allow for censorship because someone can't afford the microphone.


    Let me be clear, I'm against both Citizens United AND The Fairness Doctrine, but if you allow the former the only correct balance is to allow the latter...

    Its not censorship if you cannot afford a microphone, you do not have a "right" to a microphone.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  10. #20
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,128

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I agree with francois, that the "Fairness Doctrine" would be government interference. Everybody is allowed their own voice and whatever other constitutionally allowed advantages they may wrangle or achieve, but it is not the right of government to step in and "equalize" everyone, that is not freedom.
    Freedom is equality in government, that means everyone having the ability to be heard equally, no just those that can afford the microphone.
    Besides which, fairness could never be achieved, one cannot even define "fairness" in light of campaigns...who would determine this fairness...well, I do not have to explain/argue that to you as you have indicated that you are not a fan...
    Taking away private funding would solve this.

    However, the fact that corporations, much like media corporations, would be able to express themselves freely at any time and not be limited, should be assured. That certainly would be more "fair", not government assured but achieved through the effort of groups and individuals. Freedom of assembly is one of our first amendment rights as well, should those we choose to assemble with be shut out of the process? That would just leave the field wide open to others who do, collectively, enjoy that right

    If we shut off these various collections of like minded folks, such as some corporations, private groups and unions...should we then also shut down media 30 or 60 days before an election? We all know media has bias, it comes from humans and therefore simply cannot help it...so if the media can spin things, insert themselves deeply into influencing American public opinion...and they most certainly and obviously do [ remember Her-icane Crowley ], there should be freedom to counter that from the other side or sides...


    First off let's make sure we're on the same page. There is no Working Class Left versus Corporatist Right. You do know this? There is the two headed behemoth that is Big Government/ Big Business. They might squabble about which head they want to control the body. But it is one body.

    No further proof is necessary to show the deception of choice, of freedom in this country than the ability of some self appointed governing body which is a corporation which sets the standards arbitrarily and denies candidate access to public national debates. In 2000 with Ralph Nader and in 2012 with Gary Johnson, two candidates which had the credentials, had the knowledge, and in the latter case had the experience which was heads above any of the 4 corporate approved schmucks who where in those elections.


    By allowing for corporate money to be funneled into politics you are perpetuating this travesty. You are feeding the two-headed beast. You are allowing this country, and you yourself to be controlled by the monied class. You are not allowing this government to be one of the people, but of the corporations.


    and that is just another thing I can't support.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •