d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > It's Only Freedom Of The Press If You Have One..
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Sep 9 2014 10:43pm
Congress has been debating a new amendment to the Constitution that doesn't seem to have been covered here yet: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:2:./temp/~c113JPRvxd::

Quote
Article--

    `Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

    `Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

    `Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.


Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to reverse the Citizens United ruling that correctly found that people (even when they band together to pool money/resources) have a right to express themselves in a movie critical of a politician (Hillary Clinton, in this case). They're trying to tell us this amendment would "only" take us back to the way elections law was before 2010. They are also full of shit.

Quite clearly from the language in the proposed amendment, they want Congress in control of free speech. They have to eliminate free speech to protect free speech. You can't make this stuff up. Nothing in the amendment language would stop Congress from delineating what constitutes "the press," or barring unions, churches, the NRA or pro-choice/life groups from circulating voter guides, etc.



Where are you on this issue PaRD?
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Sep 9 2014 10:45pm
It doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing so I won't worry about it. The Democrats have been terrible when it comes to free speech. Fairness Doctrine anyone?
Member
Posts: 11,343
Joined: Jan 23 2007
Gold: 752.10
Sep 9 2014 10:52pm
I fail to see how campaign donation limits restrict free speech.

This post was edited by nobrow on Sep 9 2014 10:52pm
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Sep 9 2014 10:59pm
seems to be a limit on monetary influence, not free speech
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Sep 9 2014 11:08pm
Quote (nobrow @ Sep 9 2014 11:52pm)
I fail to see how campaign donation limits restrict free speech.


Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 9 2014 11:59pm)
seems to be a limit on monetary influence, not free speech


Campaign donations are not the only speech. Issue advocacy is a prime example. You don't think the NRA or the teacher's union running attack ads against a candidate being restricted constitutes squelching free speech?
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Sep 9 2014 11:16pm
Quote (nobrow @ Sep 9 2014 08:52pm)
I fail to see how campaign donation limits restrict free speech.



Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 9 2014 08:59pm)
seems to be a limit on monetary influence, not free speech


Perhaps you guys should read the Supreme Court's opinion on the issue?
Member
Posts: 60,893
Joined: Jan 24 2007
Gold: 171.76
Sep 9 2014 11:18pm
Quote (Santara @ Sep 10 2014 12:43am)
Congress has been debating a new amendment to the Constitution that doesn't seem to have been covered here yet: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:2:./temp/~c113JPRvxd::



Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to reverse the Citizens United ruling that correctly found that people (even when they band together to pool money/resources) have a right to express themselves in a movie critical of a politician (Hillary Clinton, in this case). They're trying to tell us this amendment would "only" take us back to the way elections law was before 2010. They are also full of shit.

Quite clearly from the language in the proposed amendment, they want Congress in control of free speech. They have to eliminate free speech to protect free speech. You can't make this stuff up. Nothing in the amendment language would stop Congress from delineating what constitutes "the press," or barring unions, churches, the NRA or pro-choice/life groups from circulating voter guides, etc.



Where are you on this issue PaRD?


I don't really care that privately funded hate/fear mongering groups are squelched...

Freedom of speech was never intended to stretch beyond a person to private interest groups.

that said it is a law that has potential for a lot of bad outcome and a slippery slope

This post was edited by bitg_pj on Sep 9 2014 11:20pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Sep 9 2014 11:25pm
Quote (bitg_pj @ Sep 9 2014 09:18pm)
I don't really care that privately funded hate/fear mongering groups are squelched...

Freedom of speech was never intended to stretch beyond a person to private interest groups.

that said it is a law that has potential for a lot of bad outcome and a slippery slope


Oh cool, maybe we can squelch Zeitgeist and Infowars then...
Member
Posts: 11,343
Joined: Jan 23 2007
Gold: 752.10
Sep 9 2014 11:33pm
Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2014 11:08pm)
Campaign donations are not the only speech. Issue advocacy is a prime example. You don't think the NRA or the teacher's union running attack ads against a candidate being restricted constitutes squelching free speech?


I have no problem with restricting those groups from running attack ads on candidates. It's one thing for them to advertise trying to promote their interests in a general way and something entirely different to single out an individual candidate.

Charles Koch is welcome to spend as much of his money as he wants to attacking politicians but he should have to do it as an individual. Groups/organizations/unions/corporations aren't individuals.
Member
Posts: 11,343
Joined: Jan 23 2007
Gold: 752.10
Sep 9 2014 11:34pm
Quote (thundercock @ Sep 9 2014 11:25pm)
Oh cool, maybe we can squelch Zeitgeist and Infowars then...


:rofl:
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll