Fuck the First Amendment, then

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Well no-one interprets it as "The unrestricted right to say anything in any situation" because that clearly would be unworkable.

I understand the fire in the movie theatre scenario.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

So, should we burn you with copies of the Constitution, or burn the Constitution with your dried bones?

Constitutions are not perfect and eternal. They can be changed. We can do any of three things:
1) reinterpret the First Amendment to restrict campaign spending and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, as a way of restricting influence peddling--just like previous generations of Americans;
2) amend the Constitution to remove perfect freedom of the press (and it is freedom of the press that is at issue here, not the Newspeak construction of "speech");
3) set fire to the whole Constitution, baby with the bathwater, and start over;

otherwise we're straight into legal fraud and bribery. Any absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment is nothing less than the legalization of fraud and bribery. Go to Hell.

Um, no, it's not bribery to speak, even if you spend money doing it. If that were true, the Obama bumper sticker I bought from a third party is a bribe.

Yes, we can amend the Constitution. But I fear anyone who thinks speech is an inconvenience to their goals. I much prefer to err on the side of free speech than giving the government power to restrict it. Most Americans do. We have never amended the Constitution to take away something in the Bill of Rights, and I don't think we ever should.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Something like that would happen.

Murdoch vehicles: Sky News, Fox News, The Sun, the Wall Street Journal. Their content and effect are not equivalent, but the funds that would be directed at campaigning to unduly influence public opinion may find a

Anyway, I think there's a unique difference in the US in that advertising can be regulated in the interests of a healthy electorate only if the advertising is subject to the Central Hudson test, or at least that's the trend in the US. Such restrictions don't limit celebrities saying they love to smoke or showing Johnny Depp looking dapper with a cigarette in some movie, so the slippery slope argument is deflated.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I absolutely disagree. And you will, too, when I get five like-minded justices on the Court and they discover a right to life in the Fourteenth Amendment for unborn children.

You don't have to find a decision illegitimate to believe it is wrong. It's not inconsistent to disagree with a decision and at the same time support the right of reinterpretation of the courts. Unlike delegitimizing a fundamental part of a system you support. In any case, I'm in no danger of falling into your error. I've been on the Burn the Constitution Bandwagon for some time now.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by 2sense

I've been on the Burn the Constitution Bandwagon for some time now.

My new constitution will make constitution burning unconstitutional. So there!

[2sense]

Your constitution is unconstitutional!!!

[gamerunknown]

Fuck lance strongarm too. Deliberate distortion of opponent's arguments coupled with infuriating appeals to non-partisanship.