and perhaps we will not have all these dirt-campaigns every election years in USA.
the latest I’ve heard is that Laura Bush was a dope dealer in College and that she “killed” her ex-boyfriend in a car accident.)
I have watch CNN for years but I have bearly seen a debate program where top politicans have participated. The president candidates seams to participate in one debate every fourth year.
It’s completely different in my country where political (and religious) commercial are forbidden by law (TV and radio).
Oh, yes, the much-lauded and much-talked-about First Amendment.
And yet, there are already a lot of things you can’t say on TV (like shit, fuck, etc). Where is the freedom of speech in those cases?
Based on current status quo, there is a relative freedom of speech, in which some words (and Ms Jackson’s breast) are banned, and in which political ads are permitted.
No reason why we can’t have another status quo in the future where 4-letter words (and Ms Jackson’s breast) are permitted, and in which political ads are banned.
I thought we weren’t supposed to ascribe an “intent” or “point” to the constitution. Just follow what the law says.
Saying “shit” and “fuck” is a form of speech. It is disallowed on TV. Therefore there is no absolute freedom of speech, only relative.
When some concerns override the free speech clause (e.g. obsenity concerns), we disallow it. Why can’t we use other concerns to override free speech? It wouldn’t be the first time.
Note that I’m not saying that I think it is a good idea to ban political commercials on TV (I think this is debatable). I’m just respondong to the “free speech” argument that was hastily and proudly thrown into the discussion a couple posts ago.
I believe the French have a similar system - electioneering events are simply not reported for a certain time before the election. I’m sure one of the French Dopers can give chapter and verse.
It’s sad this has descended so quickly into a first amendment slagging-match.
I don’t recall Farenheit 911 being run as a TV advert. And it wasn’t partisan, anyway (although viewers may have interprested it as such, as they might have done WIll and Grace). So I guess that point is moot.
The British system bans all TV advertising, but gives specific small slots in TV for major parties to use should they wish - but they’re pretty heavily restricted as to what they can say. Print and billboard advertisments are free for their use, however - therefore, the major campaigns tend to be the billboards.
Nitpick, but I’m sure you meant to say it–the BBC does not allow TV adverts on its channels. ITV, Channel Four, and Channel Five are quite happy to have them.
On the contrary, the thing to do is for the FCC to compel stations to air a fixed number of restricted-content campaign commericals for free, and no other political ads at all (we citizens own the airwaves, not the broadcast stations). The idea is to get as much money out of politics as reasonably possible in order to reduce the vast corruption already present in the American system. One of the most costly items in a political campaign is TV time, so making it available free (on a strictly limited basis) would go a long way towards reducing the corruption.
Not quite. I’ve seen cable get away with some pretty blue language, but they’re not governed by the FCC.
There is no law against saying profanity on air. Schindler’s List was aired in its entirety on network tv. There were several utterances of the F-word. The CBS documentary on 9/11, hosted by Robert de Niro, also had profanity.
The reason you don’t see a lot of it is because the community would file complaints. There’s no law against Janet Jackson flashing her boob. The reason there was such a backlash is because the FCC was flooded by complaints. The marketplace, not the law, decided that JJ’s boob was unacceptable.
You can say anything you want on TV. You just have to face the consequences.
Bingo. I’ve got no problem with whatever person hollering whatever they want out of their house. But if they want to use my airwaves to amplify their hollering, I get to set the rules.
It’s pretty well-established that the government can regulate speech over publicly owned airwaves. I would love to see this applied to political advertising.
Oh come on, this is not “free speech or not”, this is a reasonable broadcasting regulation to ensure that electoral victory does not simply go to the campaign which can afford the most advertising, similar to what you’ll find in many parliamentary democracies worldwide.
Here in Britain, political advertising on television and radio is prohibited: Each party is allocated certain 5 minute slots called “Party Political Broadcasts” which are utter drivel (but, it must be said, still paragons of honest fair play compared to the poisonous depths the US sinks to). Poster/newspaper campaigns, direct posting, doorstepping and shouting from a megaphone are all alternative legitimate means of canvassing.
If this is “limiting free speech” then so be it. I call it “limiting plutocracy”.
Nice hyperbole. A far better question would be one that actually asks about the first amendment, such as “Is the first amendment the best way to effectively and appropriately ensure freedom of speech”. Because, in case you hadn’t noticed, plenty of countries legally guarantee free speech in other ways.
“We have to ban political speech on television in order to save our liberties.”
“Ignorance is strength.”
I see no real difference between any of the above statements. If anyone is honestly suggesting that political ads are a threat to our country, as opposed to an annoyance every four years, I think they need their heads examined. If the First Amendment can be rewritten to ban people from buying advertisements on commercial television stations with honest-to-God American dollars to discuss current affairs, then the First Amendment is completely meaningless.
… what I forgot to include in what I said was that Britain bans all political TV advertising.