Ah… fuck it, this is way to juicy a line to let go.
You’ve never read any books on politics that were informative?
You’ve never read any newspaper articles that were informative?
Hell, you think Cecil Adams’ columns don’t “educate anyone”?
You realize that those are all examples of “corporate-sponsored political speech” don’t you.
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Nothing there about any right to be heard. Hope this makes you understand why that is so.
They abridged your speech out in public.
No. Because they abridged your speech out in public. You seem to have some kind of mental block there.
Only if lack of such limit violates someone else’s right. Prohibiting you from speaking in public has nothing to do with violation of someone else’s rights.
Again, far too juicy to let go.
So then you’re saying the government should be able to regulate how much the New York Times can spend broadcasting their views on upcoming elections, right?
Similarly, you think the government can regulate how much money *Saturday Night Live *can spend doing skits on the election right?
After all, both are example of “corporately funded political speech”.
Why don’t you provide a freaking link? Be constructive.
I looked it up. You’re right–she advocated killing the leaders with the intent to destroy (at least in part) a religious group. (This intent is illustrated by her comment about conversion. Conversion itself isn’t a genocidal act, but I’d stipulate that her conversion comment shows what her intention is, and her intention was in fact genocidal.)
Under international law, she advocated genocide, and she should be prosecuted. Absolutely.
What was your point again? (Thanks for bringing the legalities of it to my attention but Jesus Christ, man, be more constructive about it. Bring the definitions to the table. Most people won’t be as earnest with you as I have been. Put some effort into the truth-seeking if you’re actually serious about it.)
Didn’t I already address this? His joke is intended as an illustration of this very view–he’s saying there should be a law against hte kind of behavior he is engaging in. That’s the point of his joke. Again–what did you think his point was?
Rush knows if he says “all niggers should be killed” then lawless activity will immediately occur. If he doesn’t know it, he should, and I know there are “reasonable knowledge” standards that tend to apply in cases like this.
No. His joke is intended to express his opinion that there should be a law against such SuperPACs. But the logic posted here by you and others would require him to shut down his show (SHOW, not the PAC) because he (Stewart, Colbert) has too much speech, which violates other people’s “right to be heard”, and “distorts and polarizes” (to borrow your phrasing).
Are either Stewart or Colbert advocating shutting down their shows?
Ok Terr, that’s a nice point–the limit to the house goes further than simply defending others’ rights. So it’s unconstitutionality doesn’t rest on a right to be heard.
Now, the following situation would be horrible in many ways, but I want to ask very specifically whether you think it interferes with the first amendment right to free speech.
Suppose someone invented a kind of “cloaking device” for sound, and they placed the device on my person without my consent, and whenever they heard me beginning to talk politics, they turned the device on.
Now, I can continue talking–the device doesn’t keep me from making sounds. It simply keeps the sound from getting further than about two inches from my mouth.
Okay, clearly a lot of illegal things have happened here. But the question I’m interested in is, has the person, by using this device, interfered with my free speech rights?
Ok, I understand now.
Yeah, I’m open to the idea that the correct limit could be one which would cause their shows to have to shut down. Sure. Why would you think I wouldn’t be open to that possibility?
Of course, as you guys have already pointed out, things get hairy when it comes to definitions of “political speech.” I have in mind more directly election-advocacy related speech, if only for the sake of having lines as clean as possible to deal with. But sure, the issue’s not a simple one.
I’m sorry but I think you missed my point(which is at least partly my fault). I’m not talking about the Superpac ad, I’m talking about the SHOW called The Colbert Report hosted by Stephen Colbert and the show called The Daily Show hosted by John Stewart.
Based on the standards you’ve set, they should be regulated.
You don’t think that John Stewart actually thinks the Daily Show should be regulated do you?
See above, Terr helped clarify this for me. I don’t know what Stewart thinks (nor do I much care when it comes to this particular issue) but I am certainly open to the possibility that the correct limit would be one htat makes it impossible for him to run his show.
But see my prior post–there are of course a lot of thorny definitional issues that’d have to be hashed out here about what constitutes “political speech” and which “political speech” should have monetary limits etc. That’s fine–as I’ve said I don’t pretend to have any detailed ideas about how this can be worked out. I’m just arguing that there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about htere being some such limit.
Since there are “clearly a lot of illegal things” happening here, I would say clear those things first, then worry about free speech. Just the fact that you cannot come up with an example without making up a complete fantasy that involves a lot of illegal things destroys the argument right there.
This would not be a first amendment issue. First amendment issues arise when the government abridges someone’s speech. That’s not the case in your example.
Define “election-advocacy related speech” please.
Furthermore, who defines what it is.
The courts disagree with you. You’ll notice she has not been subject to US law for saying the things she said, though she was warned if she made such comments in Canada she might be subject to prosecution.
Anyway, please show me a prominent American liberal who’s argued that she SHOULDN’T be protected by the First Amendment and that she should be prosecuted.
My point is that what Ann Coulter says is protected so then why shouldn’t documentaries of Hillary Clinton, which is vastly less offensive be.
I am trying to find out what you think free speech consists in. I know how I would answer the question–I’d say that his right to free speech has been abrogated by the criminal. I know why I think this as well–because his right to be heard was interfered with.
But I don’t know if you think such a person has had his right to free speech abrogated. And if you do, then I don’t know why you do.
For one thing, I think that’s incorrect–I believe it is a criminal act for me to interfere with your right to free speech. I’ll see if I can find a cite somewheres.
For another thing, the example can of course be easily changed so that it’s the government, not some random criminal, performing the act.
Is the act a violation of the first amendment right to free speech? If congress makes a law that requires the installation of such a device on some class of people (heck, make it all people) and the device automatically kicks in when political speech begins to happen, then aside from everything else wrong with the law does the law violate the first amendment right to free speech even though every individual is allowed to say whatever he wants wherever he wants? If so, why?
Of course it would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Why? Because it would abridge the freedom of the person’s speech. Do you understand what the word “abridge” means? Hint: if you put a gag on someone it abridges his freedom of speech.
I already said this is complicated. I’m not up to the task. Remember: All I’m arguing is that it’s not inherently unconstitutional for there to be some monetary limits to some kinds of speech. I don’t claim to know what the limits are, and I don’t claim to be able to delimit exactly what kinds of speech should be limited monetarily. I’m just arguing that you can’t get from “monetary limit on speech” to “unconstitutional” free of charge. Monetary limits are not sufficient for unconstiutionality.
I don’t know of any, and I don’t know why you want me to show you one.
I told you what I think.
But I do not think that what Coulter said should be protected. I think she should be prosecuted by an international court.
The gag actually prevents the person from speaking. The device does not. They are still able to speak.
I do not understand what the word “abridge” means. Can you tell me?
The two are functionally equivalent. The “I’m not touching ya” argument belongs with the 7-year-olds.
Don’t you think you should have looked it up before you picked an argument about the first amendment?
The only relevant definitions I’m seeing are basically synonymous with “restrict.” But of course, I’m asking you whether it restricts that right. It won’t do to answer “Yes, it restricts it because it abridges it” if “abridge” just means “restrict.”
The question is, in what does the restriction consist? How is he restricted from speech if nothing is causing him to be unable to form the words with his mouth and produce the sounds with his vocal cords?
To be clear, my own answer to the question is–his right to speech is restricted in this case because his speech has been made impossible to hear. In this way, we see that free speech entails a right to be (able to be*) heard.
*I hereby amend my wording from before…
No, I don’t. But see my previous post.
Again, the “I’m not touching ya” while waving your hand an inch away from my nose is the behavior of a 7-year-old. I presume you’re older than that.
You are describing no behavior I’ve engaged in, so I am not sure why you are speculating about my age.
You’ve said the person’s right to free speech has been abridged in this scenario. The question is, why? If he is able to speak, then how has his right been abridged?
Is the answer not “because he has been rendered unable to be heard?”
And if htat is the answer, doesn’t this demonstrate that a right to be heard (or at least, I suppose, “hearable” in some let’s-be-adults-about-this sense) is part and parcel of the right to free speech?