Sigh.
Yes, there are narrow, logical, limited exceptions. No, they don’t justify any exception you happen to dream up. When people make wild, sweeping proposals to ban speech, I remind them that you can’t ban speech.
That’s what a right is - it’s automatic. If not, it’s not a right. You can’t have a middle ground.
Not this.
No, stand by your ad is a simple requirement that you disclose something. No ads is a massive, blatant ban on speech entirely. They are completely different.
I am the one who should be sighing.
You keep using this straw man that “Because exceptions exist, any exception is valid”. You just apologized for using this straw man, and yet it continues.
No-one has said that. The only reason anyone has mentioned exceptions is because you keep implying that freedom of speech is absolute and can never be limited.
You’re making no sense at all. Rights don’t just apply to everything automatically.
I have the right to get married. If I start a business, my business does not have the right to get married.
No, they are the same in the sense that in some pointless, technical way we could claim that they are both gagging someone and “banning” speech.
How is “stand by you ad” gagging? Well, if I were to film an ad that didn’t feature an endorsement, I would be banned from showing it.
Of course, this is a silly technicality; Stand by your Ad doesn’t actually affect political debate. Nor would limiting the period in which paid ads take place.
Okay. There are exceptions. So what? Those are irrelevant. My argument has never been that there can never be exceptions. I think that goes without saying. My argument is that this particular proposed exception is not allowed.
Please understand - maybe you haven’t said that the small, narrow exceptions justify gigantic ones. Maybe you were just reacting to my imprecise, general statement that “you can’t abridge free speech.” But I have run into MANY people who say that the existence of small, narrow exceptions do justify big ones, so that’s why I responded that way. If that’s not what you’re saying, fine.
When I say “you can’t ban speech, period” it is usually in response to the claim that speech can routinely be banned for any reason. In other words, it’s a reminder that the First Amendment exists. Some people don’t seem to have even read it.
This is another quibble in language.
Let’s get back on track.
I didn’t say that. I have no problem with stand by your ad. I’m saying it’s not even remotely close to banning ads. You can’t compare the two.
Limiting the period in which ads take place not only could clearly affect debate, it’s also clearly unconstitutional, so it doesn’t matter.
But, we limit speech all the time. For example, you can’t libel someone. You can’t blurt out military secrets, and you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater unless you first start the fire first.
And, let’s not forget the restrictions on licentious language and pornography.
We do limit free speech in this country and it was one of the reasons why the authors of the Constitution did not include a Bill or Rights. They felt that rights and freedoms were commonsense ideas that didn’t need to be enumerated. After all, if you enumerate one right, but not another, does that mean the second right is not guaranteed. Think of our right to privacy and how Original Constructionists insist it doesn’t exist because the Constitution didn’t specify it.
The Bill of Rights we cherish are amendments to the original Constitution that were a back room deal to get the Constitution approved by at least 9 states. The rights listed have commonsense limits, and these change over time. Mailing out anti-draft information in World War I would get you arrested, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Schenck v. US.
As society changes, so do our understanding of the limits of what is meant by Freedom or Speech. Over the last 200 years, more and more speech has been ruled as protected by the First Amendment. What would have gotten you sent to the hoosegow in 1790 is freely permitted today.
And just in time, along comes someone doing just that:
Sigh.
Yes, there are exceptions. The existence of an exception doesn’t justify another one though. So if you want to make an exception to free speech (after accepting the existence of freedom of speech), you need to justify it on it’s own.
But now we have a bill of rights.
Bullshit.
Again, each exception must stand on it’s own.
Hey, great. We’re talking about what we think it is now.
Yep. Thanks for noticing.
Now that I’ve read your post while responding to it (a big mistake sometimes but I can’t help myself), I can’t tell if you are just commenting or if you’re coming out one way or the other on Citizens United.
Guns in schools.
The effect of advertising expenditure on voting patterns has already been pointed to. If it had no effect, it’d be worth limiting expenditure considering it’d be completely non-productive.
Which the relevant provision didn’t even do. It just limited expenditure from corporations and individuals. It isn’t “clearly unconstitutional” considering the closeness of split for the decision. Besides, if the debate is affected by people not seeing an ad, you must think they’re slavering morons incapable of operating in polite society.
Do I really have to explain every little detail here?
Free speech is also limited in schools, for a good reason.
So what? You can’t limit speech. Sorry.
You’ve really run out of ideas, haven’t you?
This is completely circular. You can’t limit speech unless it’s justified. It’s not justified because you can’t limit speech.
I’m just saying that limiting speech is not an alternative for this “problem.”
Look, you keep offering all these justifications for limiting speech as if the First Amendment doesn’t even exist. You talk about it like it’s just another option on the table. It’s not. Limiting speech is simply not allowable except for very specific reasons that you haven’t even begun to satisfy. You can’t just say “we have this problem with speech – let’s just ban some of it! Fixed!” No.
You cannot ban political speech based on the fact that you don’t like the speech, or its source. You cannot ban speech because you don’t like how people respond to it, or how it convinces them to vote. You just plain can’t do that. It’s amazing to me that I have to tell you that. It’s civics 101.
Which wasn’t the solution. The solution was to ban disbursements on electioneering communications (paying for speech in the public arena) by certain groups. This time, place and manner restriction on paying for speech had precedent in other cases and was supported by 4/9 justices.
Most developed countries have some limitations on the quantity of political ads and when relative to the election cycle such ads can be broadcast. It doesn’t appear to stifle the debate or ban any particular viewpoint.
Which is the SAME THING.
Ask yourself WHY you want to ban those disbursements. You wouldn’t care if that money was spent on anything else. It’s the speech that it produces that you want to stop. You can’t argue that you don’t want to ban speech. You can attempt to argue that you’re not banning speech because you’re banning the spending of money, but that’s bogus.
This is not a time place manner issue. You need to look up what that means. It does not justify banning speech from certain sources, or banning the spending of money on speech. Not even close.
So you want to repeal the First Amendment?
The law that Citizens United overturned did not impose a limit on spending or ads by any and all sources. It imposed it on a particular source.
Given that there are already many common-sense exceptions to freedom of speech, I don’t see why that would be necessary.
But sure, if we ever did get to the point where the First Amendment was preventing us from implementing legislature that would improve political discourse (have more opinions heard and openly debated), and there was a consensus, why not, blow it away. It’s not divine.
The restrictions in most other countries you cite would clearly violate the First Amendment here.
There are not “common sense” restrictions here. Common sense is not a legal term, because it’s so incredibly vague. There are only a few very narrow restrictions on speech in this country, and none of them are based on the justifications used for those in other countries.
You just don’t get it, do you?
Giving the government the power to restrict speech, and justify it by saying it is trying to improve discourse, is simply not something we can or should entrust to it - even if you accept the notion that restricting speech can improve freedom of speech.
Just because they don’t share the same precedent doesn’t mean they have different justifications. For instance, both the UK and US have laws against libel stemming from the same judicial history.
Yes I would, I’d care if it were being spent to bribe voters or officials. Advertising in general is a giant scam perpetrated on the public, with political advertising being an especially effective example of such. If advertising were designed in order to promote the knowledge of the consumers or an informed electorate rather than exploit cognitive biases I wouldn’t give two damns about it, that’s true.
So, the corporations were prevented from speaking at any time in any place in any manner?
But the US has the First Amendment.
Could your arrogance be more obvious? You think everyone else is stupid and easily brainwashed by ads.
Ads are speech. You can’t ban speech simply because you think people are too stupid to hear it. End of discussion.
You don’t actually know what time place manner restrictions means, do you?
I’ve already posted the four prong test.
Which isn’t even a parody of my position. If people were too stupid to be influenced by political advertising, there wouldn’t be a problem, would there?
The issue is whether the majority of voters want to limit the influence of money on elections and the mechanisms they can use in order to do so.
Which this issue does not come close to satisfying.
So you’re saying people aren’t too stupid to handle political ads.
So why do you want to limit them?
The government may not violate the Constitution even when a majority of the people want it to.
I think this exchange illustrates the kind of game that is being played in this thread.
gamerunknown was actually trying to make sense of your position, and said if.
You then respond as though that he is asserting something, and in any case twist what the assertion would be.
If anything the assertion would be “People are too stupid to be influenced by ads” not “People are not too stupid to handle ads”; the former implying the smart are duped, the latter implying the dense.
Why not?