# Correct my understanding of the First Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631 "2014-03-13T17:46:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/101 "2014-03-18T12:26:26Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > It is true that an infinite term copyright could promote the production of artistic works (until the maze of existing copyrights makes it effectively impossible to make something without getting sued for being a derivative work, I suppose). > > However, that was clearly not the intent of the establishment of copyright in the US, since the Constitution specifies that the right be “for a limited time.” That’s a fair comment. My comment was aimed at the false idea that the time limit was the ONLY way that the public get access to the artistic works. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/102 "2014-03-18T12:31:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure, copyright was intended to allow creators of written works to retain control of, and profit from the sale of, their works for a time, but NOT FOREVER. It was written right into the statute it was for a limited time, as pointed out. Why do you think it was written that way, Lance? By mistake? All I was saying was that the time limit isn’t the only mechanism that makes art available for public consumption. It usually available from the day it is created, just for a fee. Going into public domain isn’t what makes it available. > [@](#): > > It means that [people like Disney](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support) made campaign contributions, etc., and got the US Congress to extend copyright to the entirely unreasonable term of the life of the author plus 75 years or 120 years for corporate work back in 1998. So every time someone makes a campaign contribution and then gets what they want, that’s prima facie evidence that the contribution was the cause? Hardly. > [@](#): > > I hear you, Mr. Money is Speech. But I don’t believe you. [From here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Opposition). Money isn’t speech. Nobody ever said it was. You’re in way over your head on this. Let’s not hijack this thread. > [@](#): > > The increasingly long periods of copyright could easily become a perpetual thing. Who knows what Disney will be asking for 20 years from now? Golly gee, too bad there’s nothing we can do about that, huh? We’re powerless and Disney can get anything it wants. We’re forced to accept whatever our legislators do without any recourse, and then we’re forced to consume whatever shlock Disney sells us. Woe is us. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/103 "2014-03-18T12:51:56Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Bigamy is illegal, polygamy is not. You don’t have to be legally married to practice it. Religion is no defense for bigamy either. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/104 "2014-03-18T13:31:20Z")
Disney gets pretty much what it wants because it has money to throw at politicians. Money doesn’t itself determine elections, but it has a lot of influence and buys the chance to present your case more fully. Democracies have a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/105 "2014-03-18T14:48:45Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Disney gets pretty much what it wants because it has money to throw at politicians. Money doesn’t itself determine elections, but it has a lot of influence and buys the chance to present your case more fully. Only if voters allow that. > [@](#): > > Democracies have a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them. That’s true - lazy-ass people, half of whom don’t even show up to vote, let things like this happen without doing anything about it. That’s a problem with democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/106 "2014-03-18T14:54:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s true - lazy-ass people, half of whom don’t even show up to vote, let things like this happen without doing anything about it. That’s a problem with democracy. The problem is that money buys advertising, and advertising _works_ when it comes to influencing the public. How do you fix _that_? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/107 "2014-03-18T14:59:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The problem is that money buys advertising, and advertising _works_ when it comes to influencing the public. How do you fix _that_? How is that a problem? It’s only a problem if you assume that being influenced is somehow wrong. The public chooses whether to be influenced by something, and that’s their right. You have no business deciding that the public is making the wrong choices or choosing the wrong information to believe or voting for the wrong candidates based on it. You could say this about ANY speech, not just advertising. But speech, including advertising, is free, for a good reason. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/108 "2014-03-18T16:18:20Z")
LOL! No ITR, I’m not going to do your work for you. You brought this topic up from one that’s sorta died weeks ago, you know where that other thread lies. There was plenty of links in my posts there, including to one at [Slate.com](http://Slate.com) and, I think, one in the LA Times. You find the links. Plenty of people here have confirmed the details of the case, that its all about the nuns wanting to avoid doing something that they see as supporting contraception. I don’t need to appease you, those are the facts, either accept them or continue bullshitting your own topic with pointless accusations. You’re acting as entitled as those nuns are, trying to claim something you have no business having, and seeing that losing or giving up makes your cause a loss. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/109 "2014-03-18T20:51:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You brought this topic up from one that’s sorta died weeks ago, you know where that other thread lies. There was plenty of links in my posts there, including to one at [Slate.com](http://Slate.com) and, I think, one in the LA Times. Which were easily debunked, of course. The Obama Administration has said, in its response to the Supreme Court, that no one will be obligated to provide contraception coverage to employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor. You continue to insist that the opposite is true. So do you believe that the Obama Administration is lying in court? (I seem to recall that I asked you this several times already, and you haven’t answered.) While we’re on the topic of questions that you haven’t answered: What’s the name of the law that the Little Sisters are trying to create? Supposing that the Little Sisters win, what stops any of their employees from going to a non-religious health care organization to get contraceptives? Do you have any reason to believe that any employee of the Little Sisters of the Poor is the least bit unhappy with the health insurance coverage that they currently have? Oh, and don’t forget this: > [@YogSosoth](#): > > My right to swing my fist vs. your right to place your nose in its path. Your problem, then, ITR, is that you childishly think that religious rights should always triumph, or rather, Christian religious rights. And, when a non-Christian group wins a case following a violation, you interpret that win as a zero sum game, that the Christian must have lost rights for the other group to have gained it. > [@ITR Champion](#): > > Really? Did I ever say that? If so, would you please link to the post in which I did? Are you going to provide some answers this time? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/110 "2014-03-18T21:46:06Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Which were easily debunked, of course. Right, debunked by you? :rolleyes: You offer nothing to the table and just want to rehash a dead argument whose premise was refuted multiple times by different people. If you want to keep playing with yourself, fine by me. But don’t expect me to play by your rules. All the links posted were valid, their facts unassailable. You who have so twisted reality to fit your version where nuns are not trying to force their beliefs on someone else can get your jollies editing the facts to your heart’s content. Some of us know better. That is why the nuns are wrong and the administration is right. Spend a little less time hiding behind nuns and more time reading to comprehend the topic you are posting about, it will help ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/111 "2014-03-18T22:01:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Which were easily debunked, of course. The Obama Administration has said, in its response to the Supreme Court, that no one will be obligated to provide contraception coverage to employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor. And that is true. The Little Sisters of the Poor are NOT being required to provide such coverage. They have an exemption from that. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/112 "2014-03-18T22:21:06Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Are you going to provide some answers this time? My irony detector just broke. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/113 "2014-03-19T13:04:47Z")
> [@ITR Champion](#): > > Are you going to provide some answers this time? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Right, debunked by you? :rolleyes: You offer nothing to the table and just want to rehash a dead argument whose premise was refuted multiple times by different people. If you want to keep playing with yourself, fine by me. But don’t expect me to play by your rules. All the links posted were valid, their facts unassailable. > > You who have so twisted reality to fit your version where nuns are not trying to force their beliefs on someone else can get your jollies editing the facts to your heart’s content. Some of us know better. That is why the nuns are wrong and the administration is right. Spend a little less time hiding behind nuns and more time reading to comprehend the topic you are posting about, it will help So that would be a ‘no’, then. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/114 "2014-03-19T13:20:08Z")
I think advertising speech should be regulated to the effect that it must not only be true but also in no way misleading. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/115 "2014-03-19T13:34:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And isn’t that 3rd party administrator already exempted from the mandate? As mentioned, the Obama Administration has already said the 3rd party administrator is exempted from the mandate, and that the 3rd party administrator is not exempted from the mandate. So which statement is true and which is a lie? One would have to unravel vast amounts of legalese to find out. But the Obama Administration could make this lawsuit and others like it vanish by simply dropping the rules it created regarding contraception coverage. It’s not as if this country has been facing any severe contraception shortage, and whenever major corporations have an objection to the ACA, Obama has been more than willing to let them ignore the entire law. Why is it okay for big companies to get a pass on the entire thing, but not okay for a small charitable organization to ask for a minor change? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/116 "2014-03-19T13:44:51Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > I think advertising speech should be regulated to the effect that it must not only be true but also in no way misleading. There’s a huge difference between advertising, as in selling soap, and political ads, which are political speech. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/117 "2014-03-19T14:44:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But the Obama Administration could make this lawsuit and others like it vanish by simply dropping the rules it created regarding contraception coverage. And the Little Sisters could make this lawsuit disappear too if they signed the form and quit pretending that in some magical way signing the form makes them support contraception. > [@ITR Champion](#): > > It’s not as if this country has been facing any severe contraception shortage, Contraception is an important part of health care, especially to women. The goal isn’t to avoid lawsuits from political grandstanders or to force people to do immoral acts, it’s to get full health care coverage for women. In doing so, the law and this administration have created a system where groups can opt out and the women can still be covered, an actual compromise that could work. But rather than have it work, we have people who hate the ACA and Obama creating these fictions to get their base all upset (and hopefully donate money to stop the evil Kenya Socialist). Such is life when you try to compromise with the far right. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/118 "2014-03-19T16:56:30Z")
They don’t even know the meaning of the word compromise. That’s not hyperbole, I think they actually don’t know the dictionary definition of the word. More than one Republican have come out to say that them giving up anything is not compromise, and call on Obama to “compromise” by giving them everything they want. I think ITR suffers from the same thing, he actually doesn’t know what that word means. This law and this form is the compromise, but the nuns are being shitheads and demanding more. They don’t get any more, they have to give up their stupid dream of forcing all women to either be celibate or have sex only for procreation. That’s the compromise ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/119 "2014-03-19T20:48:30Z")
On preview - never mind. We would never get a cite for that either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/120 "2014-03-19T21:27:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On preview - never mind. We would never get a cite for that either. > > Regards, > Shodan Crap like this still considered “slick” where you come from? Almost ask a question, then withdraw it and imply that the opposition wouldn’t have answered it anyway? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=7)