No, and that’s a particularly biased way to phrase it in any case.
I think that advertising works. I think that huge advertising advantages (bankrolled potentially by a single billionaire), can sway some elections.
No one who is actually looking at what I said would say that I am suggesting that voters aren’t smart enough to avoid being controlled by advertising.
This assumes that intelligence makes you immune to advertising. And that voters are uniformly intelligent. And that swaying an election requires that all voters be manipulated by advertising (as opposed to a percent or two). This also suggests that opinions shaped by advertising suggest control. I don’t think voters were controlled by the swiftboat liars that you rewarded with your vote. I think voters were misinformed by an advertising campaign and thus made a poor decision.
So, no, friend Bricker, I’d say that your phrasing of my position is both utterly wrong and willfully prejudicial.
Let’s change it from “advertising works” to “speech works.” Someone’s speech convinces the voters to vote a certain way.
Is that wrong? Is it evil? Is it undemocratic? No. It’s exactly how our system is supposed to work.
The only way you can think that it’s wrong is if you presume the voters are brainwashable idiots who are controlled by advertising. And you’ve made statements that point to that.
Okay, then…
But you think the voters aren’t smart enough to think about what the truth is, and discern it, and learn about the issue elsewhere? How did YOU manage to know those ads were lies?
It is not the government’s role to decide what is true or not in speech, or pick a particular source of speech and say it lies. No. The people must have access to all information, from any source, and decide for themselves. They don’t need your help.
Okay, let’s try this.
Suppose I came to you and told you that I have withheld certain political messages from you from certain sources, because I think they’re lying, or because I don’t like how you might vote if you saw them.
You are the one misrepresenting your own argument. I’m pointing that out.
There is no way you can have your argument without the premise that the voters cannot handle the speech without your inteference. It’s impossible. If the voters are not idiots, and the voters have the right to decide the outcome of elections, you have no right whatsoever to limit what they hear or see. By claiming that you can because, “advertising works” you are saying the voters need your help because they can’t think for themselves. It’s that simple.
Again this is simply nonsense. Ask yourself, if you can’t make an actual intelligent statement to support your position, and instead must attack and demonize your opponent, why do you do it?
If you can’t support your position without a baseless attack to deflect attention from it, that might be a sign that your position isn’t worth supporting.
When I’m the one who just made an “actual intelligent statement to support my position.”
Look, you clearly can’t handle examining the depths of your own argument. You’re so wrapped up in your views that you can’t turn the spotlight on yourself and realize how fundamentally arrogant and undemocratic they are. Your views absolutely contradict everything that free speech stands for.
So either answer my criticisms with an “actual intelligent statement to support your position” rather than “Again this is simply nonsense.” or give up.
That the government can punish you for sedition. That’s an attack on free speech, isn’t it?
In any case, limiting rights is something the government can do if it has compelling cause, right? Fire in a theater and all that, right?
Now, if the SCOTUS says nay, I’d support a convention to change the constitution or the crafting of a law that would pass SCOTUScrutiny. (I just coined that phrase, you can use it).
In any case, I’m arguing primarily for what’s right, not what a biased SCOTUS will allow on a 5-4 decision. I understand that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter, but maybe in a couple years the composition will change a bit. Hopefully Scalia will actually explode the next time Roberts doesn’t agree with conservative dogma.
Next time someone says “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy I will point them to Lobohan’s logic. From “fire in a theater” to “you are speaking too much, we have to limit you” it’s the slipperiest slope one can imagine.
Limits on speech based on nothing more than the source or content of speech or the political outcome (elections) are not at all a compelling case. Those kind of limits are obviously exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect. They have been rejected already.
No, you are wrong. Your view requires amending or repealing the First Amendment. I don’t support that, and most Americans agree.
Stop wasting time trying to skew the rules and go back in and fight fair. This is a massive waste of energy by liberals. We need to fight, not whine about the rules.
It isn’t a slippy slope, silly. Additional regulations as they become necessary isn’t an example of snowballing.
The basic thrust of this argument is, I think, that unlimited money in politics rises to the level of a danger to society. You think unlimited money in politics is the bee’s knees.
Anyone honestly evaluating our positions on the merits would find your position asinine. Distorting politics by adding huge masses of money from a few individuals is a threat to nation that easily rises to the level of where action is warranted. Do you think that allowing billionaires to push say 2% of national elections every cycle is something that would lead to detrimental outcomes for the nation? Do you prefer the gilded age? Do you want Lake Erie to be flammable?
You don’t see that, because you don’t want to see it. Fine. Advocate whatever destructive nonsense you want. You’ve got your free speech rights.
First off, you are inaccurately framing it. Limits on spending aren’t limits on content. And a cap on spending would apply to everyone. We already have campaign finance limits.
The first amendment wasn’t designed to be a lever that would allow an oligarchy to form.
That’s just stupid. I’ve shown you that there are already limits on speech when the need is great. You being unable to insert that information into your brain is what causes you to make such nonsense declarations.
No one is asking for the repeal of the First Amendment. Could you please stop dishonestly characterizing what I’m saying?
Fighting fair is what this is about. You may not care if the country descends into a new gilded age. But I do.
