Why can’t it? We regulate the hell out of all other types of advertisements, and no one freaks out over freedom of speech there. Heck, there’s actually a law against false advertising.
Sure, opinions can’t be regulated, but statements of fact sure as hell can be. In fact, I’d say it’s required for democracy to function–an electorate that can be lied to is an electorate that is not actually in control–the propagandist is in control.
Then you should stop complaining about the outcome of elections.
That’s what I mean. Stop the semantics.
I know more about civics than you ever will, I’m pretty confident of that.
Your point was unclear. Please explain what you meant.
So what?
No, when they violate the Constitution.
Now you think you can decide how other people spend their money based on what’s more productive according to you?
Do you believe in judicial review? Yes or no?
First one to come to mind, but I’m sure there are many more:
But it doesn’t matter - celebrities clearly have more than their fair share of influence on elections. By your standards, their speech should be limited.
Lying isn’t really the issue here, it’s quantity, and quantity of commercial advertising is not regulated.
Please educate yourself about the doctrine of different levels of protection for commercial speech vs. political speech. The fact that both are ads is irrelevant. One is selling soap, the other is the absolutely most protected form of speech there is.
You want the government to decide what is true and what is a lie about political issues and to regulate speech accordingly?
No. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
The people can decide what’s true.
Imagine Obama sending the DOJ to ban Romney ads whenever he believed the facts in them are false. This is simply not a power we give to our government, and the reasons should be obvious.
With commercial speech, disprovable claims have to be backed up. With libel the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that a lie was told. Political speech being the most protected speech there is, if we did have a law against lying, it would have to be so narrow as to make almost all political ads exempt. I’ve seen what fact checkers call “pants on fire”, and even when it’s someone I don’t like getting raked over the coals I see some ambiguity.
I have an idea. How about no major contributor can receive federal grants or contracts from the government?
That solves a lot of the direct bribery problems, where campaign contributors invest $10,000 to get $1 million in taxpayer money.
Well, you’re either unaware that this is already the law, or I spoiled your trap. Either way, federal contractors are already banned from donating.
It doesn’t solve the problem of the thousands of other ways one can get “favors,” from tax breaks to locating a federal facility a certain place to pushing certain policies that favor a certain kind of business (like health care boosts hospital business, for example). In other words, politics. These people want to completely eliminate politics, but they only notice politics and only see a way to eliminate it when there is money involved.
I’m not. I’m not even really complaining about the Supreme Court decision. I think it corresponded to some of the precedents established. I’m complaining about your justification of their decision.
My speaking cannot violate the first amendment. If I were in Congress, it could.
So, time, place and manner restrictions are permissible. No Supreme Court decision has contradicted that view.
It is representative democracy if the majority of the population want the laws. The rule of judges against the popular view is krinocracy.
According to the people’s representatives and to the majority of citizens.
Where have I even said something resembling that?
Anyway, I wouldn’t have a problem with a channel with public funding dedicated solely to showing electioneering communications. Either party or any candidate could produce one and it’d be shown on the channel. That way candidates get even more speech compared to the current set up, but the electorate have to seek the speech, rather than have it foisted on them.
When you complain that someone has too much influence on voters, you are complaining about the outcome of elections.
My justification is the same as is in the opinion itself.
Whoa. You’re saying members of Congress don’t have First Amendment rights now? Please elaborate on that one.
Of course time place and manner is permissible. This is not even remotely about time place and manner.
Do you support the limits in the Consitution on government power or not? Do you support judicial review or not?
The government may not do certain things, even if the people want it to. That’s how our system works. And that is a good thing.
See above.
You haven’t, but that’s what your standards support.
Sounds like a great idea. Of course, most can now simply go to the internet and get the same thing. The candidates have websites with lots of detail on their positions on issues, and you can view them at any time, as little or as much as you want.
But you couldn’t take the ads off regular TV. First Amendment and all that. Stop with this “foisted” thing. If the people have a right to commercial-free TV, then go try to pass a law banning all commercials or something.
I was unaware.
There are many other ways to get favors, but the most direct favor is simply money. You invest thousands, you get millions. There’s no better investment in the world.
That is true, and that was John paul stevens primary argument in his dissent. I think the issue for the conservative justices was that BCRA was actually overly broad. The government claimed the power to ban books, and according to accounts I’ve read, this visibly shook the justices. It was a game changer. The government backtracked on the argument when the case was reargued, but they couldn’t unsay what they said.
A law that applied ONLY to television advertisements over the airwaves, equally applied, would probably hold up. At least I think so, given the specific objections in the Kennedy decision.
I’m saying the speech of Congress is restricted under the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not restrict the speech of others. For example, Congress can not inform some population that they have no right to practice their religion without demonstrating compelling interest (as long as doing so constitutes an undue burden). A non-Congress member can say that someone can’t practice their religion, as long as they do not break any laws in doing so.
Not as it currently stands. If the constituent parts of the constitution were actually ratified by referenda and any amendments required a strong majority (60%), then I’d have no problem with such a check on the power of the legislative branch.
You keep affirming that advertising doesn’t work to change people’s minds, thus the only reasons for keeping it are to inform the populace and that restricting advertising would be antithetical to liberty. If the populace can be reasonably informed to other venues, that leaves the liberty of people to advertise. I don’t consider that right as fundamental as you do.
Sure Congress could inform people of that. It just couldn’t enforce it as law.
This is a really strange and inappropriate use of the First Amendment. It demonstrates your inability to distinguish speech and action.
It’s similar to the notion that public school teachers are exercising freedom of religion when they require prayers in their classrooms.
Well, I’m glad we have courts to protect our civil rights no matter what. Our history is full of times when the vast majority of people were dead wrong.
No I don’t, and I’m not discussing this further until you stop this stupid straw man version of my views.
Bricker disagrees, here.
I’d like a cite of court decisions far more progressive than majority opinions (with links to polling figures at the time of the court’s decision, if possible).
Oh yeah, sorry, it only works on drooling idiots.
You can’t be serious. Did you miss the entire frickin’ Warren court?
No, it works on regular people too, right? So if someone said you shouldn’t see an ad because you would make a decision based on it that they don’t like, would you say “okay, sure” or would you be insulted that they think you’re a drooling idiot?
Come on, tell us - are you incapable of handling certain speech? Yes or no? If you think others are, why not you?
(Re the quote - I was making fun of your belief that people are drooling idiots. I hope you got that.)
Only a drooling idiot fails to understand the real and vast effect advertising has on our society.
I don’t think the majority of citizen supported segregation, let alone the vast majority - not throughout the country.
You’re making the assumption that there are two categories of people, those immune to the effects of advertising and drooling idiots. You’re then projecting that dichotomy onto me and using it as a strawman. I’ve made no such comment myself, I’ve recognised all humans have certain cognitive biases which make them susceptible to all sorts of irrational impulses.
Wow.
You managed to make my point for me. You have no respect for the intelligence of others. Your comment drips with arrogance.
Vast majorities in several states supported it. Should we have respected that in those states?
And the Warren Court did ALOT more than tackle segregation, you know.
You delude yourself over and over. The Constitution limits the power of government, even when that goes against the will of the people.
No, that’s YOUR assumption.
Bullshit. That’s what you think and you can’t escape it. You believe that other people are drooling idiots who need the government to protect them from ads. You believe certain elites, including you, are immune.
So you think you’re a drooling idiot too? So you don’t believe in free speech at all, and think the government should control what we all see and hear? (Because the government is run by people without bias or irrational impulses?)
Either you respect the dignity, rationality and free will of all the people in a democracy, or you don’t. No middle ground, no compromises.
Arrogance is proof of being incorrect? That’ a nice thought you have there. Free speech is not a black and white issue. I can’t go into a courthouse and shout “Fire!”. Nor can I defame someone with false accusations except under certain narrow exceptions. There are plenty of ways we shape the franchise of speech that make sense if you want a society that works instead of a monument of zealous corpses. Your yelling about absolutes just makes you sound like a fanatic.