I understand the fire in the movie theatre scenario.
Um, no, it’s not bribery to speak, even if you spend money doing it. If that were true, the Obama bumper sticker I bought from a third party is a bribe.
Yes, we can amend the Constitution. But I fear anyone who thinks speech is an inconvenience to their goals. I much prefer to err on the side of free speech than giving the government power to restrict it. Most Americans do. We have never amended the Constitution to take away something in the Bill of Rights, and I don’t think we ever should.
Murdoch vehicles: Sky News, Fox News, The Sun, the Wall Street Journal. Their content and effect are not equivalent, but the funds that would be directed at campaigning to unduly influence public opinion may find a
Anyway, I think there’s a unique difference in the US in that advertising can be regulated in the interests of a healthy electorate only if the advertising is subject to the Central Hudson test, or at least that’s the trend in the US. Such restrictions don’t limit celebrities saying they love to smoke or showing Johnny Depp looking dapper with a cigarette in some movie, so the slippery slope argument is deflated.
You don’t have to find a decision illegitimate to believe it is wrong. It’s not inconsistent to disagree with a decision and at the same time support the right of reinterpretation of the courts. Unlike delegitimizing a fundamental part of a system you support. In any case, I’m in no danger of falling into your error. I’ve been on the Burn the Constitution Bandwagon for some time now.
My new constitution will make constitution burning unconstitutional. So there!
Your constitution is unconstitutional!!!
Fuck lance strongarm too. Deliberate distortion of opponent’s arguments coupled with infuriating appeals to non-partisanship.