Nice dodge.
Got an answer?
If you can’t handle answering it, that proves my point and we’re done.
Strawman.
Electioneering communications are not campaign contributions and penalising disbursements on electioneering communications is not censorship.
Why do bribery laws exist in a representative democracy?
As a citizen of the UK, I have the right to elect a representative that apportions time for party political broadcasts. Not to mention, the first amendment supposedly preserves the right to that claim, anyway.
Lobohan respects democracy. In fact, he probably agrees with Dewey:
As it happens and as I’ve said before, liberty may not be synonymous with democracy. The case of unlimited expenditures on electioneering communications may be more in line with a plutocracy.
In choosing representatives that passed the BCRA, they decided they didn’t want to be unduly influenced by electioneering communications.
Political speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny based on the precedent of Cox v. Louisiana.
By which metric? The only difference in freedom indicators given is by the Press Freedom Index, which puts Canada above the US.
Strawman.
Those convinced of their own intelligence are more susceptible to the effect of cognitive biases.
Let’s get to the heart of things.
Nope. It’s an inescapable premise of your argument.
The people are 100% in charge of elections. If they choose plutocracy, that’s still their choice.
Oh…my…God.
You actually wrote that?
So the people voted to have the government protect them from their own inability to think critically about speech, and ignore what they don’t believe? They want the government to prevent them from hearing and seeing certain speech because they can’t just ignore it, or decide it’s wrong or false? They KNOW they are too dumb, or can’t control their impulses, and will vote for whomever ads tell them too?
See why it’s inescapable?
It’s hard to know how to explain how absurd this is. I feel strange even having to do it.
Oh, and the people may not vote away constitutional rights.
You need to leave this thread because you might be influenced by the speech here. I’m doing this for your own good. :rolleyes:
What’s next? Will the voters choose representatives to decide that they don’t want to be influenced by certain media outlets–and MSNBC or Fox News are banned? The people don’t want to be influenced, after all!
:rolleyes: Once again:
Nope, totally not kidding. As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I cannot parse that sentence. It has something to do with government control, fairly sure of that. You’re against it.
Absolute hogwash. You may not regulate the content or the “volume.”
Now THAT’s a stupid analogy. Speech is not in limited supply. It cannot be rationed. The idea that we must somehow limit speech to protect free speech is downright Orwellian.
No.
This is not a courtroom either. The rules are very clear - read the First Amendment.
Let’s pretend this analogy is valid. The difference in the real world is that the jury has access to unlimited information outside the courtroom. It can read or watch whatever it wants, in the media, on the Internet, etc. It can seek whatever it wants to make a decision and isn’t restricted to what it hears in the courtroom. And, of course, people are perfectly capable of, you know, thinking about what they hear. And ignoring it. People ignore ads every day. They are not idiots who just vote for whomever blasts more ads in front of them.
No. You can’t limit speech. Get used to it.
Fine. One more chance.
Do you want the government to ban speech to protect you from how you might act if you heard it?
OH! Well, that’s very different! When you put it like that, it makes everything so much simpler. Which you seem eager to do, you lay down your chips as delicately as a manhole cover. “You can’t do this, get over it, get used to it, it is Written!” Well, no, no it isn’t.
If you want to say there’s no problem, because propaganda doesn’t work, then history has your work cut out for you. Of course it works, it works especially well when there is no counter-propaganda, if there is no alternative case presented,or…if that alternative case is muffled.
And the difference between drowning out and muffling is pretty much an abstraction, don’t you think?
Is it a tricky proposition to balance free speech with such needful limitations? Sure it is, and it will require careful and vigilant attention. Somewhat risky, even. But giving the Forces of Darkness a ten to one advantage in propaganda to protect a pristine ideal of free speech? Not a risk I’m willing to take, but most likely will have to accept anyway. Golden Rule, the guys got the gold, makes the rules.
Soros has been creating dozens of groups that promote his ideology and he’s been doing it for a decades. The Soros political propoganda machine IS legion.
If you want to limit the amount that any candidate can spend for their campaign, how would you limit the amount of time that media corporations like NBC/MSNBC or ABC spend interviewing candidates they support? Would the candidates with slightly more than the minimum voter support needed to enter candidate debates be given free airtime to overcome the obviously biased support for one party or candidate?
Yes, it is.
I have explained to you many times that this isn’t about whether propaganda works or not, it’s about whether the government may censor speech based on the notion that it must protect us from it. Which is the arrogant, “people are idiots” premise you subscribe to.
No.
Still no answer to my question.
You can’t answer the question.
I consider my point to be made.
See, you don’t get to declare that one side is “the Forces of Darkness.” You realize that, right? Simply declaring that a certain source of speech is bad is the absolutely most fundamental violation of the First Amendment possible. You simply may not do it.
As for advantages, the logical conclusion to your notion that we can censor some speech in order to balance it is speech rationing. If it’s unfair for anyone to have more speech, then everyone - you, me, everyone out there - must have exactly the same amount of speech, or else it’s unfair. So, what - everyone gets one minute?
Of course he gets to declare that. Free speech, you know. It doesn’t mean anyone is going to heed him when he declares it, but he does get to do so.
It is difficult to answer an argument made up primarily of declarations of victory. There are no weak points to assault, it has no points, weak or otherwise. It is too many for me, I fold.
By dodging my question - because you know you can’t answer it without completely admitting defeat - you leave me no choice but to declare victory. That’s your choice, not mine.
You declare that the people need protection from influence, with the inescapable implication that they are incapable of handling it themselves. But somehow you escaped the brainwashing, because, why? You’re smarter than the masses of idiots?
The arrogance behind this argument is insufferable.
Leave the people alone. They don’t need your protection from speech.
Thanks for not delaying the inevitable any more.
A minor quibble.
So let’s use this board as a microcosm for the real world.
Who here feels they need some posters to be censored to protect him from being influenced? Who here isn’t capable of handling certain speech? Who thinks that OTHERs need this protection, but not them, because they are smarter than the rest of us?
TV advertising time is, that’s why it costs so much.
Wait a minute. What about those of us who think we are smarter than the masses, but still don’t think the masses need protection. What are we? Chopped liver?