This is not the UK. We have a First Amendment. For good reason.
Stop dodging.
Should the government have the power to disallow or penalize the publication of a book because it has political content or because they are “electioneering?” Yes or no?
The fact that you keep saying “it depends” means you allow for that to be a yes in at least some circumstances.
Just own up to that and then move on so we can watch you try to square that with the First Amendment.
You are not getting the point. You’re using a circular argument.
We are not asking if you think certain things are electioneering. We are asking if you support laws that regulate speech based on “electioneering.”
Again, you are way off the point.
This is NOT about campaigns. Campaigns are already, by long-established law, allowed to “electioneer” as much as they want with no restrictions on what they publish or how much they spend on it. No restrictions.
This is about everyone else - individuals, groups, corporations, etc. - spending money to publish books or make movies, and to distribute them independently of a campaign, including places like Barnes and Noble. That’s what Citizens United was all about.
You were asked about books being published and distributed in bookstores, not related to campaigns, because the government’s lawyers in the Citizens United case said the law that was overturned DID permit them to ban the sale of political books. For instance, imagine the government banning the sale of Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” leading up to the 2004 election.
Do you not see the vastly problematic issue here? Do you not see how that blatantly infringes on First Amendment rights?
And the UK is a free country only as long as Parliament says it is. The UK subscribes to the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. Parliament can pass laws on any subject they like without restriction. So yes, the UK can actually censor to their hearts content. THe US cannot.
Because I feel compelled to explain common sense to quite a few of my interlocutors. I swear, you and several other posters are acting like it is impossible to judge cases on their circumstances. Its like if I proposed a law against murder, I would expect you to ask me how anyone could possibly judge between a drug dealer killing his competitor and a police officer acting in self-defense. I’m saying that people can tell the difference between a drug dealer and a cop; and people can tell the difference between a political campaign and a bookstore.
I’d be less coy if you asked better questions. As a general principle, I’d be fine with restoring the part of McCain-Feingold that was struck down.
No, actually, just as with any law, different facts can lead to different outcomes. See my murder example above. I was asked to weigh in on a very specific example for which I don’t know of remember a precise set of facts. Was the book produced by a political action committee? I have no clue.
Fire in a crowded theater. It is possible to reach some conclusions based on content and intent.
Yes, and if a political campaign uses hard money to distribute literature, movies, DVDs, books, porn, sombreros, or vodka, I have no problem with that.
It depends on the circumstances. If a PAC publishes a book to distribute widely to voters that expressly advocates for or against a candidate, then I agree with 60 senators and 240 House members that there should be some sort of sanction on the PAC. If a campaign wants to give every voter some book with the same content, I’m totally fine with that. If an author wants Barnes and Noble to sell the same book, I have no objection at all to that.
What a silly question. Seriously, how could you have read any of my posts and thought to ask this question? I think you’re wasting my time with some of the questions being asked.
See my “it depends” answer above. You’re battling a strawman again, as most of your colleagues are who are flying off the handle with nonsense about book burnings and whatnot.
FINALLY!
Now, explain how that law is not a violation of the First Amendment when it allows the government to penalize the distribution of or advertising about a film, or possibly the publication of a book.
Oh, god, no, please to lower yourself to that.
Gee, thanks for not having a problem with the First Amendment.
The 60 Senators and 240 House members are completely irrellevant. The First Amendment says they can’t do that.
Would you have a problem with the government forbidding the sale, or publication, of that book? Again, a yes or no will do.
It’s not silly. You have completely dodged the questions with a circular argument. But let’s move on since you’ve come out in favor of banning book and film production. Now you have to explain how it doesn’t obviously violate the First Amendment.
I said nothing about book burnings. I asked you about the actual facts of the case - the film - and a hypothetical mentioned in the case - the book. Not strawmen at all.
I disagree with the ruling, but I respect that it is the law. I generally agree with the aspects of Buckley v. Valeo that recognize that there is a link between certain political campaign activities and the possibility or appearance of corruption.
Yes.
I’m no longer responding to your stupid strawman an ad hominem statements. I’ll let my words speak for me, not your inflammatory and incorrect accusations of banning books. If you can’t make a reasonable argument, I’m not sure why you’re posting.
Another poster did.
I don’t think Ravenman is being circular, so much as using the “I’ll know it when I see it” argument, which is problematic in the case of campaign finance because it gives authorities the power to do a lot more than you might like with a power they can’t really be trusted to use fairly. There’s just too much incentive for cheating since all appointments to the FEC tend to be partisan. The power will be used to handicap opponents and benefit the party they favor.
Okay. Why do you disagree?
Why?
How is a book different from a film? Why should a book get better protection? And how can you rewrite the (now stuck down) law to protect books but not films?
No ad hominems. No strawmen. It’s a perfectly legitimate question. It was raised in the Citizens United case.
But you’ve answered the question, so let’s move on.
I know, so don’t blame me.
He was being circular when he was asked whether he supported a law regulating spending on speech based on whether it was “electioneering” and he responded to the effect of “it depends - is it electioneering?”
No matter, we’re moving on.
This is a fair point - although in most cases where I’ve been asked a specific question (“Ravenman why do you want to BAN AND BURN this particular book?”) I’m not arguing for a subjective judgment. I’m saying it’s hard for me to offer an opinion when I’m not familiar with the basic facts of the Swiftboating book, or some such.
If writing campaign finance laws was actually my full-time job, I think there could be a reasonable test established that would inform whether or not some independent expenditure ought to be dealt with. I note that the Supreme Court has established lots of tests as to whether some activity or another is protected or isn’t. Just because I have not personally invested the time to write my own seven-part test on how to reconcile a particular situation with my general philosophical views, I do not believe is a fair criticism of my point of view.
But the FEC is appointed on a partisan basis, with three seats controlled by Republicans and three controlled by Democrats.
Why do you assume I’m in favor of banning films? More strawman nonsense.
I didn’t blame you – this is what I wrote: “as most of your colleagues are who are flying off the handle with nonsense about book burnings…”
Not everything written in this thread is about you, especially when what is written says in black and white that it isn’t about you.
I do.
I think you’re pretending this is complicated when it’s not. Speech is protected. Especially political speech. Restrictions based on the content of the speech, or the amount of speech, or the identity of the speaker, have been universally rejected. There can’t be a more egregious violation of freedom of speech than to declare that someone has too much speech, or they’re talking about the wrong thing, or they aren’t authorized speakers.
You said you support the law struck down by Citizens United. That law allowed for effectively banning films. That’s what the entire case was about.
That comes close to blaming me. I didn’t say it, so it’s not relevant. Let’s move on.
If it’s not about me, don’t talk about it in response to me as if it’s relevant to me. Thanks. Let’s not waste more time on that. I accept your explanation.
“Effectively.” Nice weasel word there.
My understanding is that the Circuit Court said that CU couldn’t advertise the film within 30 days of the primary. Help inform me here: what did the court rule on the film itself that constitutes “effective banning?”
Not weasel words, just continuing YOUR words. MY words, in my questions to you, were more precise.
Oh, please. You can’t run any ads for your film, but it’s not effectively banned! Tell that to someone in Hollywood and see what the reaction is.
But whatever. The ads for the film are effectively banned. Do you think the government should have the power to ban spending on ads related to politics?
And here’s the thing - Citizens United had already spend money making the film. Is that different? Could it not, in your view, be penalized for spending corporate money to MAKE an electioneering film rather than just advertise it? That would effectively ban the film. Do you think spending on making films should be okay, but ads for the films can be forbidden? Why?
Sorry for the second reply.
I didn’t say you were in favor of banning films. I asked specific questions. Please answer them.
Did Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell effectively ban homosexuals from serving in the military? Saying you’re allowed to do something but only if nobody else finds out is functionally equivalent to banning it outright.
Now that’s a good analogy.
Another is this: if the government respected the right to go out and have an abortion, but simply made it illegal to pay someone for an abortion, that would be an effective ban on abortion. You could still have one, but only if you find a doctor who does them for free.
Or say the government respects the right to possess a bible - but says one cannot be bought, sold, or published using money. You can give one as a gift (if you have one already, since few new ones are being published) or you can copy one out by hand with pen and paper, just don’t spend money. Anyone who claimed that wasn’t an effective ban would be laughed at, as would their attempts to claim that “effective ban” even matters. It would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and everyone would know it.
You have a funny definition of “banned.” When I think of the word “banned,” I think of Pete Rose from baseball, guns on airplanes, and so on. I would not typically say, “As a result of deflategate, Tom Brady was BANNED FROM THE NFL (for four games)!!!”
I think you’re being hysterical in using the word “banned” to describe a prohibition on ads for a specific 30 day period, just in the same way that some campaign finance advocates are hysterical when they say “the Supreme Court ruled that money equals speech.” That doesn’t mean that either one of those issues should be minimized in terms of importance, but using language accurately, and avoiding inflammatory terms that misrepresent the issues at stake, are important.
lance, I just don’t follow what you’re saying here. Maybe it’s me, maybe its the way things are written, I’m just not getting the point you’re making. Can you take another run at it?
DADT was law for something like 20-plus years. I think that legitimately qualifies as a ban, as opposed to the 30 day window for restrictions on independent expenditures. It just isn’t comparable.
Let’s just take a moment a review what hyperbole has been tossed around in this thread. First, it is ZOMG a film is banned! Then, it is Well, it isn’t the film, but ads are banned! Then it is, Well, if ads are banned, then that means the film is banned! Later, it becomes, Now, if the ads are banned, sure the film isn’t banned, but it is LIKE the film is banned! Finally, we’re down to, Okay, the ads aren’t really banned, but they are put in a penalty box… it’s like a NHL player has been banned from the sport every time they are sent off for two minutes.
The backpedaling of the rhetoric is just crazy in this thread.
Stop the word games.
Do you think it is acceptable for the government to forbid all spending on speech in a way that makes that speech virtually impossible just because it’s only for 30 (very important) days?
Come on. This is so obviously a violation of the First Amendment. It stinks of it.
If the government were to put someone in jail or fine them for spending money to make a film because that film was political, would you be okay with that?
It’s not backpedaling, it’s you not discussing in good faith with these word games.
You support severe restrict on the ability of some to deliver their speech to others. This is an obvious violation of the First Amendment. The word games you are playing are part of how regulators try to get around this by pretending not to be doing it. It’s the same word games they use with “money isn’t speech!”