That is absolutely correct. Congress may not preemptively restrict speech, no matter the source. And this applies to foreigners as well as citizens. Elucidator’s post notwithstanding. Liberals have never supported censorship of foreign entertainment or news, so they do indeed believe that corporations and foreigners alike have extensive free speech rights.
Since political speech is actually the purpose of the 1st amendment, and not art, hard as that may be to believe, the bar for restricting political speech is higher than for restricting any other type of speech.
Seems that the only factor of speech that is absitively and posolutely sacred and inviolable is the quantity of speech. Unlike, say, voting rights which are very much quantifiable, one person, one vote. In theory, at least. You cannot have more than your allotment of one. Not supposed to.
Speech, however, has a different essence, which defies quantity as a measure. All speech of whatever quantity is equally sacred and inviolate. Doesn’t matter how much you got or how little the other guy got, you are both equal. If you have one apple and Timmy has ten apples, you both have apple.
And every citizen has a sacred and inviolate right to have as much speech as he can get, by whatever means he gets it. Money being the most practical and hence, preferred.
And if that means that a class of inherited money can exert a political will far out of proportion to their actual numbers, really, what could possibly go wrong? The force of their self-interest, enlightened or dark, will naturally result in political persuasion of a somber and prudent view. From people who actually have “skin in the game”! Not just their own, but yours as well!
And who knows but that some future generations of political science scholars, in pursuit of a master’s thesis on the origins of adaherian Constitutional theology might find that the light first dawned in an obscure message board…
Sorry, but freedom of the press covers that. Freedom of speech is not limited to what you can say with your own voice. Freedom of the press is the freedom to use the technology of mass communications to spread your message.
This idea that speech that was enabled by the use of money is not speech is illogical and insidious. Such a concept would be used much like the interstate commerce clause is today, to allow regulation of any speech where money was involved, So you buy a microphone, now it’s paid speech and therefore not really speech.
This concept also means the media can be regulated at will. Everything the media produces is paid speech, very expensive paid speech. If the law can regulate the Kochs, it can regulate CNN.
Does the FCC regulate CNN? Is that “unConstitutional”? If everything the media produces is speech, and the media is regulated, then speech is already regulated. The question is not whether or not speech is regulated, it is and pretty much always has been. The question is whether or not it is regulated fairly and equally.
You keep insisting on your dogma of Constitutional theology, of sacred rights that cannot be infringed, except that they have been infringed in many ways, some of them odious. But one first has to accept your dogma, your flat statement of truth, or one need not agree with your conclusions. And this one does not. And this one is not alone.
It isn’t the Founding Fuckups fault that they did not create a Constitution more directly relevant to our times and our situation, they couldn’t imagine our times and our situation. Trying to solve twenty first century problems and issues by unswerving allegiance to eighteenth century methods is stupid.
In the 18th Century, the Constitution was a bold adventure in government. But that was then. And this is now.
The FCC does not regulate CNN’s content. Claiming that because newspapers can’t just chop down any trees they want, that means that we can regulate what newspapers report on, is pretty thin logic. As is the concept that because our laws are old, that they should just be reinterpreted rather than changed through the proper processes.
The FCC doesn’t regulate content? Not advertising. Not swears. Not nudity or explicit sexual content? Not public service announcements. Nothing like that? Well, then, what does the FCC do?
I mean, I thought they were one of those regulatory agencies, and that they are assigned to regulate “communications”. But they don’t?
Do they count boll weevils in Georgia? Pretty sure they don’t deliver the mail… Chase Yogi Bear around Jellystone Park?
The FCC’s ability to regulate cable content is very limited. Cable is not “the public airwaves”, so the “compelling interest” that justifies regulation is non-existent. And they certainly cannot prevent CNN from going all-in with their billion dollar budget to back Jeb Bush’s candidacy.
Ah, you are clarifying your position! That’s good, we have clarified from “does not!” to “OK, does, but only a little.” We have great hopes for your future development. Some hope. A little.
But CNN is all in for Jeb? Wow, this might just be the break the Draft Romney movement has been waiting for!
As I read adaher’s comment, it was: “The FCC does not regulate CNN’s content.”
elucidator seemed to disagree, asking about advertising, swears, nudity and explicit sexual content.
So far as I understand, that’s correct: since CNN is a cable channel, not a broadcast channel, the FCC does not regulate CNN’s use of advertising, swears, nudity and explicit sexual content.
I welcome factual correction on this point; always willing to learn. Please, elucidator, educate me: am I wrong? Does the FCC regulate CNN’s use of advertising, swears, nudity and explicit sexual content? Do they regulate any other content of CNN’s?
Wait, what’s this? This is the path I take through the forest, everyday, on my way to gather nuts and berries. And today, right in the middle of the path, is a circle of leaves! How very odd, not the sort of thing you see everyday, not like wind blown leaves, but almost as if they had been gathered and spread. Like, hiding something. And over there, a pile of fresh dirt, recently dug… And that vague scent of lawyer.
I’m wondering, could this be a trap? If I step on those leaves, will I find myself at the bottom of a hole, with B’rer Bricker frolicking around above, doing his Gotchaya! dance?
Tell you what, Hoss. Why don’t you just say what it is you got to say, and don’t waste time with this crapola. I wasn’t born yesterday, I just look this way because of clean living and brown rice…
I’m trying to engage with the reformers because I sympathize with their concerns. But this is an issue where normally very intelligent people suddenly get very lazy in their thinking. It’s as if they don’t realize that if you’re going to hand power over to Congress to control what political speech reaches the masses that it should be done very carefully.
The stampede for campaign finance reform reminds me a lot of the stampede to pass the Patriot Act. Do something, think about it later.
Yeah, because just about two weeks ago we discovered all this stuff, and we’re totally in panic mode. Right. Sure. You betcha. If only we had the good sense to leave the governance of our country to the guys who own it. But we appreciate your sympathy. Gee, that’s really swell!
That’s what makes it worse. Despite years to figure out a solution, the best your side can come up with is an amendment that says, “Congress can regulate any political spending it wants except for the media”. Brilliant, what could possibly go wrong?
First, you tell us that we can’t propose anything because it will violate the sacred Constitution. Then you give us shit for not proposing anything. Then you tell us how sympathetic you are, but, really, there’s no practical way to do anything so, goshdarn it, we’ll just have to suck it up. Damned shame about that, but that’s just the way it is!
At least there’s some variety, the answer is always NO! but for different reasons.
The point that you miss is that even the Republicans that want to be reasonable are being pushed aside.
If the money flow can not be stopped, voters should at least be able to detect the influence buying that’s likely to follow, incidentally I already mentioned that a lot of corporations are being transparent about what they are doing with their money, and are asking that others do not hide in obfuscations like Donor’s Trust, the implication that you missed is that part of the reform has to include rules to prevent any attempts at hiding the sources of the money.
Actually, I’ve made some suggestions, but exactly what you think the problem is is a moving target. Define the problem, then come up with a legal solution.