I’m inclined to believe that Democrats are sincere on this issue. I’m also pretty sure that the last thing Mark Pryor wants is Gabby Giffords’ PAC running ads in his district attacking his stance on guns.
Maybe Pryor should get on board with that amendment to overturn Citizens United then.
I’m sure he already is. Congressmen in competitive districts and states have more reason to support restrictions on those who can shine a light on their voting record than most.
2sense, wolfpup, et. al., the challenge is for you to contruct an argument that justifies the policies you want (limits on certain speech) that doesn’t at the same time justify (and therefore give the government the power to enact) ANY limit on speech whatsoever.
You can’t do it.
Even the greatest thinkers of the time were still people of their time. 2 centuries have passed and we’ve learned a few things. A lesser known founder was was a famous doctor named Benjamin Rush. Would you let him treat you with tinctures of mercury and frequent bleedings?
I have not said that founders would be in favor of violating speech rights. coughSedition Actcough I was just making the distinction. Not everything is an argument for limiting speech.
You can’t separate the 2 because you believe that if one part of the government tells another part not to do something that makes that government less powerful. To me that just looks like the government has decided not to do that thing. It still can do it if it changes its mind so its not losing any power by declining to exercise it at this time. Thus my concern for what is actually happening rather than more esoteric considerations.
Just because you refuse to accept logical arguments doesn’t mean they haven’t been made. If the justification for regulating speech is some might be potentially corrupting then the limit on that justification is completely obvious. It fails to justify limits on speech which are not potentially corrupting. I’ve tried to get that simple concept across to you many times now. I’ve also tried to explain that just because a justification exists to limit speech doesn’t mean it must be limited. Sometimes there isn’t an acceptable way to do so.
So, lets get back to my questions. Do you agree that campaign ads for a candidate, even if purchased by someone else, are potentially corrupting just as giving the money to the candidate to buy the commercials herself is potentially corrupting? Do you agree that speech can be potentially corrupting and that based on that reality some might, in good faith, seek to regulate outside campaign commercials? Can you cite three instances of a modern democracy starting to regulate speech and ending up a totalitarian state?
Ends don’t justify means in general.
Once again - I don’t give a damn either way. If you declare that speech can be banned on this basis, you could ban ANY political speech, and this is absurd. I don’t support it, and I doubt you would either.
Because, duh, the government gets to decide what “temporary” and “targeted” means.
But you would give the government the power to ban it. It would make that decision, not you.
Windmills? You want to violate a fundamental, longstanding right. No.
EXACTLY.
That’s your problem.
And what was that about ends and means again?
Nice try.
We’ve never ever amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights. Not once.
?
Which just shows how naive you are.
But ALL political speech is “potentially corrupting!”
Jesus Christ. Do you not get that once you give government a power, it can use it how it wants, not just how you think it should be used? You can’t just say “here’s a sweeping power to regulate speech - please only use it in narrow, acceptable ways though.”
I don’t CARE. None are justifications for regulation of speech.
A state that regulates speech is no longer a democracy. Not fully at least. We’re better than that.
Did you get lost? You replied to that post over a week ago. We’ve moved on.
Ah you’ve caught up. Okay.
Isn’t favorable media coverage corrupting? Is it fair that a lot of journalists can just call the White House and get a high level staffer or the man himself anytime they want?
I don’t understand your response. I’m saying that the founders are necessarily ignorant of the past 200 years of scientific advancement and that includes political (and medical) science. If you could timetravel Benjamin Rush here you wouldn’t ask his medical advice so why should his advice on politics matter?
When you don’t understand an explanation, which you signified with that question mark, then it’s foolish to go ahead and make judgments about it.
It’s not. We’ve been over this. Only things of value can possibly be corrupting. How many times am I going to be forced to point this out? If I tell my wife to vote for Obama, that’s political speech but it’s not of much use to any politician.
I understand perfectly that that’s how you see it. And I’m not singling you out, that’s how it’s commonly expressed in America where you very rarely see anyone question judicial review. But you have seen me disagree. You see the Citizens United decision as a limit on government power but from my perspective there has been no change in governmental power just because the government decided to no longer regulate outside campaign commercials. If it were to start telling tv stations again that they couldn’t air those commercials then the TV people would obey or they would go to jail. That is what power is- the ability to do something. The government isn’t any less powerful just because one part of it will no longer do something unless another part tells it it is OK.
I am not offering these questions as justifications for regulation of speech. So if it’s not a big deal to you could you please answer my questions?
So all of those examples of regulating speech leading to totalitarianism you said were from history were instead from your imagination?
It doesn’t lead to totalitarianism, but if you give government the power to regulate political speech, they will use it in ways you don’t agree with. You have to decide if the tradeoff is worth it.
In Britain, they don’t just limit campaigning for candidates over the airwaves. They limit advocacy on any issue of controversy.
I don’t see this as a major concern. I think that if there had been evidence that the IRS decisions were politically motivated people would have taken notice even over the noise of the unending paranoid partisan accusations that are the lifeblood of the GOP. People couldn’t hold Obama to account for it (thanks to the “wisdom” of term limits) but it would have cost the Democratic Party some support.
I haven’t heard any of these people speak but I think they are wrong. The Presidency is not becoming more of a figurehead. On the contrary, as the deliberately inefficient legislative branch becomes more and more dysfunctional the executive branch is more and more left to act on its own.
I think it’s corrupting both for the politicians and the journalists. Certainly important journalists have far more access and influence than average but I’m not sure how to judge the fairness of the situation nor do I see the question as anything other than academic.
Certainly you have to expect some compromise in policy discussions. One of the main issues I have with judicial review is how it works against this. Opponents of a policy don’t have to argue on the merits, as lance strongarm so resolutely resisted doing so here. They can use constitutionality to argue that the government isn’t allowed to do things they can’t demonstrate it shouldn’t do. And the language of rights, being somewhat arbitrary concepts, lends itself to obstructionism through absolutist interpretations or plain old caviling.
Of course it’s of value to a politician. It may gain Obama your wife’s vote. That’s valuable.
Pretty much ALL political speech benefits a politician in some way.
No, the government didn’t decide that, a court forced it to stop, because it said the Constitution forbids it.
No they wouldn’t. The law was struck down. Nobody would go to jail.
Why, yes, it is.
Drop the “totalitarianism” crap. A violation of a right doesn’t have to be total to be wrong. Regulation of speech is a violation of both human rights and an assault on democracy.
The people will decide what speech to believe or accept. Not you. Very simply concept.
2sense, would you say a law regulating only the practice of religion for Jews, but leaving other religions totally free, would be acceptable just because it doesn’t go very far? It falls short of “totalitarianism?”