I would assume that producing a film that attempts to advocate for or against a candidate, say, “John Kerry, Cowardice in the Jungle” or “Mitt Romney, Ratfuck-Mormon” is an attempt to sway an election, and I’m okay with it being not able to be promoted during the run-up to an election.
Nobody is restricting political expression. Just amounts of money to be spent, on ANY sort of speech. George Soros and Alec Baldwin won’t be writing any big checks either. Aren’t you relieved?
So then you do think that Faherenheit 911, shouldn’t have been shown within 30 days of any of the Republican primaries of 2004 or 60 days of the general election of 2004?
If you are concerned about powerful people buying themselves the election, what would you say to an incumbent who promised to, if re-elected, increase taxes on the rich and use the proceeds to pay for free health care for everyone else?
This is a false equivalence. Your mind control device is clearly objectionable, because it is coercive, and forces people to act against their will. A TV ad is not a mind-control device, any more than any other form of political speech. People watch ads willingly, they may change their opinion willingly as a result, and they vote willingly.
I do not think a billionaire should be able to buy himself an election. But paying for TV ads is not the same as buying an election. I think that the right to free speech extends to the right of people to purchase advertising expressing their political views.
What you are advocating is the position that political speech should be equal, not free. Equality is not the same thing as freedom - in fact, they are often in conflict - and there is a good reason the Constitution does not mandate equality.
And can we stop with the bullshit about the founding fathers? The founding fathers founded a country in which only land-owning white men were allowed to vote.
I don’t understand this distinction. I can choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Savage in the same way I can choose to watch the Heat v. Celtics tonight, the History Channel, the political commercials during the break, or go take a healthy dump.
I can stop and listen to the raving lunatic in the town square talking about how aliens are preparing to invade, or I can keep walking.
I understand that advertising is very persuasive, but isn’t that the goal of all speech? Is it better if Alec Baldwin wears a sandwich board a la Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in The Stand instead of writing a $100k check? If you say “yes,” then why? Because it’s less persuasive?
Non sequitur. Your statement is accurate but it doesn’t conflict with my own. You seem to understand that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right to free speech. Surely there is no problem with me pointing this out.
I disagree. Once we agree that campaign advertising is speech and that it is effective then clearly there is an opportunity to influence politicians with bundles of unregulated cash. Obviously we have an interest in reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Supreme Court has already moved to limit the 1st Amendment (although not the part pertaining to speech) for that very reason.
Can you quote this supposed argument in favor of banning movies?
I asked you for a cite before but none was produced.
For me the difference is the money. Even though the candidates only benefit from the money and don’t touch it themselves. Guy with sandwich board isn’t paying the candidate indirectly. The root of campaign finance reform is the desire to limit the money in politics. Not the freedom.
That is complete bullshit and demonstrates rather extreme ignorance of Buckley v. Valeo and similar decisions.
The court specifically held that campaign donations to a candidate can be restricted because the person doing the donating is not the one doing the speaking.
By contrast, the courts have ruled that one cannot restrict the amount of money a candidate can spend because that would interfere with their freedom of speech.
That’s why candidate Ross Perot and candidate Mitt Romney can spend as much money as the want but they can’t donate as much money as they want to other candidates.
That’s also why campaign ads have few if any restrictions put on them radio and TV stations have put on ads that normally would violate FCC regulations and why I don’t think people have even been sued for libel despite many campaign ads being blatantly false.
The point is that restricting Ross Perot’s ability to criticize a candidate for office is as blatant a violation of his free speech rights as restricting his ability to promote himself when he was running for office.
The problem is that it is irrelevant. The First Amendment is an absolute right to free political speech. Since you agree that
and since campaign advertising is obviously political, it follows that campaign advertising cannot be limited without violating the First Amendment, which imposes an absolute right to free political speech.
And therefore your exceptions do not apply to political speech.
I’m sorry but I don’t see how this has anything to do with my point. Which was that there is a basis for the courts to restrict the 1st Amendment rights for the purpose of securing free and fair elections.
BTW, should I assume you have again failed to find any judges arguing in favor of banning movies and will no longer make this false accusation?
According to who? This is not how constitutional rights have been treated in American law. Rights have always been balanced with other rights and interests. Here is a portion of Buckley v Valeo:
“We turn then to the basic First Amendment question – whether § 608(e)(1), even as thus narrowly and explicitly construed, impermissibly burdens the constitutional right of free expression.”
Notice that it doesn’t simply reject limits on free speech out of hand. Rather it examines them (and later rejects the interest in preventing corruption as inadequate to justify the limitation.) So obviously some limitations can be legitimate in their opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but that won’t matter once your fellow travelers no longer control the Supreme Court.
That decision specifically keeps its mitts off of free speech, and the First Amendment liberties it believes offer room for “balance” are not those associated with free speech, the question in this thread. From that decision:
Your “precedent” does not provide the foothold you want it to.
You’ve misunderstood. I was pointing out the part of the Buckley v Valeo decision where they consider limits on free speech not as precedent but simply because they do consider them. Since they do give thought to such limits obviously they are not unthinkable. The point, again, being that there is no absolute right to free speech, which some here are finding hard to accept. The court balanced the rights in question and determined that the restriction on free speech was not warranted. But as I said before, what was balanced once can be rebalanced.
So the fact that they didn’t do it is proof that they might? Not a real strong argument, ISTM.
Especially since they specifically mention that what you seem to be advocating - limiting the speech of some so as to enhance the impact of the speech of others - is contrary to the First Amendment, which has been pointed out from the first in this thread.
Read this again -
See how it says, very clearly, that what you are advocating isn’t allowed under the First Amendment?
It’s so funny, now that free speech = money, it’s an unassailable right, according to conservatives. Back when the big free speech issue was obscenity, there were LIMITS, dammit … according to conservatives. Once again, conservatives only care about money.
There are lots of things which are “wholly foreign” to a plain reading of the first amendment – such as the idea that non-political or commercial speech can be subject to common-sense restrictions, but political speech must always be protected (even, e.g., deliberate lies, incitement).
…which isn’t the courts’ opinion btw. Political speeches which incited violence have resulted in convictions, for example.