Yes there is. Less money=less speech. That’s what Roberts was objecting to. Rather than trying to reduce corruption, Congress is just trying to reduce the number of ads, which has no legitimate purpose.
She’s got a swan’s neck, a girlish giggle, and a mind like a steel trap. And you got…what, exactly?
Totally different things, you are comparing apples to orangutans. Suppressing the vote is fucking with the very mechanisms of democracy, the machinery that makes the doctrine of one navel, one vote feasible.
And, point of fact, it is not conservative voices that are worrisome for the fate of the Republic, it is the voices of knuckle walking troglodyte reactionaries that are worrisome.
Conservatives are valid and useful, so long as a conservative is someone who accepts the necessity for change but advocates for a cautious and prudent approach. A reactionary’s vision of returning America to a mythical Golden Age is neither cautious or prudent, it is more radical than even my agenda. (Actually, my agenda hasn’t changed all that much, it used to be radical, now its just lefty. Darn kids…)
Besides, conservatives are useful to blame stuff on. If someone from the moonbat wing presses for funding an English-as-a-second-language program for gay whales, we can just say “Hey, great idea, but the conservatives won’t let us. Darn!”…
Suppressing the vote is far, far worse than any imbalance in the process of advocacy could ever be!
You presumably have a point here.
No question about it. The main effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to move the political debate off of network TV altogether, excepting political commercials during campaign season.
OK, I get it now: you’re saying that if you look around the cable channels long and hard enough, you’re bound to find an hour or two of programming somewhere that caters to the beliefs you already hold.
That doesn’t change the fact that the average viewer is choosing from a massively unbalanced menu of choices. The supposedly liberal MSNBC has, what, three hours of Joe Scarborough in the mornings. Yes, it also has Rachel Maddow, thank goodness. Which just means that if MSNBC was the only network, we’d have something roughly akin to balance in our political programming. But as everyone knows, it’s “the liberal” MSNBC, the network that’s well to the left of everyone else. Which means that everyone else is well to the right of the only network where conservative and liberal views are nearly in balance.
Yeah, thanks so much, Art Fowler (FCC chair under St. Ronnie), for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine.
Why? We won’t need to, unless the cable providers succeed in undermining the neutrality of the Web.
Why not? On my property, I get to set the rules. The broadcast spectrum is owned by we, the people, so we, the people, should get to set the rules. And local governments have the right to set the terms of the local cable monopoly. Not to mention, it goes without saying that monopolies should be regulated.
Liberal media? Where do I go to find the liberal media?
Even if anyone wanted to limit campaigning to a handful of low-circulation print magazines and their websites, I very much doubt that it would have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting enacted.
Yeah, Hollywood would never create stuff like the Rambo movies, or the 24 TV series. These were created by conservative filmmakers in a secret bunker in Idaho, and distributed by a samizdat of private DVD exchanges.
Whatever, dude.
School.
Wonder who sat in for Roberts when SCOTUS was considering voter ID.
So, the thing is, free speech is for everybody. And the rich guy just has more of it than I do, but that’s ok because we both have free speech. Because that makes us equal, even if it makes me more equal than him. Its OK if he owns Lake Superior, long as I have a Dixie cup full of water, we are equal!
Don’t know what these guys are smoking, but I’d like to try some! On second thought, no, no, I wouldn’t.
Of course reducing the number of ads has a legitimate purpose. The less money spent on this whole thing, the better. “Less speech” does not matter if that burden falls on all candidates equally.
Me, I got a girl’s neck, a swan’s giggle, and a mind like a steel trap (everything that goes in, comes out mangled).
Wait, what?!
Come on, if there’s any conspiracy to “silence conservative voices” in that way – by marginalizing third-party voices – it’s a bipartisan one, and serves just as well or better to silence the real left.
You say this like it is somehow shocking. Yes, the rich guy has a nicer home and cars that you or I drive. He takes his family on nicer vacations. He can afford premium satellite television and yes, he can pay for more TV commercials and get his message out better than you or I can.
It is like saying that the 4th amendment is not applied equally because a rich man can protect his 30,000 square foot house from the government, but I can only protect 1,250 sq. feet. Money always gives a person the ability to make certain choices that the absence of money doesn’t allow.
For the government to say that there is too much free speech going on and attempt to limit it is almost the very definition of “not a legitimate purpose.”
But influencing the public electoral/political process with more effect than a citizen of lesser means can have should never be one of those choices; that way runs from democracy to plutocracy – and we’ve traveled almost the whole length of that way already. Haven’t you spotted the wrong turn yet?!
And apart from that, Bill O’Reilly (substitute any “pundit”'s name if you like) has immeasurably more “free speech” than **elucidator **does. Unfair!!!
Your idea of free speech is terrible.
Just because my youtube video gets less hits than another guy’s doesn’t mean the authoritarian hand of government should intercede. There will always always be someone who has more influence than someone else. Any attempt to change that is far more chilling than the initial circumstances themselves.
Free speech is the end goal in and of itself, not a means to achieve some desired outcome.
You say there is a legitimate purpose. What is it?
Wow! So much wrong in so few words!
Free speech is not the thing itself, it is a device by which we protect and serve the thing itself, egalitarian democracy. You could, at least in theory, have a government where anybody can say anything he wants, but cannot actually vote. I say “in theory”, because as a practical fact, tyrannies don’t do that, if they suppress one of your rights, they usually suppress them all.
A bit like the old joke about an American arguing with a Soviet, and says, well, we have free speech in America, I can get up on a soap box in Times Square and denounce American foreign policy, and nobody will arrest me.
“Is same in my country! I can get up on box, in Kremlin, and denounce American foreign policy, and no one will arrest me! And do you have any of that soap that came in the box?”
Reducing the amount of money spent on the whole thing.
You’ll have to flesh this out a bit for it to make sense. You are saying the goal is to limit speech, since money is speech. Why should this be a goal of government?
So if you could protect egalitarian democracy by limiting speech, that would be acceptable? If it’s not a goal in and of itself, then it is a means to an end, an end that could theoretically be achieved by other purposes. That renders the protections of free speech rather weak. And that’s why your vision of how speech should work is so sucky.
Because the amount of money spent on American election campaigns is pernicious in and of itself, because the candidates including the incumbents have to spend so much of their time raising it and obligating themselves to the biggest donors, and because they end up so obligated.
Sure. Because that is the crux of the biscuit. Recognizing that any such effort must be very carefully done. Further recognizing that if any such effort cannot be cobbled together that is fair, equitable, and consensual, then we’ll just have to live with it. I do believe we can do a damned sight better than we have.
I gather what you mean to say is that the end could be achieved by other means? Well, OK, we’re listening. What do you have in mind? Have you a positive suggestion to make, or are you simply in opposition?
It does? How? Why? A declarative sentence is not much of an argument, if all you say is “this is so, because!”.