We are #1

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”

Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oney-unlimited

Yada, tada, yada.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”

Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oney-unlimited

Good one whell. You see, if we lean on you enough, and make you try, you can at least find interesting stuff to C&P.

Poor Justice Stewart, now, got suckered by a false equlivalency. Broadcast media ain't books. Books you have to open them and read them; broadcast is pushed. That makes them totally different in effect. If the Supremes said freedom of speech and of the press mean what they meant when the Constitution was written--vibrations in the air from a human throat, and text on paper--I think we'd be better off. Because if it were seen as constitutional to ban all paid political messages on TV and other electronic media, I'd want it done.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Good one whell. You see, if we lean on you enough, and make you try, you can at least find interesting stuff to C&P.

Poor Justice Stewart, now, got suckered by a false equlivalency. Broadcast media ain't books. Books you have to open them and read them; broadcast is pushed. That makes them totally different in effect. If the Supremes said freedom of speech and of the press mean what they meant when the Constitution was written--vibrations in the air from a human throat, and text on paper--I think we'd be better off. Because if it were seen as constitutional to ban all paid political messages on TV and other electronic media, I'd want it done.

Speech is speech. The media used for delivery of speech isn't relevant. Why should it matter if its a guy standing in the middle of town square on a soap box, a book, a newspaper, a tv program, a dvd or a streaming internet video? In fact, to your point, when the consitution was written the type of speech of primary concern to the framers was political speech.

Whether or not you'd "want it done", I'm not in any hurry to turn over to Washington politicos the power to curtail freedom of speech.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Poor Justice Stewart, now, got suckered by a false equlivalency. Broadcast media ain't books. Books you have to open them and read them; broadcast is pushed. That makes them totally different in effect. If the Supremes said freedom of speech and of the press mean what they meant when the Constitution was written--vibrations in the air from a human throat, and text on paper--I think we'd be better off. Because if it were seen as constitutional to ban all paid political messages on TV and other electronic media, I'd want it done.

Just for context, this was the kind of punishment for unwelcome political speech that was not uncommon at the time when the Constitution was written: torture, imprisonment, death sentences, purges. Its among the many reasons why some folks fled their home countries and came to the "New World". Its still going on today on some parts of the world. I'd rather move away from this kind of control of speech than move toward it with the kind of "fix" that was prescribed with the amendment proposal that was defeated in September.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9983986.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Poor Justice Stewart.....

Incidentally, Stewart was not a Justice. He was a deputy solicitor employed by the Justice Department. He didn't get "suckered". He answered the question truthfully and consistently with arguments that had been offered up to that point during the hearing (per the Toobin article).

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Speech is speech. The media used for delivery of speech isn't relevant. Why should it matter if its a guy standing in the middle of town square on a soap box, a book, a newspaper, a tv program, a dvd or a streaming internet video? In fact, to your point, when the consitution was written the type of speech of primary concern to the framers was political speech.

Whether or not you'd "want it done", I'm not in any hurry to turn over to Washington politicos the power to curtail freedom of speech.

You don't have to worry, it won't be done. The number of elected officials who think as I do here is probably...zero. My chief dislike is for political video, btw--electronic text can stay unregulated I suppose.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Just for context, this was the kind of punishment for unwelcome political speech that was not uncommon at the time when the Constitution was written: torture, imprisonment, death sentences, purges. Its among the many reasons why some folks fled their home countries and came to the "New World". Its still going on today on some parts of the world. I'd rather move away from this kind of control of speech than move toward it with the kind of "fix" that was prescribed with the amendment proposal that was defeated in September.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9983986.html

I remain against torture, over 'treasonous speech' or anything else. though it's not like there's no temptation. My opposition to what is called 'political speech' in the video world stems from the style and content of what we get. Ghads, look at it if you can stand it. It's 99% tricks and lies, 98% tricks and lies used to smear the opponent, and 99.9% pitched at swaying the most stupid and ignorant of the citizens endowed with the sacred democratic franchise. Plus it is aired at a cost of billions, creating the demand for lavish funding that cannot but confer decisive influence upon it's providers.

Ending campaign video would be nothing but good for the healthy functioning of our democracy.

There is plenty of precedent for regulation of broadcast media; cable should be included because it uses airways when transmitted by satellite or wi-fi. Candidates who want to distribute media should be limited to passing out physical disks. That should be liberal enough for anyone.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Incidentally, Stewart was not a Justice. He was a deputy solicitor employed by the Justice Department. He didn't get "suckered". He answered the question truthfully and consistently with arguments that had been offered up to that point during the hearing (per the Toobin article).

My miistake--crossed up wires with old Justice Potter Stewart.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ending campaign video would be nothing but good for the healthy functioning of our democracy.

There is plenty of precedent for regulation of broadcast media; cable should be included because it uses airways when transmitted by satellite or wi-fi. Candidates who want to distribute media should be limited to passing out physical disks. That should be liberal enough for anyone.

Its really not about what speech you or I prefer, get tired of, or think is too much or too little. Nor is it currently within the purview of the gov't to determine what political speech you and I get to utter or when and how we utter it.

But if you wish to push for the regulation of speech over the Internet and let the gov't make the determination about what and when certain types of speech are appropriate, I wonder what the future of this forum would be in that scenario?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Its really not about what speech you or I prefer, get tired of, or think is too much or too little. Nor is it currently within the purview of the gov't to determine what political speech you and I get to utter or when and how we utter it.

But if you wish to push for the regulation of speech over the Internet and let the gov't make the determination about what and when certain types of speech are appropriate, I wonder what the future of this forum would be in that scenario?

I've already said forget regulating text. This is text.

Might have some impact on the promiscuous use of YouTube links, though....

Look, I'm not exactly serious here. I'm just wishing I could wave a magic wand and make all campaign video go away. Because it IS awful, and it's cost is what gives candidates a NEED for all that funding, with the corruption of democracy that comes with that.

Just think of it as 'thinkiing outside the box.'