Quote:
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.