Quote:
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.