We are #1

[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