Thread: So much for freedom of Speech

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Where does it say anything about slander???

Slander causes emotional, social, and economic harm to the target, and because it is false, it's illegal.

That's not to say that any movie that paints a negative picture of the Red Queen could ever be slanderous....there's no lie that can be more damaging than the truth about that bitch.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Stinger is just upset because these scheming anti Hillary people have to actualy obey the law.

The law is unconstitutional.

or did you miss that First Amendment thingy quoted above?

Originally Posted by Djinn

I did a little research to see how this law applied to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911." It turns out that his movie was subject to the same rules, and Moore followed them. So before anyone starts frothing, there was no double standard.

Among other things, the FEC rules state that television commercials for the movie (aired close to the election) could not include images of the candidate running for office, nor could the candidate's name be mentioned. For Moore's movie, this was relatively easy.

However, in this instance, the producers named the movie "Hillary: The Movie" making it impossible to develop a television commercial that avoided mentioning the candidate's name.

But since the election is over (and technically was over when Sen. Obama won the Democratic primary), there should be no such obstacle.

So....Moore produces bullshit on the side of the politicians running the FCC/FEC, and surprise surprise, surprise, he's allowed to go, and someon produces something uncomplimentary to one of the FEC/FCC's icons, and they're not.

The problem is, naturally, that the govenrment isn't allowed to apply prior restraint on content. Do read the First Amendment sometime.

The parties alleging injury can sue after the fact, not before.

Why do you want those oh-so-trustworthy politicians and bureaucrats controlling what people say?

Originally Posted by Stinger

Moot point, that was not the issue here and slander does not apply to public figures.

Slander certainly applies to public figures.

I mean, how much money would Clinton have lost in earnings if someone said he was an honest man and enough Democrats believed him?

What if the media insisted on calling Obama white, and the blacks living in America believed them?

It's possible that our second black president, who's scheduled to take office in January, might not have been elected, and if that had happened, there wouldn't be gays protesting the Mormon church because those black voters passed Proposition 8, too.

You are aware that you're not going to be able to get Obama supporting drones to understand that any form of prior-restraint violates the First Amendment, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Slander causes emotional, social, and economic harm to the target.

Hey, We've slandered each other several times and I'm good, so are you FFA. Whats this cry baby damage crap?

Originally Posted by Stinger

No I'm upset about the law, learn the distinction.



And learn the difference between a privately owned forum and public speech.

What if the government decided to make a law which said you could not critize the President on the internet in a political debate forum?

Didn't they do that in the patriot act? They just have not decided to inforce that provision yet.

You guys talk about the first amendment like the government gives a shit???

It is not in the public interest to be able to buy a campaign.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

It is not in the public interest to be able to buy a campaign.

Oh.

You gonna make Obama give it back?

It's not in the public interest to engage in prior restraint on speech.

That's what's not good.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Stinger is just upset because these scheming anti Hillary people have to actualy obey the law.

You don't have free speech on Political Hotwire...I can't call Stinger whatever I want because it's a personal insult.

Why don't you start a thread titled "So much for free speech" here on PH?

Folks, this just isn't true.

You can say whatever you want and you have that freedom. You also have the freedom to be moderated as well.

Just like any freedom of speech, its a two way street.