Thread: So much for freedom of Speech

Originally Posted by Tick

If it had been a movie decrying McCain they would have voted for it to have been seen ad called it freedom of expression, in fact a movie like that would not have come before a court at all.

I know. It's pointless to argue with them. Just look at all the bogus excuses they are giving.

Originally Posted by Djinn

But... they didn't. There are a lot of things that the government has not done that would upset me.

Deny freedom of speech not being one of them apparently.

Do you believe the government can restrict the free speech of an individual specficially by sanctioning them for critizing a political office holder or someone running for a political office at any time other than when the person is creating a public disturbance or enticing a riot or other unlawful act.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Deny freedom of speech not being one of them apparently.

Do you believe the government can restrict the free speech of an individual specficially by sanctioning them for critizing a political office holder or someone running for a political office at any time other than when the person is creating a public disturbance or enticing a riot or other unlawful act.

Bullsh*t, Stinger. All they had to do was post a disclaimer and list their donors. That does NOT take away their right to free speech. That just means they gotta OBEY THE LAW.

Nah pal, these weasels come up with this crazy sh*t like 527's and 501(c)-3's and all this stuff, those are just LOOPHOLES.

NO MORE LOOPHOLES, pal. If it has anything to do with politics, the People have a right to know who's doin' it.

Why would they wanna hide that from you anyway? If you got somethin' to say, then tell me who you are. What's wrong with that? That doesn't take away your free speech. That just means you gotta stand behind what you say.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Bullsh*t, Stinger. All they had to do was post a disclaimer and list their donors. That does NOT take away their right to free speech. That just means they gotta OBEY THE LAW.

What about their right to privacy?

What about the fact that demanding people satisfy preconditions before being allowed to speak is censorship, and hence a violation of the First Amendment.

You are aware that this law, and several others McCain helped engineer, are the main reason why McCain never got anything more than lukewarm support. Why did Palin energize the Republican base where McCain couldn't? She could believably espouse those conservative pro-American causes that McCain couldn't, because no one would really believe him.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

NO MORE LOOPHOLES, pal. If it has anything to do with politics, the People have a right to know who's doin' it.

People have a right to unrestricted speech, and there's no need for loopholes if the prohibition against creating prohibitions is obeyed.

I'm all for making any and all candidates for elected office publish a comprehnsive and accurate listing of donors.

That does not apply to a private party making a movie, not Micheal Moore, not Stone, not Spike Lee, not anyone. That's irregardless of the timing of the release of the film, also.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

People have a right to unrestricted speech, and there's no need for loopholes if the prohibition against creating prohibitions is obeyed.

I'm all for making any and all candidates for elected office publish a comprehnsive and accurate listing of donors.

That does not apply to a private party making a movie, not Micheal Moore, not Stone, not Spike Lee, not anyone. That's irregardless of the timing of the release of the film, also.

No, sorry. BAD model. Some o' you guys can't seem to consider any social structure bigger than an individual. If I'm running for office, and there's a law that says I gotta publish my donor list, and then I turn around and slip you a hundred bucks to have you do somethin' for me, and you DON'T gotta publish your donor list, then that is a LOOPHOLE. That is a way for me to get around the law, simply by giving you a hundred bucks.

Pal, that is the WHOLE POINT. There is a "compelling public interest" in this equation. It's the exact same concept as yelling fire in a crowded theater. If you are making voting decisions based on BULLSHIT, then that is a BAD thing for the Common Welfare. So, we're not gonna stop you from spewin' the bullshit, we're just gonna make you attach your name to it. That's ALL this law says. It's doesn't inhibit free speech, AT ALL. It just says you gotta sign your name to it.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Deny freedom of speech not being one of them apparently.

Do you believe the government can restrict the free speech of an individual specficially by sanctioning them for critizing a political office holder or someone running for a political office at any time other than when the person is creating a public disturbance or enticing a riot or other unlawful act.

If the premise of the criticism is fallacious or untrue but presented in such a way as to lead a reasonable person to believe that it is true, then it is not covered under freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

If the premise of the criticism is fallacious or untrue but presented in such a way as to lead a reasonable person to believe that it is true, then it is not covered under freedom of speech.

Nah, that's out of context. That's something "else". PLUS, there has to be "intent", in what you're talkin' about.

And, it's not "freedom of speech" that's in play there - you can SPEAK all you want, you just gotta take responsibility for it.

Same concept here, but in a very different form. The responsibility here is authorship rather than financial.

So, they're kinda telling you that you're smart enough to make the decision yourself, 'cause they're not going to stop you from hearin' the bullsh*t, but, they're gonna make sure someone's name is attached to it so you know where it came from.

That's a GOOD thing, pal. Do you know how many FOREIGNERS want to meddle in our domestic politics? Ahem... Rupert Murdoch? :laughing:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Nah, that's out of context. That's something "else". PLUS, there has to be "intent", in what you're talkin' about.

And, it's not "freedom of speech" that's in play there - you can SPEAK all you want, you just gotta take responsibility for it.

Same concept here, but in a very different form. The responsibility here is authorship rather than financial.

So, they're kinda telling you that you're smart enough to make the decision yourself, 'cause they're not going to stop you from hearin' the bullsh*t, but, they're gonna make sure someone's name is attached to it so you know where it came from.

I was responding to the original topic of the thread, the movie. In that case the court has decided there was intent to defame and I'm sure that movie is littered with fallacies or untruths presented in such a manner as to convince people it is.

That's a GOOD thing, pal. Do you know how many FOREIGNERS want to meddle in our domestic politics? Ahem... Rupert Murdoch? :laughing:

Ugh don't get me started on that asswipe. :sigh:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

No, sorry. BAD model. Some o' you guys can't seem to consider any social structure bigger than an individual.

Don't need to.

That's what the Bill of Rights protects.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

If I'm running for office, and there's a law that says I gotta publish my donor list, and then I turn around and slip you a hundred bucks to have you do somethin' for me, and you DON'T gotta publish your donor list, then that is a LOOPHOLE. That is a way for me to get around the law, simply by giving you a hundred bucks.

Yeah, that's why I always say the candidate should have the equivalent of a full body cavity search.

Guess what?

The First Amendment also protects the political speech of the Candidate. If he wants to air a movie, he can air a movie, without preconditions of any sort.

Jesus, don't you people have the slightest idea what freedom is?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Jesus, don't you people have the slightest idea what freedom is?

Yeah, actually I do.

And it specifically does NOT mean that you get to do whatever you want.

That, is the pissy attitude of a petulant six year old CHILD.

Nah, pal. You have power, you be responsible with it.

You want to KEEP that power, you play by the rules.

That's how it works around here.

You have a CONTRACT to adhere to. You do NOT get to do whatever you want.

/slap