"There is no greater outward sign of a free nation than how much liberty its citizens have in expressing themselves. This is particularly true in the political arena. Somewhere, though, the United States has gone awry.

The Founders were strong advocates of free speech and no speech deserved protection more than political speech. Today, political speech in this country has lost many of its protections and is under constant attack.

One of the most insidious of these attacks came in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act, or, more accurately, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which, among other things, restricted advocacy speech before an election, with an exception carved out for media outlets. The law, enacted in 2002, automatically regulates as “electioneering” any broadcast ad that refers to a specific federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

This “electioneering” label is what had the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court busy last week. A conservative nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, produced a documentary titled “Hillary: The Movie.” The 90-minute movie explored the myriad scandals involving Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The movie was shown in theaters and sold as DVDs in 2008 while Hillary Clinton, then a U.S. senator and now the secretary of state, was running for president. The trouble began when Citizens United sought to advertise the movie on television and distribute it through video-on-demand on cable TV.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the film was an “electioneering communication.” Under that designation, it became subject to the restrictive regulations set forth in McCain-Feingold. That set up the spectacle at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The justices found themselves arguing whether this was a documentary or an advertisement. Do we really want a system where judges are trying to determine the nature of our speech before deciding if we have the privilege of expressing ourselves?

Still, there may be good news. Watchers of the court seemed to believe that the Supreme Court was going to rule in favor of Citizens United, which would further erode the power of McCain-Feingold, and rightly so.

According to The New York Times, “It seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which regulates the role of money in politics.” The turning point appears to have occurred when the lawyer for the federal government, Malcolm Stewart, suggested that books published in the days leading up to an election that have even one paragraph of electioneering in them, such as candidate biographies and the like, could be banned under McCain-Feingold.

Apparently, the specter of the federal government banning books did not sit well with the conservative justices on the bench. The liberal justices, however, seemed to have no problem with the idea of the federal government banning books or movies if those books or movies were an appeal to voters to vote for or against a specific candidate.

Can you imagine the Founders having such a discussion? Of course not. The whole idea is ridiculous. Politics is dirty business and it is not going to be cleaned up by restricting the free speech of Americans at the point where such speech is most imperative, just before an election. What good is free speech if, in the months leading up to an election, people aren’t allowed to express themselves fully concerning the men and women vying for those elective offices?

It becomes even sillier when an exception is carved out for media companies. Why should the media have a special exception? Moreover, how do you define who is “the media.” After all, Citizens United produced a 90-minute documentary. Does that not make it a media company?

How far we have fallen from the halcyon days of freedom for all.

While the Supreme Court, when it issues its decision this summer, will likely rule narrowly, the Constitution and the people would best be served if it simply invalidated the entire law and return to Americans the free speech we were intended to have when we created the monster that is now the federal government."

http://www.freedompolitics.com/artic...ical_free.html

They're so fucking conservative until they're asked to decide a presidential election. Activism 1 time dealer.

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

and ultimately enough public will to push a stronger mccain/feingold through.

let the public push through an amendment to the constitution that abridges free speech. until then, keep striking it down.

I wasn't sure at first, but when I see the implications of it, I don't see how I can support it. Initially I had seen it as strictly a matter of election rules, where, like with term limits, I am pretty open-minded about our options. But when I see it applied to things like this documentary, it becomes apparent that you can't paint a bright enough line to avoid an abridgement of free speech.

Whether it's fringe or not has no bearing on my interpretation. Dangerous how? Laws don't prevent corruption, in and of themselves. If you're determined to bribe a politician, you'll do it off the books. If a candidate is in the pocket of special interests, his record should reflect that, and the public has all they need to make an informed decision. Additionally, I'm not all that concerned about campaign donations influencing the outcome of an election. There is no amount of money that could have made me support the platforms of either major candidate in the last presidential election. I expect no less from my fellow citizens. If they lack that degree of integrity, if they allow themselves to be significantly influenced by a blitzkrieg of bullshit propaganda, then they deserve what they get.

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

<strike>random unaccountable 527s.</strike> American citizens

sue them for libel/slander - unless you believe their claims to be true, in which case it is particularly appalling that you would have them silenced.

All that picture represents is cynicism and a disregard for principle. Answer my edit - why not sue for libel or slander?

common man.. it's not hard to write nasty nasty attack spots twisting policy ideas and voting records etc without committing libel or slander.

just remember.. john mccain has a black baby.. *insert spooky doomlike music here*

Good idea.. lets let random 527's and "individuals" go swiftboatfking wild while exxon and microsoft are behind closed doors having almost complete control of the game.

Big corporations WITH the current laws have WAY too much influence as it!

STRICTLY in principle I agree with everything you're saying. I think money is speech. I wish money didn't dictate every aspect of campaigning. You think I don't hold the free speech to be of the utmost importance? However I do not operate in a black and white A=A world where "principle" overrides any sense of realistic assessments of modern day needs of society let alone practical ramifications of such rigid fundamentalism.

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

I do not operate in a black and white A=A world where "principle" overrides any sense of realistic assessments of modern day needs of society let alone practical ramifications of such rigid fundamentalism.

If a principle is at war with reality then it is worthless and you should toss it out. If that's what you decide to do, then you should own up to it. Say what you mean: free speech is "too dangerous". Gray does not exist in reality, only in our minds.

Did John McCain really father a black child?

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

Big corporations WITH the current laws have WAY too much influence as it!

You provide no warrant for this claim, but to the extent that corporations lobby for government intervention into the economy, I agree with you. To the extent that they defend themselves from such intervention, I don't (predictably). However, I don't think the solution is to stop them from funding political campaigns. The solution is a change of ideas. Hopefully what would follow from that is a stronger constitution, a supreme court that would defend it better than ours has, and a public that would demand that these ends be achieved.

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

I really don't know enough about the district or the race to really say either way whether it's a referendum on the President. I'm sure some will try to spin it as that and others will try equally as hard to say it's not. Is it just too close to make any speculation honestly? If this was an indiana vote id have some authority making that judgment but def not in this spotl. what do u think?

Well, a Republican held the seat for like 20 years, then in 2006, a Dem won (Hillibrand). The district is historically pretty conservative. One could make the case that the unfavorable political climate in 2006 contributed to the Dem win, thus it could be derived that this special election is a politcal barometer of sorts.

 

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

I really don't know enough about the district or the race to really say either way whether it's a referendum on the President. I'm sure some will try to spin it as that and others will try equally as hard to say it's not. Is it just too close to make any speculation honestly? If this was an indiana vote id have some authority making that judgment but def not in this spotl. what do u think?

Well, a Republican held the seat for like 20 years, then in 2006, a Dem won (Hillibrand). The district is historically pretty conservative. One could make the case that the unfavorable political climate in 2006 contributed to the Dem win, thus it could be derived that this special election is a politcal barometer of sorts.

So can we conclude that the midterms are prob gonna be super close and use this as evidence?

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

If you want to make the argument "we get what we deserve and if we let big money influence our votes then FK us!".. then ill go along! lol thats almost up my alley

I thought that's what I was already arguing! : )

i think you should be obligated to apply this train of thought to term limits too!!

the lack of consistency makes me sad panda

I'm a modern day pragmatist remember so I can get by with anything ftr. I get to hold you to a different standard!!

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

LOL. You need to read that Manhattan LP article on term limits. It gives you the arguments you need to make against me (that term limits actually infringe on liberty). I still don't buy it, but I'm not entirely confident in my position. How can you go through life without a working Adobe Reader?

like 3 months ago I got some malware or something that attacked adobe of all things. Im pretty sure I got it all removed (avg,spybot,adaware) but I think I may have deleted a internal file in adobe itself that I shouldn't have (in my overzealous rage/fear) bc now everytime I go to open adobe it trys to load then freezes.

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

LOL. You need to read that Manhattan LP article on term limits. It gives you the arguments you need to make against me (that term limits actually infringe on liberty). I still don't buy it, but I'm not entirely confident in my position. How can you go through life without a working Adobe Reader?

like 3 months ago I got some malware or something that attacked adobe of all things. Im pretty sure I got it all removed (avg,spybot,adaware) but I think I may have deleted a internal file in adobe itself that I shouldn't have (in my overzealous rage/fear) bc now everytime I go to open adobe it trys to load then freezes.

i think there are other PDF readers that aren't quite as awful as adobe (i.e. foxit)

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

If you want to make the argument "we get what we deserve and if we let big money influence our votes then FK us!".. then ill go along! lol thats almost up my alley

I thought that's what I was already arguing! : )

It's a lot more interesting when you guys disagree with each other.

I have always had the opinion that it would be best to eliminate corporate campaign donations. I can't think of any positives for allowing it but there are obv negatives. It just seems better to leave donations up to the individual. When a corporation donates to a campaign they are representing the corporations best interest, not the individual shareholders. Are there any positives for allowing it?

 

Originally Posted by cminer25

I have always had the opinion that it would be best to eliminate corporate campaign donations. I can't think of any positives for allowing it but there are obv negatives. It just seems better to leave donations up to the individual. When a corporation donates to a campaign they are representing the corporations best interest, not the individual shareholders. Are there any positives for allowing it?

FREEEEEEEDOM. -emcee all mel gibsonlike

edit: and when is dyzalot gonna come back and pick out something ive written to quote and respond to??? over/under 45more min?