CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Supreme Court limits political speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supreme Court limits political speech

post #1 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
And the world yawns


I realize Gwyneth got married, but can't we all muster a little outrage about this?
Reply
post #2 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:18pm
Soft money is in no way political speech. It's bribery.

No one is limiting your personal ability to say whatever you want, but I hate to break the news to you that there are certain things you are not allowed to buy in this country - slaves, drugs, and hopefully one day soon, the government.
Reply
post #3 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:26pm
Thread Starter 
But this ruling assumes ALL ads bought buy political action groups bought in the designated time frame are bribery.

And I hate to break it to you, but this ruling is highly unconsititional.

No matter how you spin it, this is a restriction on free political speech. Money, used by specific groups, to advertise their issues and agendas are 100% political speech. Be it Tort reform, term limits, environmental issues, abortion, or a movement to outlaw monkeys. And the wacko Supreme Court that "appointed" George W. Bush has just upheld a law by Congress that supercedes that body's authority. Insanity.
Reply
post #4 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:39pm
You can't engage in electioneering within a certain distance of a polling place on election day. Is that limiting political speech? Is that unconstitutional?
Reply
post #5 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:46pm
Better safe than sorry, I say. From what little I know, this ruling seems to make sense. Some speech is protected and some not. It sounds like they can still put ads up but are limited in their time frame. Nothing wrong with that.
Reply
post #6 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:49pm
I think it makes some sense, but playing devil's advocate, how about editorials, do they have a restricted time frame?

Political cartoons?

How about last minute scandals and revelations?
Reply
post #7 of 9
12/11/03 at 12:50pm
Thread Starter 
What does that have to do with this ruling?

I see that you're trying to draw a direct line from one to the other, but it doesn't work.

How can anybody defend a law that directly tells a person or group "You can't speak out about an issue that you believe in because it's 2 weeks before the election". That's nonsense.

Example:

It's 10 days before the election. The Sierra Club sends a rep on the Today Show to tell the audience that George Bush has raped the environment and intends to burn down every tree in SoCal before he's done.
BY LAW the admin. NOR a political action group aligned with the Republicans can take out an ad directly disputing all charges. They have to hope for an invite from the Today people to give their side.

Obviously this little tale can work both ways. It's simply unbelievable that the same court that not to long ago upheld the right to produce virtual child porn now says limiting free speech is ok.
Reply
post #8 of 9
12/11/03 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Eucalyptus
Better safe than sorry, I say. From what little I know, this ruling seems to make sense. Some speech is protected and some not. It sounds like they can still put ads up but are limited in their time frame. Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing's wrong with it in theory, but the scope is a little wide. Let's say that Congress is considering a bill to give $100 billion dollars to Alaskan Caribou. They'll just airlift it up there and dump it on them. If that bill came up for consideration within 60 days of a general election or 30 of a primary, NOBODY could come out with an ad that says "Congress is going to waste $100 billion for no good reason by giving it to Caribou. Call Congressman Snyder and tell him to oppose this." Similarly, they couldn't say "Congress is going to donate $100 billion to the Alaskan Caribou to help them cut down trees. Call Congressman Snyder and tell him to keep fighting for those poor Caribou."

These ads are not smear ads, per se, but rather issue advocacy ads. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter because it mentions a politician/group of politicians. That is too restrictive, and Scalia had it right in his dissent.
Reply
post #9 of 9
12/11/03 at 7:46pm
Scalia's dissenting opinion:

Quote:
Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Supreme Court limits political speech