A Time For Great Sadness

curious n str8

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
913
Media
6
Likes
8
Points
163
Age
33
Location
The big AK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The issue of whether political speech NEEDS the most protection is moot. I teach First Amendment law, and political speech always has had the most protection under the First Amendment and still does. Any law that is passed that restricts political speech is challenged in court, and courts have struck down parts of various "election reforms" on the basis that Congress or state legislatures were infringing on political speech. The only way that there will be significantly greater restrictions on political speech is if the Constitution is amended; freedom of political speech has widespread support across the entire ideological spectrum of judges, and although by no means all judges are absolutists on political speech freedom, their political affiliations (liberal, moderate, or conservative) are not good predictors.
I understand your points but can't they just be truthful for a change? Perhaps that is what we need to do is make an amendment to the Constitution regarding the truth in politics, then perhaps we would not be in the mess we find ourself's in.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
... if their telling just the TRUTH.:usa2:

Okay: Tell me if this is a true statement:


  • For five years, John McCain dined on meals prepared for him for free by communists.
Well, technically it's true, but it's completely suggestive and misleading. So, who gets to interpret whether a particular statement is within the bounds of a truth law? "Activist judges"?

In a functioning democracy, the free press should be the watchdogs that fact-check political ads, not the courts.
 

curious n str8

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
913
Media
6
Likes
8
Points
163
Age
33
Location
The big AK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Okay: Tell me if this is a true statement:


  • For five years, John McCain dined on meals prepared for him for free by communists.
Well, technically it's true, but it's completely suggestive and misleading. So, who gets to interpret whether a particular statement is within the bounds of a truth law? "Activist judges"?

In a functioning democracy, the free press should be the watchdogs that fact-check political ads, not the courts.
how is that statement technically true?
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
And how about THIS truth. Since John McCain, his Father AND Grandfather were all military people --- the GOVERNMENT (taxpayers) have paid for his health care for all of his immediate family's history!!! Just can't understand why he's so against government run health care!!!!
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thats called the fairness doctrine. lol

I think, as Obama spends much of his time south of 50% in the polls, while Congress mires sub 25% (and that's being generous), we'll see the politicians bring up the Fairness Doctrine again. Which kind of me hopes they push through despite vehement opposition, then we can storm the perverbial Bastille in D.C... our system could use a good reset button. A change of executive branch isn't it either.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
yes it is bad in Ohio as well
it does not matter what rich guy wins nothing will change for the poor.

No it does not matter, the poor here still will have one of the best opportunities in the world, to become rich. Just as they've had for 100+ years. That... will still be a good thing.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
108
Points
193
In a functioning democracy, the free press should be the watchdogs that fact-check political ads, not the courts.



The biggest problem we have now with the press is they do not present all the facts and let the public decide for themselves. Instead of saving their opinions for editorials, they present their lopsided views as the whole truth. It's no wonder the public is about as slow as a mutant snail.