Free Speech in Peril?

[Bitstream]

that's ridiculous. i never saw u once criticizing the shredding of the constitution. this is madness, one day u'll find uself surrounded by barbed wire in your own country for making a comment out of place; this is fascism at it's finest and not only u dont worry but condone it. obviously u dont believe in free speech otherwise u would be showing at least some concern.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Bit, the root of all this is the anti-lobbying effort itself. I believe in free speech AND free markets. Free markets extends to unlimited campaign contributions, the use of soft dollars and of course lobbying. Anything short of bribery (i.e. money taken for personal gain) should be legal.

HOWEVER if one says that RESTRICTIONS should be placed then expect bloggers to also be effected. For instance what if a law is passed inhibiting political broadcast airtime. But a rival candidate circumvents the initiative through the use of PAID bloggers. Unfair? I'd argue yes, at least under the pretext/intent of the law. The answer? NO LAW!

Next issue Bit. I'm here for ya......

 

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Here's the bottom line AC. "Reform" efforts such as campaign finance or anti-lobbying are de facto infringements on free speech. Much the same ways embargoes are intrinsically anti-free trade.

U.S. law prohibits you from selling arms to Iran. Do you consider that legislation a draconian affront to liberty?

the ability to openly criticize our politicians in public without risk of retribution is an original core american value. i see your point that limitations on one's ability to financially defy or influence legislation are technically also an affront to absolute freedom, but we drew a distinct line on the abridgement of free speech. it's a founding principle

freely shared idiologies have no currency, no tax, no regulation, and especially no abridgement in america, by definition

 

[Rearden Metal]

OMG, this is a fucking disaster! :eek: :eek: :eek:

 

[neophyte321]

"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. "

The sponsor is now a co-sponsor of an amendment to remove the amendment he sponsored. Government at its finest. He should be recalled for even proposing it. What a ludicrous and virtually unenforcable proposal. Would this include the nutjobs on the 911 thread? That has 1000+ views.

Although, what "register with Congress quarterly" requires or how that registry would be used isn't specified. I need to register my damn car every year.

Sorry boys and girls, America is no longer the new frontier.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from neophyte321:

"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. "

The sponsor is now a co-sponsor of an amendment to remove the amendment he sponsored. Government at its finest. He should be recalled for even proposing it. What a ludicrous and virtually unenforcable proposal. Would this include the nutjobs on the 911 thread? That has 1000+ views.

Although, what "register with Congress quarterly" requires or how that registry would be used isn't specified. I need to register my damn car every year.

Sorry boys and girls, America is no longer the new frontier.

I am curious what part of the Constitution gives the congress authority to handle registration of free speech.

 

[acronym]

If bush senior is against bloggers, your doomed-thats were its really coming from.

Like any good emporer, dubya dont like his hamfisted faith based cronyism being critisized, even by harmless plebs.

"Thank you for posting .
Your comment will be processed as soon as we recieve your papers in triplicate and your user fee is deducted from your credit card account. Thank you for posting"

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from acronym:

If bush senior is against bloggers, your doomed-thats were its really coming from.

Like any good emporer, dubya dont like his hamfisted faith based cronyism being critisized, even by harmless plebs.

"Thank you for posting .
Your comment will be processed as soon as we recieve your papers in triplicate and your user fee is deducted from your credit card account. Thank you for posting"

90% of you are missing the point.

If legislation comes down restricting paid lobbying or campaign speech in traditional media then it's only reasonable that some folks are going to say "why are paid bloggers exempt?" I find it curious that no one here cares about the broader restrictions.

Bottom line: If you're a supporter of McCain/Feingold then you're a CAUSE of legislation like this.

Most of you guys sound like the mom who thinks drug dealers should receive death but then is aghast when her little Johnny gets a year for possession. If you oppose unabashed liberty then expect a trickle down effect on your little fiefdom......

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from achilles28:

The first amendment is outdated anyway

Who cares if they criminalize our freedom of speech???

I think achilles was being facetious.

Or more accurately, I hope so.

 

[Cutten]

This hasn't much chance of actually becoming law, and even if it does, it will be overturned by the supreme court the moment it is challenged. I can't think of a more clearly anti-constitutional proposal.

Even if somewhow it does get on the books, you would see a campaign of mass civil disobedience so big that it would relegate whichever politicians who sponsored it to the scrapheap of history. Luckily for America, there are enough people there who own guns and *would actually use them* to defend their rights on an issue like this, that the government could never enforce it.

I have to say though, that the very fact this bill has been proposed is an extremely worrying development indeed. It's shocking to think that elected representatives are so alienated from the core values of the republic and constitution they swore to uphold and protect. This is something you would expect from socialists in Belgium, not the U.S.A. Some rich person who supports liberty should identify the sponsors of this bill, then spend a hefty chunk of change trying to eradicate them permanently from political life.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from Cutten:


Even if somewhow it does get on the books, you would see a campaign of mass civil disobedience so big that it would relegate whichever politicians who sponsored it to the scrapheap of history.

A campaign of civil disobedience in defense of American civil liberties? Maybe in a parallel universe, but not here.

The proles would just shrug their shoulders for a moment in protest (if that), bring a cold beer to the couch, and turn on American Idol.