US Supreme Court Strikes Down Spending Limits

[ToadBrother]

Is it worse ? I don't think better or worse are terms to be applied here. There are any number of aspects of web communications that might be worse.

- Websites come in from out-of-jurisdiction.

- Websites appear and disappear with no easily traceable owner.

- There is no code of conduct.

Etc.

Journalism in earlier times did not stick to the conventions we are used to. People often used pamphlets and papers to put forward clearly partisan views, sometimes even making spurious or libelous accusations. Some of caricatures of the period are stunningly rude (I recall a cartoon of William Pitt the Younger defecating on people down in the street, for instance).

If you're saying that the court's decision stands, then sure. I think that this type of free speech needs limits, and indeed until the 70s or 80s there was a fair-response doctrine or somesuch that limited the use of the medium.

The court's decision is based on the First Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's not much room for interpretation. Speech is protected, period.

[Wilber]

There's not much room for interpretation. Speech is protected, period.

More to the point, more than ever determined by how much money you have to spend.

[Michael Hardner]

There's not much room for interpretation. Speech is protected, period.

Sorry, but there is lots of room for interpretation. Censorship and government moderation of freedom of expression has always been with us.

[ToadBrother]

Sorry, but there is lots of room for interpretation. Censorship and government moderation of freedom of expression has always been with us.

Please do tell the room for interpretation in "...or abridging the freedom of speech". Traditionally SCOTUS has always weighed on the side of speakers, applying some rather strict tests to any government attempts to limit free speech (usually involving direct harm, ie. "the shouting fire in a crowded theater" test).

Michael, everyone knew that the McCain-Feingold bill was unconstitutional. Its supporters clearly hoped that everyone would be onboard with the reforms, and wouldn't challenge it, but laws like these are always at risk.

[eyeball]

Freedom of speech is one thing but what about the freedom to hear what's being said? This is what's at stake when wealthy contributions are followed up with corporate lobbying.

A human right to be heard would also go a long way to ensure that even the smallest voice in the chorus had an opportunity equal to the loudest corporation.

Edited January 27, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Freedom of speech is one thing but what about the freedom to hear what's being said? This is what's at stake when wealthy contributions are followed up with corporate lobbying.

It's an artificial distinction. What, in terms of free expression, is the difference between a corporation and, say, the ACLU?

A human right to be heard would also go a long way to ensure that even the smallest voice in the chorus had an opportunity equal to the loudest corporation.

I don't think it's either practical or desirable. Let's put it this way, do you think a Jehovah's Witness should have the right to stand on your property and shout sermons at you, or run after you down the street?

The right to speak is not the right to be heard. If I don't want to listen, you should have no right to force me.

[eyeball]

It's an artificial distinction.

So is the idea that corporations and unions are like people with the same rights as people.

What, in terms of free expression, is the difference between a corporation and, say, the ACLU?

The size of the cheques they write?

I don't think it's either practical or desirable. Let's put it this way, do you think a Jehovah's Witness should have the right to stand on your property and shout sermons at you, or run after you down the street?

The right to speak is not the right to be heard. If I don't want to listen, you should have no right to force me.

Well, I was talking about corporations, people's representatives and human beings, not stalkers.

To me this is a perfect example of what happens when people cling too stubbornly to their old hand-me-down-democracies without rationalizing or reconciling them with new realities that the people who originally devised representative democracy could never have envisaged.

Edited January 28, 2010 by eyeball

[Jade Dragon]

Um, the Democrats will most certainly lose the Senate outright, and while they'll probably retain a majority of Representatives, it's going to be significantly reduced.

I suspect that is not going to happen. Check out past US elections. With only 36 seats in the Senate up for re-election it is almost impossible for any real change to occur. For it to happen the Republicans would have to win at about nine Senate seats from the Democrats. Even in the 2008 Senate race there was only a change of eight seats in what was regarded as something of a landslide by US standards. Incumbents have a huge advantage in the US, that being that they always outspend their challengers. It is going to be even worse with spending limits removed. However, you could be right. We'll have to wait until November to find out.

Here is a link to the 2010 Senate race

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/l/bl_2010_senate_race.htm

[myata]

In theory maybe but in practice they have done exactly the opposite.

Not sure what "speech" has to do with it. Looks more like freedom of commercialized brainwashing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure what "speech" has to do with it. Looks more like freedom of commercialized brainwashing.

As compared to other forms of "brainwashing"? So what? The answer for commercial free speech is more free speech in many forms, not restrictions.

[Michael Hardner]

Please do tell the room for interpretation in "...or abridging the freedom of speech". Traditionally SCOTUS has always weighed on the side of speakers, applying some rather strict tests to any government attempts to limit free speech (usually involving direct harm, ie. "the shouting fire in a crowded theater" test).

Government controls of communication including approval of content for television by the FCC, by the FDA on food and drug claims, control over the ability for companies to purchase media, restrictions on political and other advertising, as well as support for content labels such as ratings used for recorded media and films.

In Canada, you have all of those controls plus controls on foreign ownership (I'm not sure if that exists in the US) and restrictions on content with regards to Charter rights.

Michael, everyone knew that the McCain-Feingold bill was unconstitutional. Its supporters clearly hoped that everyone would be onboard with the reforms, and wouldn't challenge it, but laws like these are always at risk.

The thing about these bills is that there are people in both parties who understand why they're necessary. The US election system is too expensive right now, and it makes the system prone to favour mongering and corruption.

[Michael Hardner]

As compared to other forms of "brainwashing"? So what? The answer for commercial free speech is more free speech in many forms, not restrictions.

But the assertion that owning cable channels is the same thing as standing on the streetcorner with a megaphone is clearly ridiculous.

[ToadBrother]

So is the idea that corporations and unions are like people with the same rights as people.

No, the artificial distinctions is that some kinds of groups can freely raise funds of an often distinctly political nature (ie. the NAACP or the AARP), but others are forbidden, based on some hairsplitting distinctions.

Read the 1st Amendment again, paying attention to the highlighted its:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The meaning could not be clearer. Right or wrong, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

[ToadBrother]

The thing about these bills is that there are people in both parties who understand why they're necessary. The US election system is too expensive right now, and it makes the system prone to favour mongering and corruption.

Then the solution is ultimately going to have to be constitutional amendment. Congress's ability to suppress campaign financing is very clearly extraordinarily limited by the Constitution.

Edited January 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[BubberMiley]

The answer for commercial free speech is more free speech in many forms, not restrictions.

I tend to agree. I think if someone has a significant investment in U.S. interests, like foreign owners of U.S. corporations, they should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the U.S. election process. It feeds money into the economy, allows foreigners to have their say in U.S. elections, and removes the arbitrary restrictions that were in place. The advertising industry could use the boost too.

Besides the Internet has decentralized "speech" to such an extent now, it isn't necessary to have millions and billions to get your message out anymore. You just have to be compelling enough to go viral.

[eyeball]

No, the artificial distinctions is that some kinds of groups can freely raise funds of an often distinctly political nature (ie. the NAACP or the AARP), but others are forbidden, based on some hairsplitting distinctions.

Read the 1st Amendment again, paying attention to the highlighted its:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The meaning could not be clearer. Right or wrong, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

It's crystal clear about the government not restricting free speech or human beings from establishing religions or other assemblies of people or any of these from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, but how or why this should allow for them to also attach a check to the top of their petition is lost on me. It's not free speech, its paid listening. It's legalized bribery pure and simple.

Edited January 30, 2010 by eyeball

[myata]

As compared to other forms of "brainwashing"? So what?

You have more choice.

The answer for commercial free speech is more free speech in many forms, not restrictions.

Good answer, in abstract and general terms. In the reality of life though unrestricted political propaganda and lobbying means suppression of competing voices and points of views by those with the biggest checkbooks. Is it any surprise that unlike what we see in every other aspect of modern life, our political choices here are still binary, Republican / Democrat, CPC / LPC, no other outcome possible, period.

[bush_cheney2004]

You have more choice.

...and make my own choices.

Good answer, in abstract and general terms. In the reality of life though unrestricted political propaganda and lobbying means suppression of competing voices and points of views by those with the biggest checkbooks. Is it any surprise that unlike what we see in every other aspect of modern life, our political choices here are still binary, Republican / Democrat, CPC / LPC, no other outcome possible, period.

My choices are not binary....just ask Governor Jesse Ventura. If you want a guaranteed outcome, then there is no choice at all.