Printable View
So, it should be illegal for you to print a pamphlet or take out a newspaper ad without sending a piece of paperwork to the government stating your name, address and ideological affiliation?
Remember, we're talking about speech. Not actual campaign donations.
That's not what I quoted. You expressed that the legislators might do what benefits them specifically even if it hurts the country as a whole. That is something which always applies, it's a concern inherent in representation, there's nothing special about anonymous ads in that regard. It doesn't even gain additional strength from being the status quo, since it would be just as valuable to the legislators if it weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Public speech is public speech. There is no inherent privacy there, or reasonable expectation of invisibility. Quite the opposite, in fact. And we ARE talking about donations, Dread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Speech entails it comes from a source. Freedom of speech cannot protect words that have no source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The article Being posted was about third party advertising. And do you both realize the implications of what you're saying? That if I have a view about something and want to promote it, I can't do so anonymously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
That you can't spend money anonymously, yes. There are various free things you can do. But seriously Dread, the Constitution does not protect anonymous public speech. As I was somewhat surprised to learn, even the secret ballot is entirely a legislative convention. If you want stronger protections, lobby Congress, just be aware another Congress can overturn them. You remember that this anonymous donation issue came up in that Mosque-building thread of yours, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Not all speech is protected; not slander or libel, or hate speech, or inciting riots. Can't hide behind anonymous "advertising" and expect legal protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Soon we'll find out what SCOTUS has to say about Phelps' hate speech at Matthew Snyder's funeral. Maybe the defense will say, "hey, we're just advertising our religious beliefs, you can't restrict that."
Coincidentally NPR interviewed John Paul Stevens this morning- he may be on a book tour or something (I only caught part of the interview)- and he said flatly that its absurd to equate money with speech. He also said if he knew in the '70s how capital punishment would be put into practice today, he would never have voted to legalize. Interesting stuff.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, sorry, the constitution does not protect anonymity of speech. It is entirely reasonable, in the interests of transparency in our political system, to require that the name of every person paying for an ad be on the ad. That means for a corporation, every share holder. For a union, every member. For a PAC, every donor.
Perhaps we could talk about them splitting ads up, though. For example, pay 50K for a TV spot, only people whose money was directly used for THAT ad might be posted. That might be reasonable.
Well, as distasteful as a I find it, that defense is probably accurate. We don't stop Nazis from marching in Skokie, why should we stop religious uber-zealots from marching wherever? As long as they obey reasonable laws. And no, I think a local law forbidding marching at all isn't reasonable.Quote:
Soon we'll find out what SCOTUS has to say about Phelps' hate speech at Matthew Snyder's funeral. Maybe the defense will say, "hey, we're just advertising our religious beliefs, you can't restrict that."
I could see the argument that Phelps wasn't just marching in a public place, but targeting certain individuals at a private funeral. That's like slander of character, and the guy's dead so he can't defend his name or reputation.
Um, maybe. Subtle distinction. Were the Nazis targeting individuals marching in Skokie? Or a specific ethnic group? You could argue that Phelps and minions are angry at the US in general.
But Phelps is not marching at Arlington's parking lot, targeting a whole group of dead soldiers or US policy. They're stalking specific individual gay soldiers who are dead, at their funerals. Their intent is to disrupt a one-time personal and private ritual, that's also usually a religious expression.
Actually, IIRC they protest at non-gay soldier's funerals. Phelps says they die because the US is immoral by tolerating homosexuality. I'm not sure they've protested at any gay soldier's funerals, sine the US military doesn't allow them to be openly gay, does it. That point may illustrate that Phelps' group is crazy/stupid.whatever, but it also illustrates that they're not targeting individuals, but rather a principle.
I thought they targeted both gay and straight funerals (but Snyder wasn't gay) but that's not as important as picketing at a private, religious ritual for an individual. That's my guess, anyway.
Would it be "legal" for the KKK to show up at private Jewish burials with anti-semitic signs, saying the US is being controlled by the Jew Zionist conspiracy, or whatever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You're right, it's not explicitly protected. But why is it not a legitimate implication of our rights to free speech? Is requiring that someone file a form with the government before making a political (or even cultural) speech really "free"?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Obviously we live in a society where this isn't an issue and anonymous speech is possible without government harassment. But consider a place such as Iran, which is slowly banning third-party e-mail services. Would you really feel comfortable making anonymous speech in a place that required you to register with their "free speech service" before opening your mouth (or keyboard)?
You keep relating it to an individual stating their opinion. That is not what this is about. It's not even close to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Actually its a pretty intricate attempt at earning themselves money and keeping all of it. Most of the family (except of course the children) are lawyers. They have their own law group. They also have their own church. They stage these protests because they either want to a) sue the state for infringing upon the church's First Amendment rights to speech, or b) provoke someone to violence, then sue that person. Since the church is a not for profit organization, it exists tax free. When they sue, the church itself sues, with the Phelps' law group representing it. So the Phelps' get to keep whatever they win, with some of the winnings ending up tax free since they go to the church. The Phelps' can also donate money from the law firm to the church for a tax write-off. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
What's the difference between an individual who wants to make certain types of abortion legal somewhere and a wealthy individual who wants to make certain types of abortion legal somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I don't care. There are multiple reasonable competing interests involved. There happens to be a pretty simple way to arbitrate which is controlling, so that's what I refer to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's sorta cynical in a way, don't you think? It seems like a glaring theoretical hole to me.
We've already got some restrictions or conditions in place on speech, like applying for a permit before marching or picketing on public land. I think even funeral processions have to file a permit to drive on public roads, in a caravan to the cemetery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm not understanding your point. :confused:
The difference is a wealthy individual can bribe and coerce to sway such decisions. That contradicts the equality our representative form of governance is meant to bear. Like I said in a previous post, it is oligarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Just goes to show you what a moron Justice Stevens is. We do NOT want judges looking at case law and determining what is good or bad for society. We want judges to slap down the will of the people and protect the sanctity of the constitution against the tyranny of the majority. If they are just going to rule because they think X or Z is good why the hell even have a constitution?Quote:
Coincidentally NPR interviewed John Paul Stevens this morning- he may be on a book tour or something (I only caught part of the interview)- and he said flatly that its absurd to equate money with speech. He also said if he knew in the '70s how capital punishment would be put into practice today, he would never have voted to legalize. Interesting stuff.
The Constitution doesn't mention capital punishment. It does restrict cruel and unusual punishment though. Who would you have determine what is cruel and unusual, politicians or judges?
"Theoretical hole"? WTF is that? Theory is informed by reality, and we both know what the reality is. Nor is my stance in any way cynical. I don't give a rats ass what you *or Being* think should be the case, in some ideal world. I care about what is the case, here in our world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The necessary and proper clause implies that it's up to Congress to decide what is and is not cruel and unusual. The Constitution doesn't give much power to the courts. The courts have appropriated most of that power by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The Constitution in no way guarantees equal influence over politics. The people who wrote it would be horrified at the thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
So, wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to speak because they...have money? Socialism? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Maybe cynical isn't the wrong word. But I can't help but notice your reluctance to explore the logical boundaries of something, and then advocate a view on it. Not just repeat "the case" in your own words of decisions made by others, but actually form a strong personal philosophy on these kinds of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'd say they can both express their opinion freely, but if they donate money to others to do it for them, that can't be anonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Campaign donations aren't anonymous, are they? Seems odd that you can get around it by donating to a special interest group instead, which then campaigns on the same issues.
The original intent. Ie if we had capital punishment when that amendment was created, I'm pretty damn sure the folks who created the amendment didn't consider it curel and unusual!Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Well, original intent of the constitution also considers a black man as property, are we going back to that, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
They amended the Constitution to fix that idiocy long after the original intenders were dead. I hardly think it takes another amendment to realize that executing prisoners is cruel and unusual.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. :noob: It is neither cruel (I fail to see how a lethal injection is any worse than spending a life in prison, with everything that entails) nor unusual (we're far from the only democracy that allows executions).Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
What kind of analysis led you to this conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How much does a person suffer from a lethal injection? How much does a person suffer from the things that happen in prison for their entire life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
People tend to value their life, though. Why do you think most criminals appeal their death sentence? :bulb: Or why a plea bargain can get you out of a death sentence, not give you death instead of life sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You seem to know, so why don't you tell me. And the audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You seem to know, so why don't you tell me. And the audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
(also I would appreciate if you expounded on "the things that happen", esp vis a vis the elements which cause suffering, tyia)
Lewk - you're calling the man a moron without understanding why he takes the position you don't like. You ought to listen to the interview and then make a judgement call like that. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130332059Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The transcript quoted below leaves out some particulars you'll have to listen to get:
. . . . . .Quote:
Mr. STEVENS: I think there is one vote that I would change, and that one was upholding the Texas capital punishment statute.
TOTENBERG: In 1976, when Stevens was first on the court, he voted to uphold the death penalty. At the time, he says, the court believed it was upholding statutes that allowed the death penalty for a narrow category of offenders, using procedures that, as Stevens puts it, prevented loading the dice towards the prosecution.
But as the court's composition grew more conservative, he says, the universe of those eligible for the death penalty grew, and the court permitted more prosecution-friendly procedures in capital cases.
Mr. STEVENS: We did not foresee how it would be interpreted. I think that was an incorrect decision.
Conservative pundits, likely. Certainly not Jesus, we all know what he would think of capital punishment....Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
They can speak all they want, but they shouldn't be able to use their wealth to make their voice vastly louder than everyone else in order to exert an inordinate influence on the governance of the country. That's a subversion of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Free speach means you can say what you want, not spend millions to exert a level of influence on elections that 99.9% of the rest of American could never hope to do.
Personal experience of course. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Well, since you didn't get it the first time, let me repeat myself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I'm aware of the logical boundaries. You're talking about "what if we were in an oppressive, censoring society where it would be dangerous to attach your identity to your words," which doesn't reflect the situation we face, and Being is talking about ways to abuse privacy, which does happen to be the situation we face. I am uninterested in strong personal philosophies which ignore context. Context matters. You want to harp on "what-ifs" and we already have strong protections in place to safeguard us from going in a direction where those "what-ifs" might be reality. One can easily postulate that they won't work, or will be eroded in time, but the same thing could happen if we enact the principle you want. The argument has no persuasive power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
This topic just came up because one of the justices who made the pivotal 5/4 disagreement you're referencing said that he was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You must be reading a different translation of the Constitution than me because my copy clearly states in Article 3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court...
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
The 8th Amendment covers this since brain-washing is intellectual servitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Campaign donations aren't anonymous (and I don't think they should be). But if you run a group that advocates a certain view, I don't think you should be required to disclose your identity. I don't see why I should be required to file with the government if I want to run a newspaper ad containing a five-paragraph rant about why public teacher unions should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Though restricting such groups from running candidate ads a certain time from an election seems like a reasonable compromise that's been toyed with.
I am talking about the wider context of our relatively abuse-free society in these areas. It's not as if history is totally lacking examples of states that used various types of "registrations" for media, parties, etc. as a tool of repression.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If one wants to create good laws and maintain freedoms, one must take these things to their logical conclusion to avoid letting a potential "tyrant" do the same thing on their own terms.