No candidate advertisement on company airwaves/radiowaves/internet sites. That a better description for you?
i was making fun of your spelling :"champaigning" it is the viewpoints per se, it is particular viewpoints you have deemed inappropriate. a crushing blow for freedom. no they can't. thats exactly what you sare saying they cannot do. you are taking away their rights to get their message heard. you are forcing them to depend on the media to give them free exposure instead allowing them the most basic freedom of all, speech. no. it is terrible. what "company"? all companies? no exposure in the media whatsoever? again, is a private citizen allowed to advertise for a candidate on his own newspaper that he owns? may i start a website myself and advertise for candidates or will you send the gestapo to my house? if that is allowed, how popular can i get before the gestapo comes? is rush limbaugh allowed to accept money from a PAC? becaue you could easily construe that he advertisi ng for a candidate. i have lots of questions that your proposals will necessarily need to answer. like i asked earlier, am i allowed to do issue-specific ads if they dont specifically mention a candidate, even if if they make it totally obvious who they are favoring? can i donate a few thousand bucks to this site and put up banners for a candidate or will you send your gestapo to this site's adminstration? what if i buy this site outright and it is mine, can i then put ads on it? will you send your gestapo then to shut me down? don't you see all the problems your horrible restrictions would cause. like i said before, i think these rules you favor would basically ruin america. free speech is pretty much the only reason the country works. i want all viewpoints presented freely, and i will decide who to vote for. start shutting people up, and democracy will be almost instantly ruined. and also, read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30280-2004Aug24.html
No. Most political ads don't even contain political viewpoints - just introduction to who candidates are. And I have not deemed them inappropriate, I have restricted the use of advertisement. It is not the issue you are making it into. I'm taking away one alley for them to get their message heard. They still have a lot of different options available to them. All companies. Never said that. In fact, I specifically mentioned perhaps having some type of rules where exposure would be required. What do you mean by advertise? Is he able to write an article which portrays the politician in a good light? Yes. Can he put a big ad in the paper stating to vote for his candidate? No. It is a matter of severity, as it is with almost all laws. It may still be illegal to have it on your own website, but it's unlikely to be persued unless it becomes an issue. I dunno. I'd have to think about it. Those would be advertisements, thus illegal. It's not a difficult concept. No more problems than already exist. Free speech is a reason this country is great. Too bad this isn't a free speech issue. Oh my god! You mean the government doesn't want to allow the media to air lies about candidates!? Ever heard of slander? Is that law a restriction on free speech? They simply expanded that definition. And then he says that by banning conspiring (similar antitrust laws have existed for quite some time), it is a limit of free speech. Well this guy is obviously very rational. If you consider what the original point of the first amendment was, I don't think these laws are going against that.
No, I have not. Quit telling me what I've done. I have limited one way in which political advertisements can be done. And I never said anything about arresting people. Presumably, the punishment would not be that severe. It is not about free speech. The speech does not particularly concern me. What's the cost? As I said, he could write an article about why he would endorce a candidate, but advertisements aren't allowed. He can still express himself. Restricting ADVERTISEMENT - not speech.
if you dont arrest them, people will continue to do what is illegal. you will need to arrest them or you shouldnt bother with the law. writing tickets wont scare anyone. if it isnt about free speech, then how come i will not be allowed to buy ads to express myself. you tell me, you are making up the rules. you are the one banning private citizens from presenting their views in the media. and who determines what is an ad and what is opinion? if i owned tigerforums and i put up banners that say bush is great i will vote for him, where ordinarily there are paid ads, will i get shut down? if i refuse will you send armed agents to my house?
Hefty fines are plenty of a deterrent. You can still express yourself. You just can't have an advertisement. It's a restriction on the economics of politics, not free speech. The cost of such a law would be very minimal. And once again, the views are not banned. Quit spinning this. Look up what an ad is in a marketing book. There are some issues that could be tricky, but for the most part - it's straight foreward. Look at the word you used - "banners". What are we talking about again? Advertisements, which a banner is a form of. So, yes, it would be illegal as well.
how can i express myself in the paper if i cant buy space? depend on luck? if i have tons of support and money and i want to spread my views i should be able to, instead of being slaves to the whims of the media gatekeepers. they have to pay for the paper and printers and broadcasting, and i expect them to donate time to me? why? i am shut out of the process. the cost of enforcement would be enormous. i am not spinning anything. you are proposing a law whereby people Are banned from presenting certain viewpoints based on content and pretending you arent banning anything. i dont think it is an exaggeration to say you favor the complete ruination of america. the total destruction of freedom of speech in politics. if you were a politician and were pushing this legislation through, i would hope that you were assassinated, for the good of the country. and if the law was succesful i would hope that major cities in the US were nuked until the law was reversed.
this has already been discussed as a potential problem. I think you, as an individual not running for office, could buy an ad to say that you are pro-life or whatever else, so long as you don't mention any candidates. Also, the media would be required to give air time to the candidates for them to express their views. No, it wouldn't. Because it would be so incredibly obvious if it were violated, it would be quite simple to enforce. I am banning a form of advertisement - I freely admit this. I am not banning viewpoints based on content.
. yunno what sort of government that is called when the government manipulates the media? if i owned a paper the government can eat my ass i would never give free time to any candidate.
