http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:27:05 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/10/203211.php#comment-32524 Not at all, Al: it's called "civilization" and the give and take of society. Regulation is not in and of itself unconstitutional, and not everyone can have everything their own way all the time. In this case, it's not even a free speech issue, as anyone can continue to say anything they want, within limits like not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Even the constitution does not provide for unbridled and reckless speech. What you may be raising is an issue of class warfare, "the rich against the poor," but I don't see that as having much basis in the constitution. 32524@blogcritics.org Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:27:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/10/203211.php#comment-32371 Hal, this suggestion in #1 is incredibly authoritarian and un-American. I'm looking for some hint that you mean it satirically, but I see no sign of such. Sometimes, people use their free speech to make good, honest arguments. Sometimes they use it to spin and deceive. Who decides which is what in all this? Some government board decides which statements about the politicians they work for are valid? Duh. You know what we could try instead? Everybody gets to say pretty much anything they want any way they want about candidates running for public office, and then the candidates could say anything back. It would be like some kind of right to freedom of expression as the basis for a public dialogue. Then the voters can figure out how much of who's stories they believe for themselves. That sounds like a really good idea to me. Perhaps we should put something to that effect in the constitution... 32371@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:45:49 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/10/203211.php#comment-32367 Because of Bush. He's given Big Media a free hand, and individuals are S.O.L. 32367@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:05:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/10/203211.php#comment-32332 You know what I think. All speech should be protected. Why should the powerful editorial boards of big city newspapers be able to get their point across, but I can't get my point head on behalf of the NRA or other interest group? 32332@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/10/203211.php#comment-32317 My take on this is that it's not a free speech issue at all, but self-regulation by the governing body. And gods knows it needs regulation when it comes to political advertising. Political TV ads are essentially "quickie lies." They take a piece of a part of a bit of an opponent's position and use it to mischaracterize the opponent. They'll twist the spin on a ballot initiative (here in California) and make it sound like a "Yes" vote means the opposite. And sometimes they just lie, or to use the political term, "misspeak." The public interest would be better served and the electorate would be better informed if, for instance, broadcast ads were simply banned. In that case, politicians would still be allowed their "free speech," but they would do have to do it in print and might be a bit more honest. They'd have more time to make a better case for their positions (a :30 just goes whizzing by) and the words would be there plain as day, so maybe we'd get more accountability. That's not likely to happen, but maybe we could get a review board, similar to the National Advertising Review Board, to set some standards and have "Truth In Advertising" apply to politicians, too. What do you think? 32317@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:25:53 EST