http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:40 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32349 Free speech is not reckless speech nor limitless speech. You can say anything you want, but you can't come into my house and do so. You can't shout 'fire' in a theater. You can't do false advertising. You can't lie to stockholders. Financial scams are illegal. Lying can be and is regulated. ]]> 32349@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32330 It isn't a self-regulation issue. How can you say you uphold the constitution when you say we just just 'ban those ads' or regulate them. Free speech means having the right to tell lies too. All speech is covered, not just speech we agree with. And as far as the SCOTUS goes, I now see the same people protesting that court for 'appointing Bush' but saying they are good in this decision. ]]> 32330@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:22:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32321 It's not a free speech issue, it's an issue of self-regulation by Congress, and the SOTUS says that's okay. I agree. I know that the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard and the other extreme right publications will disagree, but as Bush said: "That's just the way it goes." (Here's context for the quote: "I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes."—Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000) ]]> 32321@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:43:41 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32282 Who cares who own the newspapers, the basic fact remains: (setting aside the issue of the soft money ban, which is in keeping with prior precedent) yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck at the core of the First Amendment, political speech. ]]> 32282@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:41:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32276 You are the same type who believe that there is a "Separation of Church and State", but when something is plainly written in the Constitution you don't see it. I don't appreciate someone calling the conservative point of view loony. If you would ever come down from your ivory tower to see how real blue collar working Americans think about freedom, responsibility, and morality you will see you are wrong in your assertion. Get a clue. ]]> 32276@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:05:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/112030.php#comment-32274 Quite your loony griping. It's obviously not unconsitutional with the Supreme Court ruling. You can't be on the wrong side when you disagree with Scalia. :) I'm sorry, is the Washington Times or NY Post unbiased? At least the NY Time makes profit. The WT and NYP are subsidised by the Moonies and Murdoch respectively to push the right wing loony point of view rather than the almighty 'free market' approach of depending on attracting enough buyers for their papers. The Times is hardly wildly liberal. ]]> 32274@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:56:18 EST