Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CVJ who wrote (6304)	3/14/2001 2:29:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

1. Can we agree that Freedom of Speech applies only to individual persons and not to institutions? No. Organized groups of people have freedom of speech rights. If you dispute this, you're saying that the government could pass a law saying that neither the Nazi Party nor the Communist Party could say or print anything publicly. Do you really want to say this? Substitute the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the Federalist Society (not to mention the Cato Institute) and see how many people here would agree that they have no freedom of speech rights, but can be censored at will by the government. Sorry. On this one, you lose. 2. Nobody has so far come up with an acceptable way to define "legitimate" candiates. Was Bill Clinton a legitimate candidate in 1990? He was the classic "out of nowhere" candidate. How about Ross Perot. Everybody "knew" he couldn't win the election. Was he a legitimate candidate? Could a non-legitimate candidate with enough money become legitimate? 3. Are you going to control just money, or other efforts on behalf a candidate? Can a corporation hire a thousand doorbellers and have it not count? Or a union send out a thousand members to doorbell and have it not count?