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 (6319)	3/14/2001 7:14:30 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 59480

I do not dispute that organized groups have freedom of speech, I just don't believe it is an absolute freedom to be applied in a universally unlimited fashion, as in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, or in spending huge sums of money to distort a candidates views or lifestyle or history. The first half, sure. But distorting a candidate's views? What is distortion? Who defines it? And is reporting factually but selectively on lifestyle and history distortion? What if the Sierra Club calls Bush's plans anti-environmental, while he claims they're pro-environment. Are they distorting his views? You are setting up impossible standards. Also, political speech is a totally different thing from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (Is it also a crime to yell "opera" in a crowded fire station??) The news media should report on every candidate, but not endorse any. Well, there goes freedom of the press. The government will now dictate what newspapers can say. If they don't give enough coverage to a given candidate, will it be a crime to be charged by the government, or a civil tort so they can be sued by any minority candidate who doesn't think they were reported on? my gut feeling on the legitimacy of a candidate leans toward some version of the presently used yardstick (too flexible?) of the support he/she received in the previous election. I assume you mean party, not person -- Clinton, as I recall, got NO support in the 1988 Presidential election, and Dubya certainly got none in 1996. But then, what you're saying is you want to destroy any third party before it can get started, since it can't get a respectable number of votes without money and it can't get money under your system without first getting a respectable number of votes. Basically, idealism is one thing, but you are destroying a whole raft of freedoms in your attempt to cure one problem. I don't buy it.