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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (142776)	2/19/2002 11:21:38 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576990

But there already are restrictions. When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad? If I wanted to run some scenes from my latest porn film on TV in my ad, could I get someone to take it? What about a drug manufacturing making claims about medical effectiveness? There are specific legal reasons each of these restrictions is NOT in violation of constitutional protections. In particular, courts have determined that although there is a First Amendment entitlement to freedom of speech, advertising presents an exception. This well-established exception has provided for regulatory imposition of consumer protection rules on advertisters. You get back to the "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" argument. Simply put, good sense tells us that freedom of speech cannot be unrestricted and without any limitation whatsoever. It is intuitively obvious to an idiot that this legislation of last week is contrary to good public policy. If you want to ban political advertising altogether, fine. But it is patently stupid to impose arbitrary restrictions as to what someone can say in an ad during the last 60 days of the campaign. Bush will sign the bill comfortably, however, with the knowledge that the Court will strike the provision down (it is a separable provision). It does, however, provide a perfect example of the hypocrisy that so typifies liberalism: "We're all in favor of absolute, unbridled free speech unless it means we have a tougher time getting elected because Republicans can expose us for what we are in their campaign ads". Funny, typical, sickening, all at once.

To: combjelly who wrote (142776)	2/19/2002 12:06:15 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576990

But there already are restrictions. When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad? If I wanted to run some scenes from my latest porn film on TV in my ad, could I get someone to take it? What about a drug manufacturing making claims about medical effectiveness? I see your point, but each of those examples is restricted because the topic is regulated. Nobody can put porn in their ad on the public airwaves, not just those exempted by some clause. If it's ok for those who own the means of transmission to speak their minds on politics (not porn), and those same owners are willing to sell me time on their means of transmission, who is the government to tell me I can't buy it to talk about politics?

To: combjelly who wrote (142776)	2/19/2002 6:36:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576990

But there already are restrictions. When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad? Another violation of the 1st amendment, but a popular one. If I wanted to run some scenes from my latest porn film on TV in my ad, could I get someone to take it? If you could not get someone to take it, that would not be a violation of your rights. You have free speech but people don't have to put your add in thier publication or TV show. Similarly SI's terms of use are not a violation of your 1st amendment rights. What about a drug manufacturing making claims about medical effectiveness? If it is a false claim it is fraud. If it is true then it should be allowed. One difference is that newspapers and other media actually own the methods of transmission. This has been a problem since the founding of the Republic, is there freedom of speech if there are newspapers and all I have is a soapbox in the park? So far, the courts have ruled that is equitable. I'm not sure there has been a specific ruling about this, but if the court ever did rule that papers had to print what you said so you could exercise your "1st amendment right" (I use quotes because you really have no such right here) they would be violating that papers rights. The restriction on the ads falls in the same category. Not at all. If a paper chooses not to carry your article or add it is just the paper exercising rights over its own property. If you have the money you can start your own paper. Regulations against adds are a government restriction on free speech. Tim