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: hmaly who wrote (142816)	2/20/2002 9:19:09 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577021

The law bans negative adds 60 days before the election , because the target of the adds needs time to respond. This is a good point, but starts a slippery slope. Who decides what a negative ad is? According to Joe Lieberman, the NAACP ad run against Bush in '00 was not inappropriate. It is bad public policy because unenforecable laws are bad public policy; you can't effectively require people to tell the truth. Bill Clinton proved this beyond any question.

To: hmaly who wrote (142816)	2/20/2002 11:18:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577021

The 1st amendment has been interpreted to cover far more then just political speech and for the most part I don't disagree with that interpretation, but the core of the 1st amendment is political speech. If you regulate that you are infringing on 1st amendment rights in the most obvious and direct way and in this case at the time when free political communication is most important (before the election). I feel confident that the supreme court will overturn at least this part of the law, but I am disturbed by the direction that this issue is taking. BTW - Politics used to be far more rough and tumble. Negative adds are nothing new. Tim