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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (507843)	12/11/2003 2:17:33 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

I think Mitchy likes being associated with the leftists that help support terror...you know the ones..they have been whining on this very thread all day.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (507843)	12/11/2003 2:20:29 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm much more worried about the USSC's inability to put the proper value on free speech. The evidence points to valuing pornography over political free speech. It seems they want to ban free speech to protect us against ourselves, LOL. Thursday, December 11, 2003 Riddling free speech The Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding most aspects of the campaign finance limitation law passed by Congress last year affirms that when it comes to a trendy fixation of the political class, the Constitution - even the First Amendment, on which this court has generally been not bad - means little or nothing. Simple language like "Congress shall make no law" gives way to emotional rhetoric about the malign influence of money in politics (as if politics was otherwise a pristine calling), and out of that sentiment grows a 90-page statute, 1,000 pages of regulations and a 300-page Supreme Court decision regulating political speech. Or, as Chapman University law school professor John Eastman put it to us on Wednesday, there is now "more protection for pornography on the Internet than we give to core political speech 60 days before an election." He is referring to a provision in the law, which most observers expected the Supreme Court might overturn, that restricts election- time political ads by interest groups and others (from the NRA to abortion-rights groups), including a ban on ads that mention federal candidates in those candidates' districts a month before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Incredible. The time just before an election is when political speech should be freest, even though people know some of it will be scurrilous. Yet Congress asserts the right not only to regulate candidates (for which there is some tenuous justification, given that nobody is forced to run for office), but also independent groups that might want to influence an election. And the Supreme Court - specifically, Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - lets it happen. Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute, told us, "Nobody thought the 60-day ban on speech would be upheld, yet the court affirmed even that. What's the point of having a court if it won't protect the Constitution? This is a [court] majority that thinks like a legislature." Several aspects of the enthusiasm for campaign finance restrictions are especially dismaying. First, these are restrictions, as Mr. Pilon told us, "in the very area (besides religion) the First Amendment was meant to protect - political speech." Second, finance limits nullify the democratic myth: The idea is that the political process is supposed to be the way the people give the government its marching orders, but when the government regulates the political process, then the government controls the process that is supposed to control it. Third, restrictions on political fund-raising and spending are blatantly calculated to protect incumbents, who have built-in electoral advantages, from well-financed challengers. This was truly appalling legislation and a truly appalling decision.