If Government Could Forbid Distribution Of A Movie, Then Could It Also Ban A Book?

[eflatminor]

After all, the Citizens United case was about banning a movie. Anyone cool with government banning books too?

The government’s lawyer gave the only logically consistent answer possible: yes.

The Supreme Court wisely said: No, the government cannot ban books—nor can it ban movies, or TV ads, or billboards, or other forms of independent communication. No matter who produces them, and no matter when.

The hard truth is that those who support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United are book banners, at least in principle.

How Liberals Became the New Book Banners:
How Liberals Became the New Book Banners - Reason.com

 

[AVG-JOE]

Before the CU ruling we had a corruption problem and after the CU ruling we have a bigger corruption problem.

Regulated corruption is still corruption.

The answer to corruption in American politics has nothing to do with the CU ruling - the answer lay in a fair and simple tax code, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in spending.

What kind of idiot would donate million$ to a political campaign if he could expect no favoritism in return?
​

It's time to strip from our leaders the power to customize the tax obligations of their friends and donors. Past time.

`​

 

[shart_attack]

What kind of idiot would donate million$ to a political campaign if he could expect no favoritism in return?

Me.

I'm a big fan of titty bars.

 

[eflatminor]

Before the CU ruling we had a corruption problem and after the CU ruling we have a bigger corruption problem.

Regulated corruption is still corruption.

The answer to corruption in American politics has nothing to do with the CU ruling - the answer lay in a fair and simple tax code, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in spending.

What kind of idiot would donate million$ to a political campaign if he could expect no favoritism in return?
​

It's time to strip from our leaders the power to customize the tax obligations of their friends and donors. Past time.

Before the CU ruling we had a corruption problem and after the CU ruling we have a bigger corruption problem. Do you have evidence for this? CU did NOT allow for unlimited campaign spending for the first time. In fact, 26 states have allowed unlimited spending from corporations and unions for a long time. So, what change did CU bring about and what is your evidence that corruption became a bigger problem? I say free speech is a good thing, always.

Regulated corruption is still corruption. Not sure if this means you are for or against CU???

The answer to corruption in American politics has nothing to do with the CU ruling - the answer lay in a fair and simple tax code Flat/fair tax...hell yes!, public budgets that are balanced by law Love it! and transparency in spending Great...but I wouldn't hold my breath.

What kind of idiot would donate million$ to a political campaign if he could expect no favoritism in return? Exactly! So, how to remove the possibility of that favoritism and therefore limit money in politics? Well, there's no way a business or union will just stop lobbying. That's not going to happen as they have a duty to look after their shareholders/members. So, the only thing that could possibly work is limited government to the specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution. You know, the law, and therefore remove their ability to give political favors. Limited government, as always, is the answer to the problems caused by meddling government.
​

It's time to strip from our leaders the power to customize the tax obligations of their friends and donors. Past time. Agree. And all we have to do is follow the law as originally intended. No more thinking of the Constitution as a document to expand government powers. It's meant to limit them. THAT'S how you strip leaders of the ability to give tax and other favors to themselves and their donors.

 

[bendog]

A book and a campaign ad .... try a better simile

 

[eflatminor]

A book and a campaign ad .... try a better simile

Someone didn't read the article. For if you had, you'd see that during the CU arguments, the government argued that it should be able to ban a book, just like it banned a movie...or a campaign ad. Not a simile at all, just a fact.

Try again? Do you or do you not believe government should be able to ban a book or movie and if not, how does that square with your apparent stance against CU?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Government can ban anything it wants. Whether a ban actually prevents viewing is another question entirely. Often, when ever governments or organizations try banning something they only succeed in making it more popular and desireable. As with drugs. I often wanted beer and booze prior to turning 21. But once I did and it was legal it quickly lost much of the allure.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Before the CU ruling we had a corruption problem and after the CU ruling we have a bigger corruption problem.

Regulated corruption is still corruption.

The answer to corruption in American politics has nothing to do with the CU ruling - the answer lay in a fair and simple tax code, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in spending.

What kind of idiot would donate million$ to a political campaign if he could expect no favoritism in return?
​

It's time to strip from our leaders the power to customize the tax obligations of their friends and donors. Past time.

`​

"I don't know how, but we've legalized bribery."
"Joshua Lymon" "The West Wing"

 

[bendog]

the article is simply a shell game, as is your argument. If a "campaign ad masquarades as a book" it can be banned." Frankly, I'm not sure any speech can be "banned" absent it being a danger to public peace, but historically speech has been regulated. CU was a departure. At the extreme it equates money as speech: the more money you got, the more speech you get.

However, if you chose to be honest about CU, the gop majority noted that regulation may still require disclosure of where the money came form, e.g. who gave the money to make the movie. I think that was cynical in a way, because the reality is NEITHER party in congress wants full disclosure. So the Court identified a remedy it knew was politically impossible, and congress enacted spending and timing limitations to reach a remedy in campaign finance with full realization that disclosure wasn't going to be enacted.

 

[eflatminor]

the article is simply a shell game, as is your argument. If a "campaign ad masquarades as a book" it can be banned." Frankly, I'm not sure any speech can be "banned" absent it being a danger to public peace, but historically speech has been regulated. CU was a departure. At the extreme it equates money as speech: the more money you got, the more speech you get.

However, if you chose to be honest about CU, the gop majority noted that regulation may still require disclosure of where the money came form, e.g. who gave the money to make the movie. I think that was cynical in a way, because the reality is NEITHER party in congress wants full disclosure. So the Court identified a remedy it knew was politically impossible, and congress enacted spending and timing limitations to reach a remedy in campaign finance with full realization that disclosure wasn't going to be enacted.

Speech can't be banned? Tell that to the makers of the movie that was, well, banned.

From your response, it appears we can put you down as in support of government banning a book or a movie. Sorry, censoring...or is it regulating?. Whatever you want to call it, I find that rather shocking. Put me down for more free speech, which is EXACTLY what the CU ruling did.

Three reasons not to sweat CU: