Constitutional Oligarchy?

[Liability]

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

According to the "logic" of some liberals here, if a person wished to write an editorial, but wished to make his identity anonymous, he would not enjoy the Freedom of the Press (i.e., in that case, evidently, these libs think it would be ok to abridge the freedom of the press)

They must be using Constitution 2.0.

Publius would not be pleased.

 

[Sallow]

I've never seen an 'anonymous' editorial in any reputable paper.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the "logic" of some liberals here, if a person wished to write an editorial, but wished to make his identity anonymous, he would not enjoy the Freedom of the Press (i.e., in that case, evidently, these libs think it would be ok to abridge the freedom of the press)

They must be using Constitution 2.0.

Publius would not be pleased.

I think Microsoft wrote Constitution 2.0 for them using Windows ME cause I can't make heads or ******* tails out of any of it...it's money...it's editorials...its a desert topping?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

Of course they are. Do we know who wrote the editiorial? (do you not know what "attribution" means?).

Of course we don't know what motivated the editorial, but that's not the point.

 

[Liability]

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

Of course they are. Do we know who wrote the editiorial? (do you not know what "attribution" means?).

Of course we don't know what motivated the editorial, but that's not the point.

We very often do NOT know who wrote any given editorial.

And since there is no requirement that editorials HAVE attribution, the conclusion is inescapable: Attribution is not a prerequisite for free speech.

Oh, and speaking of which, the State of Alabama (back in the olden days) was NOT in fact entitled to demand the donor list from the NAACP, either.

 

[Liability]

I've never seen an 'anonymous' editorial in any reputable paper.

Shirley you jest.

Not that it matters, because it really doesn't, but a bunch of people seem to believe that the NY Times is a reputable paper.

So, with that notion in mind, tell me which person wrote the editorial I link to here from the editorial pages of The New York Slimes? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/opinion/15fri1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

Of course they are. Do we know who wrote the editiorial? (do you not know what "attribution" means?).

Of course we don't know what motivated the editorial, but that's not the point.

Can you tell me what the point is? It might have been better to have a point before you chimed in

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So editorials are protected under Constitution when you have a name and address, but ads by the Chamber of Commerce are not because it's the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death?

 

[Wry Catcher]

According to the "logic" of some liberals here, if a person wished to write an editorial, but wished to make his identity anonymous, he would not enjoy the Freedom of the Press (i.e., in that case, evidently, these libs think it would be ok to abridge the freedom of the press)

They must be using Constitution 2.0.

Publius would not be pleased.

Paranoid much. Pubilus wrote before there was a Constitution, that aside your your logic fails the test of proof. When have liberals abridged the freedom to post or write or broadcast? Which "some liberals here"?
Simply stated so even an arrogant ass might 'get it', the principle of free speech can be abused, but as a 'constitutional scholar' you know that - hence my conclusion that you're dishonest.
Given the anger in your posts, I suspect you're simply a small man easily and frequently picked on as a child. The internet gives you the power of anonymity and the courage to do so.
Observation of your person aside, power tends to corrupt, and arrgant assholes are absolutly corrupt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

Of course they are. Do we know who wrote the editiorial? (do you not know what "attribution" means?).

Of course we don't know what motivated the editorial, but that's not the point.

We very often do NOT know who wrote any given editorial.

And since there is no requirement that editorials HAVE attribution, the conclusion is inescapable: Attribution is not a prerequisite for free speech.

Oh, and speaking of which, the State of Alabama (back in the olden days) was NOT in fact entitled to demand the donor list from the NAACP, either.

Constitution 2.0

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof except if you're Christian; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, especially if you write your name when you send in an editorial; or the right of the people...Ctrl Alt Del

 

[Liability]

They must be using Constitution 2.0.

Publius would not be pleased.

Paranoid much. Pubilus wrote before there was a Constitution, that aside your your logic fails the test of proof. When have liberals abridged the freedom to post or write or broadcast? Which "some liberals here"?
Simply stated so even an arrogant ass might 'get it', the principle of free speech can be abused, but as a 'constitutional scholar' you know that - hence my conclusion that you're dishonest.
Given the anger in your posts, I suspect you're simply a small man easily and frequently picked on as a child. The internet gives you the power of anonymity and the courage to do so.
Observation of your person aside, power tends to corrupt, and arrgant assholes are absolutly corrupt.

You are so far beyond retarded, Shit, that they need to craft a new word to describe just how utterly stupid you are.

OF COURSE Publius wrote before there was an adopted Constitution, you moron. He was writing ABOUT the reasons for adopting it.

And he wrote anonymously.

In your retarded estimation, stupid, would he feel obligated to write with ATTRIBUTION once there was a First Amendment?

Is it possible that even a moron of your severely retarded capacity could be THAT spectacularly stupid?

Oh and by the way, moron. I find you to be a completely vile and worthless piece of shit, but you confuse my rhetoric with "anger." Simple-minded mistake from an asshole such as you. Do you ever stop to wonder why your arrogance is ok in your petty minded little universe, but you cry like the ***** you are when you think you see arrogance in others?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry's hatred is eating him up and making him look foolish.

Just let it go.

 

[Liability]

Wry's hatred is eating him up and making him look foolish.

Just let it go.

Oh, ok.

But it is kinda fun to get him all befuddled. Well, he's already all befuddled. But agitated in his befuddlement. See? Now that shit is funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry's hatred is eating him up and making him look foolish.

Just let it go.

Oh, ok.

But it is kinda fun to get him all befuddled. Well, he's already all befuddled. But agitated in his befuddlement. See? Now that shit is funny.

All true, Brother Liability.

Maybe I'm losing my touch or maybe its the entity that's taken up resident in my house and flipped on the lights the other night, in any event....ahhh what the Hell have fun go for it!

 

[MikeK]

It is false to say Money is not speech. If you want to be heard in a campaign. Money does indeed = Speech. Unless we are going to mandate free coverage for anyone who wants to make a statement.

Money is property. Speech is written or spoken expression of ideas and opinions.

Money is the means by which speech is delivered to the public. Whoever has the most money will reach the greatest audience. Whoever has the least money or no money will reach the least audience, or no audience.

The insidious inequity of the above should be obvious to anyone, including those with the least ability to reason. For the Supreme Court to say that money is speech is a brazen effort to facilitate a significant political advantage on behalf of the emerging corporatocracy. It is clear evidence that the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court is biased and/or corrupted.

Those who choose to agree with the Supreme Court's specious ruling because it conforms with their political orientation are seriously undermining their own interests along with those of the rest of us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is false to say Money is not speech. If you want to be heard in a campaign. Money does indeed = Speech. Unless we are going to mandate free coverage for anyone who wants to make a statement.

Money is property. Speech is written or spoken expression of ideas and opinions.

Money is the means by which speech is delivered to the public. Whoever has the most money will reach the greatest audience. Whoever has the least money or no money will reach the least audience, or no audience.

The insidious inequity of the above should be obvious to anyone, including those with the least ability to reason. For the Supreme Court to say that money is speech is a brazen effort to facilitate a significant political advantage on behalf of the emerging corporatocracy. It is clear evidence that the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court is biased and/or corrupted.

Those who choose to agree with the Supreme Court's specious ruling because it conforms with their political orientation are seriously undermining their own interests along with those of the rest of us.

So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens

 

[MikeK]

So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens

Whose political campaign does the federal government contribute to? Or speak out for?

But to answer your question -- Yes. The federal government does indeed have a powerful voice. But not nearly as powerful as the Voice of The People -- provided we can speak out together.

 

[Liability]

It is false to say Money is not speech. If you want to be heard in a campaign. Money does indeed = Speech. Unless we are going to mandate free coverage for anyone who wants to make a statement.

Money is property. Speech is written or spoken expression of ideas and opinions. * * * *

"Speech" comes in a variety of forms. Sometimes, despite your desire for simple dichotomies, money does equate with speech.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is false to say Money is not speech. If you want to be heard in a campaign. Money does indeed = Speech. Unless we are going to mandate free coverage for anyone who wants to make a statement.

Money is property. Speech is written or spoken expression of ideas and opinions.

Money is the means by which speech is delivered to the public. Whoever has the most money will reach the greatest audience. Whoever has the least money or no money will reach the least audience, or no audience.

The insidious inequity of the above should be obvious to anyone, including those with the least ability to reason. For the Supreme Court to say that money is speech is a brazen effort to facilitate a significant political advantage on behalf of the emerging corporatocracy. It is clear evidence that the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court is biased and/or corrupted.

Those who choose to agree with the Supreme Court's specious ruling because it conforms with their political orientation are seriously undermining their own interests along with those of the rest of us.

So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens

In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice.
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not name those who contributed money to the political ad; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our demoractic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy and eventually America will become an oligarchy.

 

[Liability]

Money is property. Speech is written or spoken expression of ideas and opinions.

Money is the means by which speech is delivered to the public. Whoever has the most money will reach the greatest audience. Whoever has the least money or no money will reach the least audience, or no audience.

The insidious inequity of the above should be obvious to anyone, including those with the least ability to reason. For the Supreme Court to say that money is speech is a brazen effort to facilitate a significant political advantage on behalf of the emerging corporatocracy. It is clear evidence that the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court is biased and/or corrupted.

Those who choose to agree with the Supreme Court's specious ruling because it conforms with their political orientation are seriously undermining their own interests along with those of the rest of us.

So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens

In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice.
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not name those who contributed money to the political ad; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our demoractic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy and eventually America will become an oligarchy.

Fly Catcher a/k/a "Shit" uses ad hominem too, but he (being a complete hypocritical arrogant ass) only objects when others employ that rhetorical tool. Poor little feller.

And while a bombastic and dishonest simpleton like Shit is incapable of appreciating it, the fact remains. Just because a problem exists, has been identified and really does call for some measures to address it (remedy it) does NOT mean that every available law, rule or regulation which can theoretically be brought to bear on it is viable or even desirable.

Sometimes a perfectly effective "remedy" is improper. For example, we might be fully capable of wiping out the threat of al qaeda by nuking the mountainous caves in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we should be launching the nukes. Similarly, if the method for rooting out campaign problems stemming from financing, greed and corruption requires an abridgment of our First Amendment guarantees, then that method MUST be abandoned. Another method has to be found or crafted.

Under these circumstances, the answer is not to just toss up our hands, bemoan our fate and declare that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with. The answer is to find OTHER ways of dealing with it.