• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Both parties are corrupt, and we are lemmings...

DreamOnDemOn said:
Lying by politicians is not yet a crime. One politician can sue another for defamation of character, I guess, if they could find some judge to listen to that one.
Click to expand...

Which is why we should enact the British or Canadian laws on political advertising. There are repercussions for candidates lying in those countries.
 
sailordeac said:
Free speech is a more important value than campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...

Paid advertising has nothing to do with free speech. For over one hundred years liberal and conservative Supreme Courts handed down multiple decisions agreeing with this principle. Only this radical group disagrees.
 
Junebug said:
Colossally bad idea.
Click to expand...

So it's a bad idea to have truth in advertising. How come it's OK to do this for other brands?

Political advertising is promoting a brand just like McDonald's or Sears.
 
RJKarl said:
So it's a bad idea to have truth in advertising. How come it's OK to do this for other brands?

Political advertising is promoting a brand just like McDonald's or Sears.
Click to expand...

I think the point is more that British speech laws are horrible in general and asking to adopt them should be a non-starter.
 
RJKarl said:
So it's a bad idea to have truth in advertising. How come it's OK to do this for other brands?

Political advertising is promoting a brand just like McDonald's or Sears.
Click to expand...

We've had endless threads talking about this or that politician telling this or that lie. The vast, vast majority of it, despite your protestations otherwise, is varying shades of grey. To let overzealous prosecutors and potentially politically naive jurors decide, on pain of fine or imprisonment, whether this or that political statement is a lie is a sure way to completely deter legitimate debate. Plus, every politician has an opponent right there ready to pounce on every misstatement, bending of the truth, or incomplete story, much less an outright lie. The marketplace of ideas can take care of itself.

It's a terrible idea, and its totally inconsistent with the ideals underlying the First Amendment.
 
Paid advertising is not the same as speaking in the public square or being interviewed.

Very rarely do people do people lies as blatant as Romney's about welfare.

How come "over zealous" prosecutions seem not to happen in Canada or the UK? Are you saying US prosecutors are less competent?
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
The funding/proliferation of the ads is a much bigger issue than content.
Click to expand...

And there is nothing in the First Amendment about advertising being protected. Two of the new nation's biggest publishers were key to the both the Declaration and Constitution. Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin understood the difference between free and paid speech.

Plus Congress has every right to legislate on interstate commerce. Political advertising is interstate commerce.
 
Absolutely not. This is the first Court that said it was.

Advertising is commerce. If it's truly protected outlets couldn't say no to any political advertising. Remember TV and radio stations operate under leases for their band.

Every ad on broadcast TV and radio is on government airways. How could you deny NABMLA or the KKK their free speech rights?
 
RJKarl said:
Absolutely not. This is the first Court that said it was.
Click to expand...

You are really confused on this one. First of all, we aren't talking about commerce here. We are talking about paid advertising by a candidate for an election. That's at the very core of what the First Amendment is about--political speech. It's not conceptually different from giving a political speech in a park, posting signs, or handing out fliers, other than the unique nature of the media. It's a different category of speech from commercial speech entirely. And it should be vigorously protected--think about it, if it weren't, a republican controlled legislature could ban all democratic TV commercials. That can't be right.

Second, the commercial speech doctrine arose sometime in the mid 1970s. It applies to true commercial activities--like selling one's wares. Its not going anywhere.

Third, what I think you are talking about is the notion that contributing to a political candidate is speech. That isn't new to Citizens United. That was decided in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. That's a different discussion entirely from the one we are having here.
 
Last edited:
It's completely different from speaking on a street corner, handing out fliers or positing signs. Those you don't pay to do.

The airwaves and contributions can be regulated.
 
You act like I'm the only person who thinks like this. Everyone doesn't believe like you.
 
RJKarl said:
You act like I'm the only person who thinks like this. Everyone doesn't believe like you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we obtain our news from different sources, but have never heard anyone suggest that regulating the substance of politicians' statements is either wise policy or constitutionally permissible.
 
Junebug said:
I'm sure we obtain our news from different sources, but have never heard anyone suggest that regulating the substance of politicians' statements is either wise policy or constitutionally permissible.
Click to expand...

Multiple nations have laws about lying in political advertising. Thus your premise is fatally flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top