• 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!

What can we all do?

Wakeforest22890 said:
If the SCOTUS hadn't said money is speech then publicly financed elections would be a way to limit advertising. With current case law though I don't see how it can be limited.
Click to expand...

There are so many bad ways to go with the "freedom of money" that I'm sure it's going to be restricted eventually.
 
RJKarl said:
A newspaper expressing an opinion is different than a union or an individual buying advertising space.

You have EVERY right to communicate in the public square. You have no right to buy advertising.

It's quite clear and quite settled about how and where tobacco and alcohol may be advertised. Don't they have a right to communicate?
Click to expand...

I'm struggling with your position -- there is no national 'public square', so I'm assuming the intent was to allow political communications via whatever mechanism is available (printing press, airwaves, banners, whatever). Buying transport on existing mechanisms ('advertising') is just for efficiency.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
If the SCOTUS hadn't said money is speech then publicly financed elections would be a way to limit advertising. With current case law though I don't see how it can be limited.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth to this. New legislation would have to be passed, and then a new Supreme Court rule on it, reversing the flawed Citizens United decision (and a few others).
 
There were plenty of opportunities to buy advertising in the new country. Two of the nation's biggest publishers were involved in the forming the nation. They certainly would have mentioned advertising if it was to be covered.

Fred speech is the ability to share your political views without being jailed for it. It has nothing to do with advertising.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
False. Republicans have hated him ever since he started running and they realized he was going to dethrone Hillary.
Click to expand...

As a republican that voted for Obama in 2008 I can assure you that's a broad blanket to cast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top