So Much for Freedom of Speech

[Buff]

So much for free speech

WASHINGTON - A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.

The worst part of this is that the law was challenged AND UPHELD by the Supreme Court, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional. I am not fan of Moore's, but this is an attack on all of our freedom. And now people are going to use the law to limit free speech.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 24 2004, 04:06 PM
So much for free speech

WASHINGTON - A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.

The worst part of this is that the law was challenged AND UPHELD by the Supreme Court, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional. I am not fan of Moore's, but this is an attack on all of our freedom. And now people are going to use the law to limit free speech.
Why don't they just take Bush's milliseconds he's on the screen in the ads out of the ads? :unsure:

I may be dreaming this, but I swear this issue has been raised before in a similar situation with the same results....

[Buff]

Originally posted by Peaches+Jun 24 2004, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Jun 24 2004, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Jun 24 2004, 04:06 PM
So much for free speech

WASHINGTON - A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.

The worst part of this is that the law was challenged AND UPHELD by the Supreme Court, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional. I am not fan of Moore's, but this is an attack on all of our freedom. And now people are going to use the law to limit free speech.
Why don't they just take Bush's milliseconds he's on the screen in the ads out of the ads? :unsure:

I may be dreaming this, but I swear this issue has been raised before in a similar situation with the same results.... [/b][/quote]
Why should they? How about letting them exercise their right to free political speech as guaranteed in Amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States?

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 24 2004, 04:17 PM
Why should they? How about letting them exercise their right to free political speech as guaranteed in Amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States?
So should everyone be allowed to run commercials with the candidates in them? Or are we going to pick and choose who this law applies to?

How about the laws regarding campaigning within a certain distance from the polls -just scrap those too?

Personally, I think it's a stupid law, but there are LOT of laws I think are stupid. However, until the laws are no longer in existence, I think everyone should have to follow them.

Nor do I think removing one or two frames from an advertisment constitutes a freedom of speech issue when a law prohibits certain advertising. There are many, many laws against advertising. :awinky:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Peaches+Jun 24 2004, 12:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Jun 24 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Jun 24 2004, 04:17 PM
Why should they? How about letting them exercise their right to free political speech as guaranteed in Amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States?
So should everyone be allowed to run commercials with the candidates in them? Or are we going to pick and choose who this law applies to?

How about the laws regarding campaigning within a certain distance from the polls -just scrap those too?

Personally, I think it's a stupid law, but there are LOT of laws I think are stupid. However, until the laws are no longer in existence, I think everyone should have to follow them.

Nor do I think removing one or two frames from an advertisment constitutes a freedom of speech issue when a law prohibits certain advertising. There are many, many laws against advertising. :awinky: [/b][/quote]
Hes in the trailer for seconds.


and besides, hes on the news every night, there is no law on what he said or did, just future equal allocation laws.

i don't see how this would violate anything.

[Buff]

If someone wants to run a 4 day long ad bashing or supporting anyone in or running for office, it should be allowed.

Peaches, this law is not simply stupid or silly -- it's specifically prohibitted by the constitution. That doesn't mean anything to you?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Bah, forget it. It's the law, therefore we must obey it. Maybe slavery will be the law again someday.