In response to:

Chuck Schumer: There Should Be Limits to the First Amendment

Don460 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:02 AM
We must be ever so carfeful if we tighten the rules on free speech. Everyone cites the "fire in a crowded theater" as the lynch-pin for making other restrictions. We already have laws that let you say what one will, but the law also states, in many instances, one can be held accountable for what you say. The loudest critics are the politicans an VIPs and who do not want want their actions criticized---we should never give even an inch in that department. I might be convenced to disallow gutter talk and threats, but then again that lets the camel get its nose under the flap of the free speech tent. I am firmly against contributions from unions, corporations and the wealthy, that exceed that which the "person on the street" can give.
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:04 AM
Don
It is always best to let the words and thoughts fly. But if we tighten the rules, it can be done only through the states or the people (like at work, etc.)
Don460 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:28 AM
Mattie, The problem is, "money" is controlling the outcome of most elections and not "We the People". The judge(s) that determined that unions, corportions and the wealthy could contribute money to elections surely must have failed "Constitutional Law" while getting their l degree (I'm exercising my right of free speech). Regardless of how one "slices it", unions, corporations, PACs, etc., are not "citizens" with a right to vote or control election outcomes. As Perry Mason would say, "Your Honor, I rest my case".
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:37 AM
Don
You seem to be saying that these entities exist in nature and spring forth from nature like flowers or the seas. The only reason they are what they are is because humans populate them. The constitution allows for people to freely associate. It is a right. How, then, could it not be a right for them to do whatever they wish as long as it was legal to do so, up to an including contributing?

Aside from that, I agree that money is corrupting the process. We simply disagree on how to solve that problem.

I suggest stricter advertising rules. In many countries TV advertising is free for candidates. It should also be equal.

What Dems are especially annoyed at since the SC ruling is that GOPers can now raise as much money as Dems.
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:38 AM
Dems are not upset that money is corrupting the process, they are merely upset that other people have as much as they do to work with.
It has to do with their criminal thinking.
Don460 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:51 AM
Mattie, I appreciate your civil response. Yes, people have the right to associate, but that does not give them additonal rights, especially to do things they could not do as individuals (excluding money for business ventures). Since we agree that "money talks", especially in an election, it "in effect" permits them to vote more than once---that is "gang" mentality.
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 12:04 PM
If it if fine for all comers, does it really matter?

While debating the DISCLOSE Act last night on the Senate floor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for restrictions on the First Amendment, citing other laws and regulations already in place in the United States that do so.

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits...