In response to:

Regulating Political Speech

Richard2489 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 6:26 AM
I am all for free speech but what needs to be controlled is the making up and out and out lies that are being played to the public by candidates, politicians and the media. I think that the media if caught in a lie or fabrication should loose their license and a candidate or politician should be disqualified or removed from office. As a country, we cannot make the proper decisions when the information used to make those decisions are actually out and out lies.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:44 AM
So if I decide that you're lying I can have you banned from speaking? Or did you imagine you'd be the one banning the "liars"?
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:26 AM
"lose their license?"

That's the problem! If you can "license," you can control content! That's how the "Fairness Doctrine" worked.

This whole movement is all about making it possible for government to "license" & thus control mass communications to ensure their propaganda is not rebutted & their line is always followed.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:27 AM
The way you deal with "lies" is leave others free to find & publicly "out" them!
Jay Wye Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 8:40 AM
who would watch a news program that had lost their credibility?
I don't watch CBS news because of the Rather/Bush memo fiasco and what 60 Minutes does with their selective editing. CNN is out because of their false reporting on Assault Weapons,NBC is out because of their rigged truck gas tank fires,and so on.
Plus,the Old Media FAILED to properly investigate and report on Comrade Obama's background.If the liberal "Mainstream Media" had reported on POTUS-candidate Obama as deeply and thoroughly as they did VICE Prez-candidate Sarah Palin AND her entire family,Comrade Obama would not have been elected.
The Fourth Estate,the so-called Watchdog of Government,FAILED in their duty to the American People.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 6:46 PM
Radio and TV communications are licensed mainly to control frequency spectrum use and station operation,not for what they broadcast,unless they misuse the public airwaves by profanity,porn,etc;things against community standards. that is why cable TV can air porn,nudity,and other garbage.
I suppose that is controlling for "content",but it's extreme stuff,not politics. Establishing reasonable limits,not censorship per se.
Nam65-66 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 6:55 AM
Everyone likes free speech...provided they agree with what is being said.You are a prime example.If you are going to "control" something,then it is not free.
It's presidential season, so again pundits are indignant that money is spent on politics. Spent by corporations! And rich people! Because the Supreme Court allowed that, "2012 will be a miserable year," says The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne

2012 may be miserable -- but if it is, it won't be because corporations spend on politics. And anyway, they have a right to spend.

In politics, money is speech.

The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... ."

Yet most people support...