Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/16/804436...lite-radio

More government interference in our freedoms!

Quote:More government interference in our freedoms!

 

What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't they understand? All of it I guess.

Quote:What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't they understand? All of it I guess.

What part of this is a law from congress. And exactly what is being infringed by having ads not be anonymous? I'll wait while you try and spin this. 

The more information available, the easier it is to make an intelligent decision. Nothing wrong with transparency.

Seems like a good idea to me, now the "fairness" doctrine I have a problem with but this is just making whoever sponsors the add own up to it during the add.

Quote:Seems like a good idea to me, now the "fairness" doctrine I have a problem with but this is just making whoever sponsors the add own up to it during the add.

I think what it actually does is force the TV/Radio stations and what not to make all the data available online to anyone. In the past you had to physically go to the stations to ask to see the records. 

Quote:I think what it actually does is force the TV/Radio stations and what not to make all the data available online to anyone. In the past you had to physically go to the stations to ask to see the records. 

 

So it's even less demanding than I thought, I'm not real knowledge able on campaign finances but I thought they had to disclose who sponsored the add (you know the voice that talks real fast at the end or the really small white print you have to freeze frame and zoom in to read).

Quote:So it's even less demanding than I thought, I'm not real knowledge able on campaign finances but I thought they had to disclose who sponsored the add (you know the voice that talks real fast at the end or the really small white print you have to freeze frame and zoom in to read).

They have to say who the PAC or whoever is in the ad but this information is who runs/funds the people running the ad. So like for example EricC85 starts a PAC called Anarchists For the Future of Children of America and runs an ad supporting Ron Paul. During the ad it names yours PAC but nobody knows who the actual PAC is they just think it's a bunch of good old fashioned Children loving American Anarchists. With this they will be able to look into this fantastic sounding establishment but lo and behold it's EricC85!!!!!!

 

Really it won't do much for the average American that is to lazy or just doesn't give two turds to look into these ads. It's something towards campaign reform though and that's nice.

Quote:They have to say who the PAC or whoever is in the ad but this information is who runs/funds the people running the ad. So like for example EricC85 starts a PAC called Anarchists For the Future of Children of America and runs an ad supporting Ron Paul. During the ad it names yours PAC but nobody knows who the actual PAC is they just think it's a bunch of good old fashioned Children loving American Anarchists. With this they will be able to look into this fantastic sounding establishment but lo and behold it's EricC85!!!!!!

 

Really it won't do much for the average American that is to lazy or just doesn't give two turds to look into these ads. It's something towards campaign reform though and that's nice.

 

+1 for the great analogy, I like the name of my organization

Quote:What part of this is a law from congress. And exactly what is being infringed by having ads not be anonymous? I'll wait while you try and spin this. 

 

I'm not spinning anything, regulation of political speech by the federal government is supposed to be forbidden. Period.

Quote:I'm not spinning anything, regulation of political speech by the federal government is supposed to be forbidden. Period.

Prohibition of speech is forbidden that's different then requiring disclosure of sponsors? It's not like the fairness doctrine that required specific view points equal air time it's just saying full disclosure must be provided.

Quote:Prohibition of speech is forbidden that's different then requiring disclosure of sponsors? It's not like the fairness doctrine that required specific view points equal air time it's just saying full disclosure must be provided.

 

"Requiring" anything related to political speech is abridgement. The Constitution was very specific about our rights and I'm shocked at how many so willingly and easily give them up because they don't like what other people do with theirs.

Quote:"Requiring" anything related to political speech is abridgement. The Constitution was very specific about our rights and I'm shocked at how many so willingly and easily give them up because they don't like what other people do with theirs.

 

I don't see anyone willing to give anything up here? I'm all for defending rights, by all means but explain this a little more to me cause I'm not seeing it. Are you arguing any restriction on speech is violation of the constitution? Or are you arguing conditions on speech is a violation of the constitution? Because there's several examples of limits on speech, but that's not even the case here. From what I've read they're simply requiring disclosure on sponsors of political adds, that's not even a restriction it's a disclosure clause which has been par the course for a long time. Now if they're saying for example channel 12 has to show a Democrat sponsored add for every Republican sponsored add then that's different but that's not what the article is talking about.

Quote:I'm not spinning anything, regulation of political speech by the federal government is supposed to be forbidden. Period.

 

I sort of agree with you on this.   There's a legitimate question in this case as to whether the government is regulating speech.  

Quote:I don't see anyone willing to give anything up here? I'm all for defending rights, by all means but explain this a little more to me cause I'm not seeing it. Are you arguing any restriction on speech is violation of the constitution? Or are you arguing conditions on speech is a violation of the constitution? Because there's several examples of limits on speech, but that's not even the case here. From what I've read they're simply requiring disclosure on sponsors of political adds, that's not even a restriction it's a disclosure clause which has been par the course for a long time. Now if they're saying for example channel 12 has to show a Democrat sponsored add for every Republican sponsored add then that's different but that's not what the article is talking about.

 

What if the government decided we could no longer post under a user name but instead had to give our regular names and addresses?   How does that differ from forcing disclosure of who is behind a political ad?  

 

There is a long history of anonymous political statements dating back to the dawn of democracy.   Here's an example: The Federalist Papers.   Or how about Common Sense?  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sens...amphlet%29

 

<i><b>"Common Sense</b></i>^[1] is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 that inspired people in the Thirteen Colonies to declare and fight for independence from Great Britain in the summer of 1776. The pamphlet explained the advantages of and the need for immediate independence in clear, simple language. It was published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution and became an immediate sensation. It was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places."

 

"Historian Gordon S. Wood described <i>Common Sense</i> as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era"."

Quote:What if the government decided we could no longer post under a user name but instead had to give our regular names and addresses?   How does that differ from forcing disclosure of who is behind a political ad?  

 

There is a long history of anonymous political statements dating back to the dawn of democracy.   Here's an example: The Federalist Papers.   Or how about Common Sense?  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sens...amphlet%29

 

But where is anonymous speech protected in the constitution?

Quote:But where is anonymous speech protected in the constitution?

 

Speech is protected.   Why would that not include anonymous speech?    Failing to protect anonymous speech would probably have a chilling effect on free speech.   That is where the Supreme Court could rest their ruling.  

 

It seems like a slippery slope to force people to disclose themselves if they want to make a political statement.  

 

Like I said, anonymous political speech was instrumental in the movement for independence from Britain, and the ratification of the Constitution.   Anonymous political speech has a history as long as democracy itself.  It's part of the free marketplace of ideas. 

 

If the government is going to regulate speech, there has to be a very compelling reason to do it.  Not just that they think it would be an improvement.   I don't see a compelling reason for this. 

Quote:Speech is protected.   Why would that not include anonymous speech?    Failing to protect anonymous speech would probably have a chilling effect on free speech.   That is where the Supreme Court could rest their ruling.  

 

It seems like a slippery slope to force people to disclose themselves if they want to make a political statement.  

 

Like I said, anonymous political speech was instrumental in the movement for independence from Britain, and the ratification of the Constitution.   Anonymous political speech has a history as long as democracy itself.  It's part of the free marketplace of ideas. 

 

If the government is going to regulate speech, there has to be a very compelling reason to do it.  Not just that they think it would be an improvement.   I don't see a compelling reason for this. 

 

That's a solid argument, I see your point now.

Quote:Speech is protected.   Why would that not include anonymous speech?    Failing to protect anonymous speech would probably have a chilling effect on free speech.   That is where the Supreme Court could rest their ruling.  

 

It seems like a slippery slope to force people to disclose themselves if they want to make a political statement.  

 

Like I said, anonymous political speech was instrumental in the movement for independence from Britain, and the ratification of the Constitution.   Anonymous political speech has a history as long as democracy itself.  It's part of the free marketplace of ideas. 

 

If the government is going to regulate speech, there has to be a very compelling reason to do it.  Not just that they think it would be an improvement.   I don't see a compelling reason for this. 

You don't see a compelling reason why political campaign ads should be transparent? Really? None at all?