Shaggy_C: I'm confused. Are you saying that political speech should either A) be publicly funded, or B) limited to the volume of one individual voice

un·fund·ed
adj \-ˈfən-dəd\
1. not provided with funds

Shaggy_C: That sounds like a great way for the government to impose top-down ideology on a nation. That's not freedom.

Since discrimination of public funding based on message being sent isn't allowed, what the fark are you talking about?

karnal:

Please....I wear my mother's shame like bad tattoo. But it's your shortcomings that she spoke of most often....and we would laauugh.

Yeah, she seemed like the type of broad who would talk about dicks with her son. I'm more curious about why you liked talking about them so much.

/NTTAWWT

When Republicans are whining and the tears are being shed, that's when all is right in the world.

FreeRepublic has been awesome, and with the unemployment rate going down this year will be epic.

Shaggy_C: Would it be suppression of speech if the government kicked down the door and took away the typewriter from a political dissident?

Only if the reason for doing so is because of *what he is typing.* Otherwise it's just the outlawing of typewriters, which I'm sure would be very unpopular. "freedom of the press" isnt' about protecting the machines, it's about protecting what is printed on them -- and even at that, what's printed is subject to various regulations -- you can't litter the whole farking town with your rants for example.

sprawl15: Yes(ish), but not for the reason you think. The suppression of speech comes from reason for kicking down the door and taking property, not the fact that they took a typewriter away.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the argument so as to avoid the difficult point :)

Your essentially saying that a means of communication is unnecessary for free speech - that a megaphone or a speaker system or a typewriter or a TV advertisement can be taken away and not impact the speech at all. So let's not focus on the 'kicking down the door and taking part'. Let's just say the government bans a person from buying ink for their typewriter, rendering it effectively useless. Have they suppressed speech in that case?

badhatharry: fracto73: buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.


Are you suggesting using your first amendment rights to convince the judge you are innocent? That seems like it should be legit, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

If he's running for office you can give him some money. Same with the Sheriff. It is illegal to finance illegal activity.

I think you missed the point.

Which is speech:

Standing at a trial and telling a judge you really, really don't want to go to jail?
OR
Walking up to that judge and handing him 200 bucks during your trial?

sprawl15: Since discrimination of public funding based on message being sent isn't allowed, what the fark are you talking about?

So your thought is that the government would hand over money to white supremacist groups if they request it? Pro-abortion groups? Please. You're just turning speech into political football.

badhatharry: fracto73: buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.


Are you suggesting using your first amendment rights to convince the judge you are innocent? That seems like it should be legit, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

If he's running for office you can give him some money. Same with the Sheriff. It is illegal to finance illegal activity.


But it is legal to speak in support of illegal activity. Why would it matter if the speech is verbal, written or monetary? Is money the equivalent of speech or not?

badhatharry: fracto73: buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.


Are you suggesting using your first amendment rights to convince the judge you are innocent? That seems like it should be legit, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

If he's running for office you can give him some money. Same with the Sheriff. It is illegal to finance illegal activity.



You can legally buy the motherfarkers under your interpretation. "I am giving you this money to because these are the policies I want implemented -- if you don't you don't get my money."

They're already challenging the "no coordination" prohibition of super pacs. Why? Because it's an implicit infringement of speech under Citizens United.

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: Since discrimination of public funding based on message being sent isn't allowed, what the fark are you talking about?

So your thought is that the government would hand over money to white supremacist groups if they request it? Pro-abortion groups? Please. You're just turning speech into political football.

If those groups met the requirements to receive that money, then I see nothing wrong with that. If elections were federally funded, and the KKK wanted to run a guy in the election, and they met the requirements to be eligible for public funding, they get the money. It seems you are leaning more down a road of "people I don't like shouldn't have a say" than anything else.

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: Yes(ish), but not for the reason you think. The suppression of speech comes from reason for kicking down the door and taking property, not the fact that they took a typewriter away.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the argument so as to avoid the difficult point :)

Your essentially saying that a means of communication is unnecessary for free speech - that a megaphone or a speaker system or a typewriter or a TV advertisement can be taken away and not impact the speech at all. So let's not focus on the 'kicking down the door and taking part'. Let's just say the government bans a person from buying ink for their typewriter, rendering it effectively useless. Have they suppressed speech in that case?

What if they banned the right kind of light bulbs to see what he was typing?


/ducks with the and runs

Shaggy_C: You're focusing on the wrong part of the argument so as to avoid the difficult point :)

No, the argument is just nonsense. You're saying that suppression of speech is tied to the taking of the typewriter. It's not. It's tied to harassment for speech, no matter the form. If they kicked down the door and gave the guy a stern talking to and didn't take anything it would be suppression of speech. Taking the typewriter has nothing to do with it except being one specific possibility of method. Banning a person from buying ink is another specific possibility of method.

As long as the reason for government involvement is not a criminal one and just anger at specific speech propagated, it's suppression of speech. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Shaggy_C: Your essentially saying that a means of communication is unnecessary for free speech - that a megaphone or a speaker system or a typewriter or a TV advertisement can be taken away and not impact the speech at all.

To an extent, this is true, but again not in the way you think. Which is why I talked about step functions and linear functions upthread. There's a minimum amount of money that must be spent to proliferate speech, but that is absolutely distinct from ability to express speech. If we equate a right to means to propagate speech with a right to speech, that results in the ridiculous farking idea that homeless people don't have a right to publicly express speech.

Luckily, a 'right to means to propagate speech' is nonsense. I have a right to travel unhindered by government, I don't have a right to fly first class. I have a right to own a firearm, yet not having the money to buy a firearm wouldn't abrogate that right. Which really is one of the bizarre conclusions of applying the logic of money = speech. If money, the vehicle to express and use a right, is equivalent to the right being expressed, then money = guns.

djkutch: I suspect Newt will drop out, there will be an endorsement and teachable healing moment while showing how Republicans can compromise and have all along. Republicans can't really afford a volatile convention.

I suspect that actually this is all a ploy to make Romney appear moderate to independent voters.

Shaggy_C: So your thought is that the government would hand over money to white supremacist groups if they request it? Pro-abortion groups?

Of course. Just like the government has to offer public spaces for protest to white supermacist groups and La Raza equally. The government is not allowed to discriminate based on protected classes.

Is that so offensive to you?

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: Yes(ish), but not for the reason you think. The suppression of speech comes from reason for kicking down the door and taking property, not the fact that they took a typewriter away.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the argument so as to avoid the difficult point :)

Your essentially saying that a means of communication is unnecessary for free speech - that a megaphone or a speaker system or a typewriter or a TV advertisement can be taken away and not impact the speech at all. So let's not focus on the 'kicking down the door and taking part'. Let's just say the government bans a person from buying ink for their typewriter, rendering it effectively useless. Have they suppressed speech in that case?

I think you are getting WAY off base with your argument here. If a government doesn't like what someone is typing and starts implementing policies (banning typewriter ribbons, for example), of course that's suppression of free speech. But in what way does this equate speech to money? Because you need money to buy the ribbon in the first place? That's just a plain stupid argument. I cannot give a speech unless I am alive, I need water to stay alive, I need money to pay my water bill, therefore I need money to have speech... this is your argument, essentially. But you could break that down in any way. I could then say water is equal to speech.

sprawl15: Shaggy_C: Your essentially saying that a means of communication is unnecessary for free speech - that a megaphone or a speaker system or a typewriter or a TV advertisement can be taken away and not impact the speech at all.

To an extent, this is true, but again not in the way you think

It is completely true. Your first amendment rights guarantee you the right to speech, not the right to a megaphone. If you're being allowed to express yourself, you have free speech. That you are not allowed to express yourself via the television does not mean you suddenly no longer have free speech.

It's about perspective, Shaggy framed it as "gasp, what if TV is taken away?!" It's not taken away, it's given. You have free speech and then maybe you do or do not get a megaphone.

lennavan: It's about perspective, Shaggy framed it as "gasp, what if TV is taken away?!" It's not taken away, it's given. You have free speech and then maybe you do or do not get a megaphone.

So you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me? Interesting tactic.

badhatharry: Umeraken Ideut: badhatharry: fracto73: buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.


Are you suggesting using your first amendment rights to convince the judge you are innocent? That seems like it should be legit, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

If he's running for office you can give him some money. Same with the Sheriff. It is illegal to finance illegal activity.

I think you missed the point.

Which is speech:

Standing at a trial and telling a judge you really, really don't want to go to jail?
OR
Walking up to that judge and handing him 200 bucks during your trial?

That's not political speech. That's bribery. Donating to his campaign is political speech.

I was donating to his campaign, I was just doing so during my trial.

badhatharry: Walking up to that judge and handing him 200 bucks during your trial?

That's not political speech. That's bribery. Donating to his campaign is political speech.

What about publicly handing $200 to the judges campaign manager during the trial?

DarnoKonrad: "freedom of the press" isnt' about protecting the machines, it's about protecting what is printed on them

You know the etymology of the word "press" in the time of the Constitution, don't you?

sprawl15: lennavan: It's about perspective, Shaggy framed it as "gasp, what if TV is taken away?!" It's not taken away, it's given. You have free speech and then maybe you do or do not get a megaphone.

So you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me? Interesting tactic.

How is he agreeing with you? He's saying the words that come out of your mouth are free as a right, any method in which you amplify or broadcast that are privileges, not rights.

badhatharry: Walking up to that judge and handing him 200 bucks promising to donate to his reelection fund for doing such a fine job during your trial?

That's not political speech. That's bribery. Donating to his campaign is political speech.


There, fixed it.

Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: "freedom of the press" isnt' about protecting the machines, it's about protecting what is printed on them

You know the etymology of the word "press" in the time of the Constitution, don't you?

[etc.usf.edu image 640x643]

You know the word "press" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?

Umeraken Ideut: How is he agreeing with you? He's saying the words that come out of your mouth are free as a right, any method in which you amplify or broadcast that are privileges, not rights.

In the post he quoted:

sprawl15: There's a minimum amount of money that must be spent to proliferate speech, but that is absolutely distinct from ability to express speech. If we equate a right to means to propagate speech with a right to speech, that results in the ridiculous farking idea that homeless people don't have a right to publicly express speech.

Luckily, a 'right to means to propagate speech' is nonsense.

I'm drawing that exact farking distinction.

Umeraken Ideut: Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: "freedom of the press" isnt' about protecting the machines, it's about protecting what is printed on them

You know the etymology of the word "press" in the time of the Constitution, don't you?

[etc.usf.edu image 640x643]

You know the word "press" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?

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.

Umeraken Ideut: Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: "freedom of the press" isnt' about protecting the machines, it's about protecting what is printed on them

You know the etymology of the word "press" in the time of the Constitution, don't you?

[etc.usf.edu image 640x643]

You know the word "press" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?

Uh? Yea, it's right their in the first Amendment, but I have no idea what Shaggy_C is going on about.

Umeraken Ideut: You know the word "press" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?

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.

sprawl15: Umeraken Ideut: How is he agreeing with you? He's saying the words that come out of your mouth are free as a right, any method in which you amplify or broadcast that are privileges, not rights.

In the post he quoted:

sprawl15: There's a minimum amount of money that must be spent to proliferate speech, but that is absolutely distinct from ability to express speech. If we equate a right to means to propagate speech with a right to speech, that results in the ridiculous farking idea that homeless people don't have a right to publicly express speech.

Luckily, a 'right to means to propagate speech' is nonsense.

I'm drawing that exact farking distinction.

I don't think you know the difference between "proliferate" and "express" if you think you two see eye to eye on this.

sprawl15: To an extent, this is true, but again not in the way you think. Which is why I talked about step functions and linear functions upthread. There's a minimum amount of money that must be spent to proliferate speech, but that is absolutely distinct from ability to express speech. If we equate a right to means to propagate speech with a right to speech, that results in the ridiculous farking idea that homeless people don't have a right to publicly express speech.

Luckily, a 'right to means to propagate speech' is nonsense.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You are saying that the American people have no right to make speech public beyond being in the public square. That it is perfectly reasonable to prevent someone from putting up a billboard, from printing a pamphlet, or putting a commercial on TV - that their only "right" is to shout things at people.

I whole-heartedly disagree. You have the right to speak in whatever medium you see fit. Your freedom goes to whatever extent you can afford. Just like your point about guns, you have the right to own one gun or a hundred, but it's your own money that decides how many you buy.

Shaggy_C: I can't believe understand what I'm reading.

FTFY.

Umeraken Ideut: I don't think you know the difference between "proliferate" and "express" if you think you two see eye to eye on this.

What the fark are you babbling about?

sprawl15: Umeraken Ideut: You know the word "press" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?

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.

Wow I need sleep. My bad.

However, that doesn't change the fact that his argument is that because we coined a term for journalists based on machinery that they used to use, all references to the word are therefore talking about said machinery and not journalists.

Or something. God I feel stupid.

DROxINxTHExWIND

karnal:

Please....I wear my mother's shame like bad tattoo. But it's your shortcomings that she spoke of most often....and we would laauugh.

Yeah, she seemed like the type of broad who would talk about dicks with her son. I'm more curious about why you liked talking about them so much.

/NTTAWWT


Yes...Bi the way, she did say you were curious.

/Not that there's anything wrong with that

sprawl15: FTFY.

Then please elaborate. Where does your "right" to speech stop? At what dollar amount spent on propagating speech does the right no longer exist?

Umeraken Ideut: However, that doesn't change the fact that his argument is that because we coined a term for journalists based on machinery that they used to use, all references to the word are therefore talking about said machinery and not journalists.

That doesn't change the fact that a leopard can carry three times his body weight into a tree.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: rynthetyn: And if he'd won Florida, the rules would be great and he'd say the system worked. Dude thinks he's above the law.

[a1.twimg.com image 128x128]

+

[upload.wikimedia.org image 199x300]

someone make my photoshop dream come true

The quick and dirty... it BURNS!

Shaggy_C: You have the right to speak in whatever medium you see fit.

I see fit to speak in the 30-second commercial spot right after kickoff during the Super Bowl. I can't? Obviously my First Amendment rights are being violated.

sprawl15: Shaggy_C: I can't believe understand what I'm reading.

FTFY.

Umeraken Ideut: I don't think you know the difference between "proliferate" and "express" if you think you two see eye to eye on this.

What the fark are you babbling about?

My brain is addled, and I mixed up fark handles. I'm actually on your side here. For whatever reason, I thought you were posting as shaggy, and...

...ugh, is it too late to just go make an alt and pretend I was never here?

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: FTFY.

Then please elaborate. Where does your "right" to speech stop? At what dollar amount spent on propagating speech does the right no longer exist?

What's the difference between bribing a politician/judge/cop/da and speaking to him with money.

Umeraken Ideut: My brain is addled, and I mixed up fark handles. I'm actually on your side here. For whatever reason, I thought you were posting as shaggy, and...

...ugh, is it too late to just go make an alt and pretend I was never here?

It's never too late.

buck1138: What's the difference between bribing a politician/judge/cop/da and speaking to him with money.

"Today, your honor, I will be represented by the Honorable Messrs. Jackson, Grant, and Franklin. Permission to approach the bench?"

Shaggy_C: At what dollar amount spent on propagating speech does the right no longer exist?

Mu. Your question is based on the false assumption that spending money on proliferating your speech is within an individual's freedom of speech.

Umeraken Ideut: However, that doesn't change the fact that his argument is that because we coined a term for journalists based on machinery that they used to use, all references to the word are therefore talking about said machinery and not journalists.

I was just pointing out that the "press" was specifically talking about people who actually had a press; it's differentiated from the right to "speech" for a reason. It's really the right to publish and propagate speech.

buck1138: Shaggy_C: sprawl15: FTFY.

Then please elaborate. Where does your "right" to speech stop? At what dollar amount spent on propagating speech does the right no longer exist?

What's the difference between bribing a politician/judge/cop/da and speaking to him/her with money.

Fixed for all the dames in the audience ;-)

Lost Thought 00: ITT, self declared Liberals reveal their dark-authoritarian love of wanting the government to supress views and ideas they disagree with.

WTF are you talking about?

qorkfiend: I see fit to speak in the 30-second commercial spot right after kickoff during the Super Bowl. I can't? Obviously my First Amendment rights are being violated.

Being unable to afford a TV spot is different than the government banning you from buying a TV spot. The Constitution is a check on government power, remember.

sprawl15: lennavan: It's about perspective, Shaggy framed it as "gasp, what if TV is taken away?!" It's not taken away, it's given. You have free speech and then maybe you do or do not get a megaphone.

So you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me? Interesting tactic.

No, I'm disagreeing with him by mostly agreeing with you. You said "to an extent this is true" to which I replied "it is completely true."

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: To an extent, this is true, but again not in the way you think. Which is why I talked about step functions and linear functions upthread. There's a minimum amount of money that must be spent to proliferate speech, but that is absolutely distinct from ability to express speech. If we equate a right to means to propagate speech with a right to speech, that results in the ridiculous farking idea that homeless people don't have a right to publicly express speech.

Luckily, a 'right to means to propagate speech' is nonsense.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You are saying that the American people have no right to make speech public beyond being in the public square. That it is perfectly reasonable to prevent someone from putting up a billboard, from printing a pamphlet, or putting a commercial on TV - that their only "right" is to shout things at people.

I whole-heartedly disagree. You have the right to speak in whatever medium you see fit. Your freedom goes to whatever extent you can afford. Just like your point about guns, you have the right to own one gun or a hundred, but it's your own money that decides how many you buy.

I'm confused.

Your argument earlier was that speech without a means to amplify or broadcast it was basically worthless. In fact, you said:

Speech "...limited to the volume of one individual voice, and that any other means of spreading political thought should be banned entirely? That sounds like a great way for the government to impose top-down ideology on a nation. That's not freedom.

I cannot afford anything except my individual voice, which you said yourself is not freedom, and is a great way to be suppressed by the government.

So you are essentially saying that Mitt Romney is more free than I am because he has a means of spreading his political message and I do not. And you are ok with this?