Comments on: Democrats v. Free Speech http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html High-minded, fanatically malthusian perspectives Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brendan http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html/comment-page-1#comment-17322 Brendan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html#comment-17322 <p>And despite that and other time wasters (non binding resolutions, unconstitutional attempts to seize control of the war, investigation after investigation after investigation)... the Dems are doing so well on the fundraising front for the ’08 elections as well as overall popular support, so much so that there is talk that the GOP leadership has given up hope for a win in ’08 and instead planning to focus on 2010.</p> And despite that and other time wasters (non binding resolutions, unconstitutional attempts to seize control of the war, investigation after investigation after investigation)… the Dems are doing so well on the fundraising front for the ’08 elections as well as overall popular support, so much so that there is talk that the GOP leadership has given up hope for a win in ’08 and instead planning to focus on 2010.

]]> By: Jeffrey James http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html/comment-page-1#comment-17323 Jeffrey James Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html#comment-17323 <p>Opposing views? So, every time a broadcaster has someone on the air that recognizes the history of the holocaust, there has to be one other person that denies it ever happened?</p> Opposing views? So, every time a broadcaster has someone on the air that recognizes the history of the holocaust, there has to be one other person that denies it ever happened?

]]> By: Jeffrey James http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html/comment-page-1#comment-17324 Jeffrey James Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html#comment-17324 <p>I noticed it said senate Democrats, but what about the Democrats in the House?</p> I noticed it said senate Democrats, but what about the Democrats in the House?

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html/comment-page-1#comment-17325 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html#comment-17325 <p>Brendan,<br /> <br /> The gap in fundraising so far is very real, and I have heard that '08 will be challenging. <br /> <br /> Can you provide a reference for "talk that the GOP leadership has given up hope for a win in ’08", though?<br /> <br /> Jeffrey,<br /> <br /> You're right on the ludicrousness of demanding "opposing views." <br /> <br /> My guess is that the House tends to be more extreme than the Senate, House Democrats are more likely to support "fairness doctrine" censorship than Senate ones.<br /> <br /> Both parties dismiss speech to readily, and long for the government to regulate what you say. Republicans tend to supress nonsensical speech (see the fine for Janet Jackson, the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case), whiel Democrats try to oppress political speech (the campaign fundraising laws, the fairness doctrine). Both are bad. But the Democratic Party position is worse.</p> Brendan,

The gap in fundraising so far is very real, and I have heard that '08 will be challenging.

Can you provide a reference for “talk that the GOP leadership has given up hope for a win in ’08″, though?

Jeffrey,

You're right on the ludicrousness of demanding “opposing views.”

My guess is that the House tends to be more extreme than the Senate, House Democrats are more likely to support “fairness doctrine” censorship than Senate ones.

Both parties dismiss speech to readily, and long for the government to regulate what you say. Republicans tend to supress nonsensical speech (see the fine for Janet Jackson, the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case), whiel Democrats try to oppress political speech (the campaign fundraising laws, the fairness doctrine). Both are bad. But the Democratic Party position is worse.

]]> By: Jeffrey James http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html/comment-page-1#comment-17326 Jeffrey James Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/14/democrats-v-free-speech.html#comment-17326 <p>"My guess is that the House tends to be more extreme than the Senate, House Democrats are more likely to support "fairness doctrine" censorship than Senate ones."<br /> <br /> I am asking about the House Democrats in this particular case. If it reached the Senate, I would assume that the repeal went through the House before the Senate could block it.<br /> <br /> "whiel Democrats try to oppress political speech (the campaign fundraising laws, the fairness doctrine)."<br /> <br /> I agree whole heartedly agree with how asinine the fairness doctrine is, but I would think that there is a grey area when it comes to campaign fund raising laws, to say the least. There remains the question as to whether freedom of speech means that one is allowed unlimited "material" means (in the form of currency or capital) to express it. Also, keep in mind that it isn't simply about the campaigning itself, but rather special interest that can be bought in the legislature in the form of campaign donations.</p> “My guess is that the House tends to be more extreme than the Senate, House Democrats are more likely to support “fairness doctrine” censorship than Senate ones.”

I am asking about the House Democrats in this particular case. If it reached the Senate, I would assume that the repeal went through the House before the Senate could block it.

“whiel Democrats try to oppress political speech (the campaign fundraising laws, the fairness doctrine).”

I agree whole heartedly agree with how asinine the fairness doctrine is, but I would think that there is a grey area when it comes to campaign fund raising laws, to say the least. There remains the question as to whether freedom of speech means that one is allowed unlimited “material” means (in the form of currency or capital) to express it. Also, keep in mind that it isn't simply about the campaigning itself, but rather special interest that can be bought in the legislature in the form of campaign donations.

]]>