Freedom of speech? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Chas H · #31 03-22-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Almost absolutely. I think anybody anywhere on the planet and to infinity and beyond should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they want.

My almost impossibly minor restrictions are that the candidates be personally and criminally liable to make sure that every dime donated is fully disclosed before any of it can be spent and before it can be used to leverage other fundraising. Another restrictions would be that only individuals may donate: no consortia, companies, unions, veterans groups, old fart groups, sports groups, indian tribes, constituted nations, etc. Donations may come from individual human type people, only.

B

Would you consider contributions from foreigners to be legal?
And any entity can use a straw person posing as an individual human type to make contributions. What in the world are you thinking?

Honus · #32 03-22-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwood

And Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't a direct attack on Bush? I don't know, I never saw it because I wouldn't watch a MM film if someone paid me. But I did see the constant advertising and critical reviews, and it looked a lot like an attack piece to me.

It was a great movie and it totally blasted George Bush. The main mistake Michael Moore made was one clip where he edited video to give a misleading depiction of a particular GOP Congressman concerning the Congressman's son's enlistment in the armed forces. Other than that, it was a well made diatribe against Bush. If I was a fan of Bush, I would not have enjoyed the movie, but I would hate to think that campaign finance laws would prohibit it.

mwood · #33 03-22-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

After reading this and your preceeding post, I don't understand why you object to the requirement that the financers of the Hillary film be disclosed. That is the gist of the argument before the Supremes.

Because it's not intended to be a political ad, it's a documentary, just like Michael Moore's films. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. When the same group that released this film protested about MM's 9/11 film they were told to pound sand. Why are they not afforded the same right at an opinion piece, regardless of who paid for it?
PS The OP wasn't "whiney".

Chas H · #34 03-22-2009, 07:06 PM

[quote=mwood;2147153]Because it's not intended to be a political ad, it's a documentary, just like Michael Moore's films. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. When the same group that released this film protested about MM's 9/11 film they were told to pound sand. Why are they not afforded the same right at an opinion piece, regardless of who paid for it?
PS The OP wasn't "whiney". [quote]

The Citizens United group sought to have ads for the MM film banned, and now they are fighting such a ban. If MM telling CU to pound sand did the job then CU didn't have much of a case. Whine on.

MS Fowler · #35 03-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I dunno.
But I rarely see Republicans rally to the cause of free speech unless it involves political finances.

THIS republican/ paleo conservative has been in favor of free speech since I first learned of it.
I have never favored ANY restrictions on free speech.
I did not view any MM film. I believe them to be more polemic than documentary.
However, I never wanted them banned. He has a right to make those films.
freedom of speech only works if you defend the speech you actually hate.

Chas H · #36 03-22-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

THIS republican/ paleo conservative has been in favor of free speech since I first learned of it.
I have never favored ANY restrictions on free speech.

The thread isn't about free speech. It's about disclosing financiers of a film.
It was posted as a threat to free speech by someone of Republican persuasion.

mwood · #37 03-22-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

It was a great movie and it totally blasted George Bush. The main mistake Michael Moore made was one clip where he edited video to give a misleading depiction of a particular GOP Congressman concerning the Congressman's son's enlistment in the armed forces. Other than that, it was a well made diatribe against Bush. If I was a fan of Bush, I would not have enjoyed the movie, but I would hate to think that campaign finance laws would prohibit it.

So I take it you are against those same laws prohibiting this Hillary film, correct?

mwood · #38 03-22-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

The thread isn't about free speech. It's about disclosing financiers of a film.
It was posted as a threat to free speech by someone of Republican persuasion.

I'm of an Independent persuasion.

strelnik · #39 03-22-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Almost absolutely. I think anybody anywhere on the planet and to infinity and beyond should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they want.

My almost impossibly minor restrictions are that the candidates be personally and criminally liable to make sure that every dime donated is fully disclosed before any of it can be spent and before it can be used to leverage other fundraising. Another restrictions would be that only individuals may donate: no consortia, companies, unions, veterans groups, old fart groups, sports groups, indian tribes, constituted nations, etc. Donations may come from individual human type people, only.

B

X2

I would also prefer that the free speech not include incitement to violently overthrow the government, instead, as the constitution says to peaceably assembly for redress of grievances.

As Chief Justice Holmes once said" .... My rights end where yours begin..freedom of speech does not include yelling FIRE!

in a crowded, dark theater..."

mwood · #40 03-22-2009, 08:45 PM

[QUOTE=Chas H;2147160][quote=mwood;2147153]Because it's not intended to be a political ad, it's a documentary, just like Michael Moore's films. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. When the same group that released this film protested about MM's 9/11 film they were told to pound sand. Why are they not afforded the same right at an opinion piece, regardless of who paid for it?
PS The OP wasn't "whiney".

Quote:

The Citizens United group sought to have ads for the MM film banned, and now they are fighting such a ban. If MM telling CU to pound sand did the job then CU didn't have much of a case. Whine on.

First, there is no need to start the typical knee-jerk name calling. Second, MM didn't tell the CU to pound sand the FEC did. Big difference.

Honus · #41 03-22-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwood

So I take it you are against those same laws prohibiting this Hillary film, correct?

I am not familiar with that film, but if I had to guess, I would guess that I would not favor government regulation of it.

Chas H · #42 03-22-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwood

I'm of an Independent persuasion.

Really? Did object when Citizens United tried to keep MM from advertizing his film?

Chas H · #43 03-22-2009, 09:55 PM

[quote=mwood;2147228][quote=Chas H;2147160]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwood

Because it's not intended to be a political ad, it's a documentary, just like Michael Moore's films. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. When the same group that released this film protested about MM's 9/11 film they were told to pound sand. Why are they not afforded the same right at an opinion piece, regardless of who paid for it?
PS The OP wasn't "whiney".

First, there is no need to start the typical knee-jerk name calling. Second, MM didn't tell the CU to pound sand the FEC did. Big difference.

Please provide a site for your contention that the FEC told anyone to"pound sand".

Botnst · #44 03-22-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Would you consider contributions from foreigners to be legal?
And any entity can use a straw person posing as an individual human type to make contributions. What in the world are you thinking?

What, did I miss listing foreigners? I figured "to infinity and beyond" would cover foreigners. Oh well, consider foreigners okay, too.
Any individual entity in the universe would be fine with me. Just make the candidate personally liable for any errors. No candidate is required to take a dime from anybody. Put the burden sqyaurely on the people who want to have power over our lives.

Any human being can break the law already, what in the world are you thinking?

Botnst · #45 03-22-2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

After reading this and your preceeding post, I don't understand why you object to the requirement that the financers of the Hillary film be disclosed. That is the gist of the argument before the Supremes.

Aside from the IRS & SEC, what business is it of anybody's who puts private money into any venture?