3 ms·

> considered unconstitutional because you're limiting freedom of speech. Then amend the constitution to allow this particular limit on freedom of speech. Freed

> considered unconstitutional because you're limiting freedom of speech. Then amend the constitution to allow this particular limit on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not a sanctum that has to be protected at all cost, even if we can see how it leads to the whole system going down the toilet. Enforcing copyright is a form of limiting freedom of speech and the constitution obviously has no problems with it. If I cant publicly repeat what somebody else said because the speech is copyrighted, this is limiting my freedom of speech. I dont see that freedom of speech can be freely limited here (not only limited, but life+70yrs limited, meaning from my finite-lifespan point of view prohibited forever) but but somehow cant be limited to fix the utterly broken political/election system.

LeafStorm 15y ago
The problem with this proposal is that it specifically puts restrictions not just on speech in general, but on political speech. Allowing the government to mandate the content of political speech and media would set a dangerous precedent for the future, even if that wasn't the intent of the amendment. And while technically speaking requiring that the LeafStorm News Network has to provide equal airtime for all political candidates might be more "fair," if I own the news network I should be able to accept or reject advertisers as I see fit, and if people don't think it's fair they can start their own news networks. Now if I voluntarily said, "I'm providing ten minutes of ad airtime each day for the candidates in this race free of charge, with no extra advertising permitted, and no PACs either," then that is well within my rights as a network owner, but it's not something we should require everyone to do.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Your news network depends on natural monopolies derived from public goods, such as frequency and orbital allocations for OTA and satellite broadcast and exclusive property access for cable networks. It seems "fair" to expect some kind of public access in return for the exclusive use of those public goods. "Start their own news networks" is easy to say and impossible to do for many groups. Not all interests are represented by money; there are valuable causes that could never motivate enough donations to compete.

LeafStorm 15y ago

The problem with this proposal is that it specifically puts restrictions not just on speech in general, but on political speech. Allowing the government to mandate the content of political speech and media would set a dangerous precedent for the future, even if that wasn't the intent of the amendment. And while technically speaking requiring that the LeafStorm News Network has to provide equal airtime for all political candidates might be more "fair," if I own the news network I should be able to accept or reject advertisers as I see fit, and if people don't think it's fair they can start their own news networks. Now if I voluntarily said, "I'm providing ten minutes of ad airtime each day for the candidates in this race free of charge, with no extra advertising permitted, and no PACs either," then that is well within my rights as a network owner, but it's not something we should require everyone to do.

nitrogen 15y ago
Your news network depends on natural monopolies derived from public goods, such as frequency and orbital allocations for OTA and satellite broadcast and exclusive property access for cable networks. It seems "fair" to expect some kind of public access in return for the exclusive use of those public goods. "Start their own news networks" is easy to say and impossible to do for many groups. Not all interests are represented by money; there are valuable causes that could never motivate enough donations to compete.