Posted on 09/17/2024 5:24:07 AM PDT by Jacquerie
It didn't, but only because I didn't think Dems would ever agree to it, and you'd need Dem support to get an Amendment passed and ratified. I mean, I'd prefer no amnesty too, but we wouldn't get all the other stuff necessary to fix the problem if we don't give something up.
But sure, we could add in that children born in this country to anyone who is here illegally do not get citizenship. I just wouldn't count on that making whatever the final version would be.
How to we do that while still respecting the First Amendment? Because I'm extremely reluctant to open the door to limiting speech - including media speech - that we don't like.
The prerequisite for any "equal time" analysis is someone in government having the power to characterize speech, determine what "side" that speech is on, and approve/disapprove who gets to respond. And I don't want to give that kind of power to anyone.
The broadcasting system used to be regarded as a public resource, because there was limited bandwidth and the spectrum was controlled by the government, ostensibly for the benefit of all Americans.
While the bandwidth is effectively no longer limited, the existing broadcasting system is viewed by the majority of the public as still acting in the public's best interest, and it is also viewed as non-partisan, which is the consequence of the carefully cultivated efforts by the government back in the 1950s and 1960s to keep it non-partisan. The "equal time" requirement was the system they used to do it.
There is no suggestion of "limiting speech" by censoring the media-liars. The only rational way to break the system is by forcing equal time. The media-liars can still say whatever they want, but what they wouldn't be able to do any longer is to lie or mislead or omit, without our side being able to point out the lie, point out the misdirection, or talk about a story or issue the media-liars want kept buried.
The answer to bad speech, is good speech, not the censorship of bad speech.
When bad speech people understand that good speech people will come right behind them and expose their lie, their misdirection, or their omission of important facts and stories, the bad speech people will *STOP DOING IT!*
Just think. If every *#%$& Media-liar knew their lie would be immediately exposed, or every story they tried to cover up would be brought out anyway, they would avoid the embarrassment and they would actual tell the truth.
They only do their corrupt stuff because they know they control the airwaves and nobody can stop them from lying to the public, or misleading the public, or covering up stuff that would make the public vote differently.
When they know they will be caught, they won't do it.
The prerequisite for any "equal time" analysis is someone in government having the power to characterize speech, determine what "side" that speech is on, and approve/disapprove who gets to respond.
That is a presumption which I reject. The government doesn't have to make a determination regarding the particulars of speech. They only have to address complaints that the opposition party did not get equal time.
"Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.