[Who is John Galt?]

queenhillaryscourtjester: My only reply to 160 would be that Freedom of Speech is not an absolute and is legally circumvented in many instances.

Then your only reply is completely irrelevant. The 1st Amendment says nothing about an “absolute” right to “Freedom of Speech.”

Since you apparently have managed to avoid reading the amendment in question, allow me to quote the relevant language:

”Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

If you claim the 30/60-day ban on political ads is constitutional, you have three choices:

1) prove that Congress did not pass the ban ( “Congress shall make no law”); or

2) prove that the ban does not ‘reduce or lessen in duration’ (‘abridge’) “the freedom of speech, or of the press;” or

3) prove that public advertisements concerning elections do not qualify as “freedom of speech, or of the press.”

What’s your answer, funny boy?

(You're a 'seminar caller,' right? No one but a liberal could possibly be as obtuse as you appear to be... ;>)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress has passed laws restricting speech in certain instances such as when groups assisted National enemies; it has every right to do so even if those incapable of understanding simple matters chose to ignore those instances.

Press ads are unaffected by the Law thus freedom of the press is not abridged. (Does YOUR Constitution mention freedom of television and radio?)

Selecting the unbanned format allows any speech against anyone at any time on any subject so freedom of speech is unaffected.

Public ads can be run at any time merely by forming the proper vehicle for doing so. Just have to keep ignoring the FACTS don't you? Hysterical hyperventilating is just so much more fun.