Replies

" Does FR run poltical ads during Seinfeld on a local station?"

Not part of the discussion or decision.

"The reason the ad bans passed is because people got sick of attack ads and it had popular support."

According to a liberal interpretation, FR could be considered a non-stop conservative advertisement for Republicans and conservative causes.

"No one holds a gun to anybody's head to read FR but when people see the attack ads during their favorite show(etc.etc) a majority of the populace thinks that is."

No one holds a gun to anybody's head to watch Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS either. No one holds a gun to anybody's head to listen to Rush, Hannity or Colmes. No one holds a gun to anybody's head to read the NYT, WP, etc. But now, the 9th Circuit Court has been given the power to interpret what is and isn't acceptable speech 60 days before an election. You're an idiot if you do not think that someone is not planning to take out talk radio and the internet. Even if they lose the case on appeal, to kill FR and much of talk radio, all the left has to do is get an injunction to shut down a website or radio show within 60 days before the election. Pay attention to the details. Rush is anticipating this attack now. FR will be part of the onslaught also.

According to a liberal interpretation, FR could be considered a non-stop conservative advertisement for Republicans and conservative causes.

So you believe that after today there will be no internet, period?

"Even if they lose the case on appeal, to kill FR and much of talk radio, all the left has to do is get an injunction to shut down a website or radio show within 60 days before the election."

Yup, we know this is the plan. So, preemptively we need to sue early and sue often. Turn this into a giant fireball of litigation. That is the inevitable direction, so better get in front of the action now.

The concerns over shutting down FR, DU or any other internet site based on this law are misplaced. The law specifically exempts the internet and written communications. However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that political speach may be suppressed based on it's content, you can expect, probably sooner rather than later, a new law that would simlarly restrict speech on the internet. Or maybe just some sort of civil suit so the Courts can make the law, they like doing that. As a matter of Constitutional law, there is no distinction, that I can see anyway. FR, and presumably DU, although who knows maybe Soros pays for that, is nothing more than a group of individuals who pay for the site, well some of of us do, which JimRob, et.al. run.