[justshutupandtakeit]

How do you come up with such stuff? This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

And it implements a power granted to Congress WITHIN the constitution so how could that "hurt" the constitution?

[hellinahandcart]

This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You're a blind fool, and I will be reminding you of this sentence someday.

[Who is John Galt?]

And it implements a power granted to Congress WITHIN the constitution...

You suggest that Congress was granted the power to abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press. Tell us: when, exactly, was the 1st Amendment repealed?

;>)

[San Jacinto]

This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

People are not permitted to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because it would cause a stampede and result in death or injury. O.K. I can follow that.

Congress has now made it illegal for advocacy groups to place ads w/in 60 days of an election which are supportive of a candidate or critical of a candidate. O.K. ...and the compelling reason for such a restriction on political speech is......stampede? no. Mayhem? no. Protection of incumbents? Bingo.

Yeah, I guess your right it's the same principal. /sarcasm

[WackyKat]

How do you come up with such stuff? This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

And it implements a power granted to Congress WITHIN the constitution so how could that "hurt" the constitution?

I'll just let your comments stand as the sterling example of obtuseness and ignorance that they are.