I was setting where I am currently setting. I don’t object to campaign announcements concerning rallies or speeches, but this is candidate comparison, or attack or distortion of facts, which ever fits.
It seems FR could be, under certain administrations, strong armed into accepting every press release from every candidate in any political race in the nation.
And why would that be a bad thing? All kinds of articles get posted on FR, always have been.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of Freepers to grasp and critically analyze what they read.
I was setting where I am currently setting. I don’t object to campaign announcements concerning rallies or speeches, but this is candidate comparison, or attack or distortion of facts, which ever fits.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Fairness Doctrine - which Reagan Deep Sixed a generation ago, and which in any case applied only to broadcasting - applies or might apply to FreeRepublic.com. In a world where McConnell v. FEC can uphold the McCain-Feingold law, you could in fact be right. However, McConnell v. FEC was a 5-4 decision, and one justice on each side (O'Connell pro, Rhenquist con) have been replaced by Justices Roberts and Alito. The present court's usual swing vote is Kennedy, and he voted con McConnell .So there is significant reason to hope that any future First Amendment case before the present court will actually enforce the First Amendment. And the very last thing you would be able to prove about the First Amendment before an honest court is that it requires speech or publication to be "objective" or "fair" or "balanced." The plain language of the restriction - and the historically well-documented practice of founders Jefferson and Hamilton - are directly to the contrary. The conceit of journalistic "objectivity" traces back only to the advent of the Associated Press in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.