Free Republic Censored?

me | me

[doc30]

I have a simple question for everyone here. Free Republic is a discussion forum that frequently involves articles and discussions of political candidates. Does this mean that, under campaign finance reform, Free Republic must be censored lest it violate the 60-day or 30-day rule in the current legislation? You thoughts please.

[ArGee]

What an interesting set of principles. The first has collectivist overtones; the second sounds resolutely individualistic. With them, I think you have captured nicely the essence of modern conservatism -- sometimes collectivist, sometimes individualistic... but always conflicted.

The truth often walks in a delicate balancing act between two lies, which are extremes. One extreme is socialism. The other extreme is individualism. We are social beings and require society. We do not exist in fullness as individuals, and we are crushed when we surrender our individuality to the collective. We are meant to exist individually together.

Isn't it awesome that Jefferson captured this concept so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence? But he wasn't operating in a vacuum. Why do you suppose that the Pilgrims, after a long and harrowing ocean voyage, refused to set foot on land until they had signed the "Mayflower Compact?" Or did you learn about that in history. (I didn't. I had to wait until I was homeschooling my children to learn about the most important parts of American history.)

Shalom.

[Khepera]

There is no freedom but through God.

[Yardstick]

Argee:

The truth often walks in a delicate balancing act between two lies, which are extremes.

You're right -- the truth does often lie between extremes. Gluttony and starvation are bad because it is true that one's body should be fed according to its legitimate needs. Similarly, socialism and anarchy are bad because it is true that individuals have certain rights worthy of protection. Conservatives reject this truth, and as a result they have no consistent committment to the protection of legitimate individual rights.

Regarding the Mayflower Compact, I was taught a little about it in school, but I'm embarrassed to say that I've forgotten most of what I learned, so the point you were making with your reference to it is lost on me, unfortunately. What were you getting at?

Regards

[M.K. Borders]

Let me repeat this again for the last f$#%ing time: NO PRINT ADVERTISING OF ANY KIND IS FORBIDDEN BY SHAYS-MEEHAN. It is not forbidden for non-profits, it is not forbidden for for-profits, not for anyone or anything, beyond what the current law already states. The only kind of advertising forbidden by this bill is radio and television advertising by an independent, non-PAC group which engages in "express advocacy" as defined in S-M.

OK, where am I going wrong when I see this portion of the bill?

`(C) TARGETING TO RELEVANT ELECTORATE- For purposes of this paragraph, a communication which refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office is `targeted to the relevant electorate' if the communication can be received by 50,000 or more persons-- `(i) in the district the candidate seeks to represent, in the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; or `(ii) in the State the candidate seeks to represent, in the case of a candidate for Senator.

[spunkets]

I'm still lost in the middle of that damn bill, quit a few days ago and won't get back to it 'till later.

It appears it was the Sheas amendment, Hamend 417, that banned the 60 day express advocacy broadcast ads. They did that by amending the FCC act from the '30's. You're correct, it's definitely a broadcast thing.

I'm still trying to figure out what the other groups are talking about. They can obfuscate just as well as the bozos that wrote this law. It will take me a lot more time to assemble that jig-saw puzzle of a law together.