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.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Perhaps you should ask "the Man"....

[firewalk]

Bump for reading later...

[Libertarian_4_eva]

Not under the current law I believe but what exactly do you think will be next?

[Dudoight]

From what I understand it would not affect FR. It would affect paid announcements. Rush could say what he wants up to the end, as could other commentators or news reporters. From what I understand, a politician could not pay for air time in that time period which was negative.

[The Old Hoosier]

It only affects BROADCAST advertising. Not internet or print ads or announcements of any other kind.

[DouglasKC]

From what I understand it would not affect FR. It would affect paid announcements. Rush could say what he wants up to the end, as could other commentators or news reporters. From what I understand, a politician could not pay for air time in that time period which was negative.

Man, talk about breeding corruption. The news networks are going to have all kinds of cash "gifts" going to them from various politicians if this goes through.

[oil]

Neal Boortz was saying a week or so ago that if this gets passed, talk radio is next because the liberals are so bad at it, this is their way of silencing it.

[hroolaart]

It only affects BROADCAST advertising. Not internet or print ads or announcements of any other kind.

And the above, is exactly how freedoms are lost. We "only" look at concretes, rather than the philosophical premise, which is clearly in error. Point is: doesn't matter what aspects are being targeted, government is BARRED FROM REGULATING SPEECH, and advertising, issue advertising, internet, print, broadcast, etc. etc. are all forms of speech.

[logic101.net]

Nope, not yet. That will be addressed in CFR #2 or #3.

MARK A SITY
www.logic101.net

[The Old Hoosier]

Don't get me wrong--I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out that FR is not in danger just yet.

[blackbart1]

From what I understand, a politician could not pay for air time in that time period which was negative.

Also from what I understand organizations supported with the little peoples monies will also be silenced ergo...NRA, PAC's, etc but probably not the unions.

[spunkets]

It applies to any media. The fact that organization communications will be forbidden from outlining fed candidate positions and voting records should tell you that.

[The Old Hoosier]

Read the bill. I am correct.

[The Old Hoosier]

PACs will be OK, but groups that can't raise large hard money amounts will essentially be silenced.

[spunkets]

No, I am correct. The legislation prohibits print, internet and any other form of working on behalf of a candidate. I, in particular as a citizen, don't give a flying shoe whethter , or not, a voter is "educated". Want I am interested in is speaking to advance candidates that PROMOTE FREEDOM. That is express advocacy!

Now, here is a cut from the bill presented to the Senate.
Take special note of and ponder: Sec 201, b, 20, b.

" `(B) VOTING RECORD AND VOTING GUIDE EXCEPTION- The term `express advocacy' does not include a communication which is in printed form or posted on the Internet that--

`(i) presents information solely about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of one or more candidates (including any statement by the sponsor of the voting record or voting guide of its agreement or disagreement with the record or position of a candidate), so long as the voting record or voting guide when taken as a whole does not express unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates;

`(ii) is not coordinated activity or is not made in coordination with a candidate, political party, or agent of the candidate or party, or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent, except that nothing in this clause may be construed to prevent the sponsor of the voting guide from directing questions in writing to a candidate about the candidate's position on issues for purposes of preparing a voter guide or to prevent the candidate from responding in writing to such questions; and

`(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of candidate) for Congress', `(name of candidate) in (year)', `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates.'"

Notice that if it can be construed the message advocates something, anything in particular, it is illegal. For instance if the message occurs in the Journal of the NRA, then it advocates a particular position and the message is forbidden! That's what Sec 201, b, 20, b, iii means. That's why Meehan said this and Brady said, this.

Here is an analysis by an org that does this sort of thing. It clearly identifies the gottchas. This whole thing trashes the 1st Amentment in the Bill of Rights. What part of, "Congress shall make NO LAW INHIBITING FREE SPEECH", don't these tyrants get?

[Khepera]

I'm thinking it will apply to whatever they want it to apply to. The constitution be damned.

[The Old Hoosier]

Yes, but the 60-day prohibition doesn't apply to anything in writing. What you've quoted there was inserted in order to quell fears that Shays-Meehan would ban voter guides (per Meehan's office). If you read the part about exactly what is actually prohibited by the bill, you'll see that no print or internet material is ever mentioned, only radio and television broadcasts.

Now, don't get me wrong-- S-M clearly violates the first amendment, and I'm totally against it. But even if it becomes law, FR will not be banned.

[The Old Hoosier]

What you're quoting is just an exception to the term "express advocacy." But the only kind of "express advocacy" that would be forbidden under the bill is broadcast advertising. Not FR.

[spunkets]

The house just damned the 1st Amendment, that's for sure. They view Free Speech as a hinderence to their overall con. That's why their burning the 1st Amendment. They've got control of the educational system and content, the nitwit hollyweird media for the perpetually entranced airheads, and they created and fund the partisan socialist propaganda machine, NPR/PBS. Now they've burned the 1st Amendment.