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.

[Khepera]

We may live in a secular society but our laws where intended to be based on the bible. Just because some lawmakers have failed us in that respect does not give anyone a "Right" to abortion or pornography or any other immoral position. You are wrong about that. Personally I have no use for immoral beings spititual or otherwise. They are responsible for the problems we face. I will continue to fight those forces you so proudly defend.

[Dan from Michigan]

Could the internet be classified by "Brodcasting"?

Also, is Free Republic (not FRN) and LLC's classified as political orgs and would fall under "Issue ads"??

I have to re-read that bill. I do not THINK FR is affected, but I'm not positive on that.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

I third that....sadly.

[Dan from Michigan]

I am a liberal as in the CLASSICAL LIBERAL view. Less government. Libertarians and libertarians today are nothing to do with liberals of today. Those with ANY brains know that. Today's liberals are for BIG govt, why libertarians are for SMALL govt.

I am a small l libertarian. The less govt is the better. Thoses that want to regulate what I do in my castle(as long as others are not directly harmed) are just as EVIL as those that want to take my guns away.

[Dan from Michigan]

This country was built on FREEDOM.

[Khepera]

Nobody can regulate what you do in the privacy of your own home. The reason this is, is because they would not know about it. It's when you are caught in public. Nobody has ever been arrested for doing something nobody knows about. Now heresay is not probable cause for search and if that is all they have to go on and they violate your private space then I too have a problem with that. It can still be agains the law to have sex with a goat without violating your privacy. I have no problems with a law like that and we have that law today. I have no problem with having a law opposing sodomy. We in fact do have those laws in most parts of the country. They are not unconstitutional.

[M.K. Borders]

Actually what triggers HR2356 is not broadcast ads, or print, put any PAID advertizing. You can take out full page ads in the NYT the day before elections, just so long as you don't pay for them.

If we had to pay for each post we made, then FR would be a prohibited communication.

[Dan from Michigan]

So it should be illegal, but let's not 'enforce them' behind doors? I leave you the drug war as a good example of heresy being used, etc. No knock searches, etc.

Government is not God. I'm not arguing the points on immorality. I'm arguing that govt busting down people's doors and arresting people for victimless crimes is the cure, and the cure is worse than the disease.

AOL views the NRA as pornography. That's not a slippery slope I want to go on.

[KDD]

Nor are they enforced?

How would you enforce such laws against concensul sex acts?

What federal alphabet agency should be tasked with enforcing such laws?

How should our judges punish these sodomites?

Biblical injunction? Stone the adultress? Could you cast the first stone?

[Khepera]

The failings of our government are clear and I agree they have overstepped some boundaries. You cannot prove the crimes you speak of are victimless but I can prove they have many victims. The people who are around these law breakers are the victims as they are affected adversely by the actions of their wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, and friends who partake of these crimes. Man visits prostitute and his wife and children are the victims. Woman spends money on Drugs and his family has to do without that income. These are only small ways they are victimized and these examples only scratch the surface of the potential for evil.

[Alan Chapman]

You need a strong history lesson. Most where Christians.

Most were deists and freemasons.

[Bob J]

I believe C-4's are exempt. Planned it that way...heheh.

[Yardstick]

"The nation is more than a collection of individuals. The nation exists as an entity in its own right."

"The purpose is to uphold the rights of the individual as given by G-d."

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.

[wwjdn]

If they are free from bigotry, then they don't believe anything is worth saving or fighting for. In my school days they called them Hippies!!!!

[Khepera]

Exactly

[The Old Hoosier]

No. Broadcasting is radio and TV in the bill.

[The Old Hoosier]

For 60 days prior to an election, at least, the following holds true. The NRA can no longer print messages regarding candidate stances in it's jounals. It can no longer attach a sticker to the election issue, notifying it's members as to which candidate it endorses. The NRLC can no longer send out notices that inform it's members regarding what bozos protect infanticide.

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.

Unless you take the time to understand this, you will continue to mischaracterize the bill. The biggest problem with S-M is that it has an unconstitutionally broad definition of "express advocacy," which, ridiculously, includes any mention of any candidate's name in any broadcast ad 60 days before an election. It also has an unconstitutionally broad definition of "coordination" between groups and candidates.

Please take the time and understand what this bill does and what it does not do. It does not affect print or internet advertising. The proponents of S-M justify their intervention in television speech by arguing that all stations need a federal license, so they need to follow federal guidelines. This argument, as wrong as it is for television, cannot even hope to apply to the Internet, since the Internet is wholly unregulated.

[ArGee]

Nice article.

Bump!

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Our Government was meant to be a secular one.
A Theoracy was feared more by the founders than a Monarchy was.

I would not want a theocracy either. I have never advocated one. I'm not sure anyone on FR has either.

But recognizing that the Christian moral code built this country and kept it firm for over 200 years, and institutionalizing that moral code, is far from establishing a theocracy.

Shalom.

[Lazamataz]

I believe C-4's are exempt. Planned it that way...heheh

C4 is the solution to most of lifes problems.

Oh, you mean a different C4.