How many of you think this should be illegal?

[CaptainGoodnight]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...y-overwatch-super-pac-billboard/#2d77550f7143

Possible thanks to Citizens United v. FEC.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't particularly think it should. Why should it? This at least seems to be a truly independent super PAC.

 

[MongGrel]

Whats illegal about it or should be ?

Things get splashed about everyday on TV as paid political adds.

Have been for decades.

 

[sandorski]

Most people, like me, wouldn't really get the reference.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Whats illegal about it or should be ?

Such speech of this type was until recently, deemed illegal. Thanks to the Citizen's United case, which Hillary spoke out against in the last debate. Many wrongly attribute Citizen's United case big money in politics, but it's more about suppression of free speech.

Some reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA".[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

 

[MongGrel]

Such speech of this type was until recently, deemed illegal. Thanks to the Citizen's United case, which Hillary spoke out against in the last debate. Many wrongly attribute Citizen's United case big money in politics, but it's more about suppression of free speech.

Some reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Speech about what ?

Video games ?

 

[glenn1]

Of course it should be legal, how is this even a question?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Speech about what ?

Video games ?

Most people, like me, wouldn't really get the reference.

It's more funny if you get the game reference. The game is a multiplayer game where two teams compete against each other. You can play as different characters that have a wide range of abilities and attributes. There are a certain class of people that complain when things don't go their way in the game. They blame the team or the character they are playing, never themselves. Trump blaming the microphone at the debate, complaining the election is rigged, etc.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Of course it should be legal, how is this even a question?

Considering how many on this forum have expressed anti-Citizen's United feelings, this would be illegal under the law they want and Hillary wants.

 

[MongGrel]

It's more funny if you get the game reference. The game is a multiplayer game where two teams compete against each other. You can play as different characters that have a wide range of abilities and attributes. There are a certain class of people that complain when things don't go their way in the game. They blame the team or the character they are playing, never themselves. Trump blaming the microphone at the debate, complaining the election is rigged, etc.

I other words you think a video game should have a relationship to RL political issues.

Got it.

I was probably beta testing MMO's when you were in diapers, but whatever.

 

[glenn1]

Considering how many on this forum have expressed anti-Citizen's United feelings, this would be illegal under the law they want and Hillary wants.

Understood but don't hold your breath expecting consistency or logic from them on this.

 

[MongGrel]

Understood but don't hold your breath expecting consistency or logic from them on this.

If you agree, this explains a lot of things.

Underoo's should show up any minute now.

 

[glenn1]

I other words you think a video game should have a relationship to RL political issues.

Got it.

I was probably beta testing MMO's when you were in diapers, but whatever.

Yeah, I'd figure someone who had an avatar of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would understand how fictional concepts could be used to speak to real life political issues. For example I dunno the use of 'religion' as a means of creating wedge issues during elections.

 

[MongGrel]

Yeah, I'd figure someone who had an avatar of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would understand how fictional concepts could be used to speak to real life political issues. For example I dunno the use of 'religion' as a means of creating wedge issues during elections.

Let me know when there is a FSM bulletin board up.

 

[glenn1]

Let me know when there is a FSM bulletin board up.

Why, so you could oppose it on the foolish consistency grounds of opposing Citizens United?

 

[MongGrel]

Why, so you could oppose it on the foolish consistency grounds of opposing Citizens United?

No, so I could have a good laugh about it.

The FSM is mostly about laughing at/about people who take some shit way too seriously.

Apparently, you do not get it.

 

[glenn1]

No, so I could have a good laugh about it.

The FSM is mostly about laughing at/about people who take some shit way too seriously.

Apparently, you do not get it.

And if someone used the FSM to make a political billboard about Trump I'd still support it. Or Hillary, or Johnson, or whoever. That's what free speech is about, you don't get to muzzle others because you expect to oppose what they're going to say.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I other words you think a video game should have a relationship to RL political issues.

Where did I say that?

 

[glenn1]

I other words you think a video game should have a relationship to RL political issues.

Where did I say that?

Still doesn't matter either way. Free speech doesn't require the audience to understand or appreciate that speech and they are free in turn to ignore it. The person exercising the right of free speech determines what is a relevant 'relationship to RL political issues." Obviously if they don't correctly demonstrate that relevance, the influence of that said speech is likely to be very low.

 

[PokerGuy]

And if someone used the FSM to make a political billboard about Trump I'd still support it. Or Hillary, or Johnson, or whoever. That's what free speech is about, you don't get to muzzle others because you expect to oppose what they're going to say.

Good post. Far too many want "free speech" to mean "freedom to say anything I'm OK with". Free speech should not be muzzled just because people disagree with it.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...y-overwatch-super-pac-billboard/#2d77550f7143

Possible thanks to Citizens United v. FEC.

I need a nerd language translator. Then I will opine.

 

[dullard]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...y-overwatch-super-pac-billboard/#2d77550f7143

Possible thanks to Citizens United v. FEC.

Since I'm lazy to look up the details, please outline your case as to how this purtains to Citizens United.

Before Citizens United, this would be LEGAL if it was personal money from the Cards Against Humanity owners, but in some cases would be ILLEGAL if it was the Cards Against Humanity corporation. Essentially unlimited corporate money couldn't 1) be used to support a specific candidate or 2) be within the last 60 days of the election. Which entity is paying for the billboards, the owners or the corporation? I honestly don't know.

1) A fuzzy argument is whether or not the billboards support a specific candidate. Before Citizens United, you could do billboards like that that bash a candidate but not billboards that support a specific candidate. Are these supporting a specific candidate? If so, how?

2) Before Citizens United, even a corporation could have this billboard but it couldn't have been put up within the last 60 days of the election. Is this what you are basing the thread on, that the billboard is too close to the election?

Also, for those who don't know the limit before Citizens United was on "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate". I see a billboard here. How is this broadcast, cable, or satellite communication?

 

[glenn1]

Since I'm lazy to look up the details, please outline your case as to how this purtains to Citizens United.

Before Citizens United, this would be LEGAL if it was personal money from the Cards Against Humanity owners, but in some cases would be ILLEGAL if it was the Cards Against Humanity corporation. Essentially unlimited corporate money couldn't 1) be used to support a specific candidate or 2) be within the last 60 days of the election. Which entity is paying for the billboards, the owners or the corporation? I honestly don't know.

1) A fuzzy argument is whether or not the billboards support a specific candidate. Before Citizens United, you could do billboards like that that bash a candidate but not billboards that support a specific candidate. Are these supporting a specific candidate? If so, how?

2) Before Citizens United, even a corporation could have this billboard but it couldn't have been put up within the last 60 days of the election. Is this what you are basing the thread on, that the billboard is too close to the election?

Also, for those who don't know the limit before Citizens United was on "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate". I see a billboard here. How is this broadcast, cable, or satellite communication?

Pretty good summary. Basically before corporations could run 'advocacy ads' saying "vote against Policy ABC supported by Candidate X." Now they can say ""vote against Policy ABC supported by Candidate X and vote against Candidate X also." And even after Citizens United there's hardly an endless sea of advertising from corporations trying to push or discredit specific candidates - big companies generally won't put their business and sales interests at risk by producing adverts that will alienate half the marketplace. And even if they did, so what? Is seeing a political ad on TV paid for by WalMart (or whoever) really going to forcibly change your vote from one candidate to another? It will just be one more attack advert against Trump/Clinton/whoever in a giant sea of adverts.

Now if you want to propose something like banning all political advertising outright on all forms of mass media then I'm all in. It will get ruled unconstitutional but wow won't it be glorious while it's in effect.

 

[lopri]

Considering how many on this forum have expressed anti-Citizen's United feelings, this would be illegal under the law they want and Hillary wants.

What is such a law? What does Citizens United have to do with content of a speech?

 

[lopri]

The reason why Clinton railed against Citizens United is because the court basically disabled the Congress from regulating campaign finance for 3rd parties (corporations) under a bogus justification that Corporation's independent spending never gives rise to corruption or appearance of corruption. It has little to do with the container or content of the speech, although the line between $$ and speech became considerably blurred thanks to the case.

What is amusing is that those who claim to support Citizens United turn around to attack Clinton for the Clinton Foundation or whatever donations she took as if they are a proof of corruption. They are merely "speeches" of corporations oops, fellow citizens who formed corporations according to your favored outcome of the case.