Obama seeks to ban attack AD

[jonks]

PJ please fix your nested quotes, I'm seeing people attributing my words to you and *scream* your words to me.

 

[nageov3t]

he's a lawyer who won his first election by getting all of his opponents disqualified before a vote was cast, why would this surprise anyone?

the non-PAC obviously left themselves open for this.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can someone explain to me why you can't understand that the issue is NOT one of free speech, but of the legality of certain donations to this organization. Doesn't all of this spinning make you dizzy, PJ?

It's not spinning. Free speech is worthless if the gov't places limits on how the message gets out, for example limiting contributions to advocacy groups. In a theoretical sense, even the Chinese have "free speech". I'm sure you can say whatever you want in your cell or a labor camp. But if a dissident complains and no one hears him, does he make a sound? Of course, McCain in complicit in all this as well - he's opposed free speech for years under the guise of "campaign reform". He's no First Amendment protector.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can someone explain to me why you can't understand that the issue is NOT one of free speech, but of the legality of certain donations to this organization. Doesn't all of this spinning make you dizzy, PJ?

It's not spinning. Free speech is worthless if the gov't places limits on how the message gets out, for example limiting contributions to advocacy groups. In a theoretical sense, even the Chinese have "free speech". I'm sure you can say whatever you want in your cell or a labor camp. But if a dissident complains and no one hears him, does he make a sound? Of course, McCain in complicit in all this as well - he's opposed free speech for years under the guise of "campaign reform". He's no First Amendment protector.

Then it should be taken up with the SC. Free speech is not absolute, as the SC has said time and time again.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh give me a break Pro-Jo. Must you be THIS much of a hack? The group is clearly violating the law and Obama is calling them on it. What is so unreasonable about that? Groups supporting him have to follow it, why shouldn't groups opposing him? If you want to say that the law is unconstitutional and challenge it that's fine, but I don't buy for a second that you're defending the first amendment here.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi
Seems like Hussein is setting up another commercial to be made. Just keep chomping at those sour grapes!

A for the troll.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can someone explain to me why you can't understand that the issue is NOT one of free speech, but of the legality of certain donations to this organization. Doesn't all of this spinning make you dizzy, PJ?

It's not spinning. Free speech is worthless if the gov't places limits on how the message gets out, for example limiting contributions to advocacy groups. In a theoretical sense, even the Chinese have "free speech". I'm sure you can say whatever you want in your cell or a labor camp. But if a dissident complains and no one hears him, does he make a sound? Of course, McCain in complicit in all this as well - he's opposed free speech for years under the guise of "campaign reform". He's no First Amendment protector.

Then it should be taken up with the SC. Free speech is not absolute, as the SC has said time and time again.

I'm aware of the slander/libel limits, but are they relevant here? Is the ad demonstrably false?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh give me a break Pro-Jo. Must you be THIS much of a hack? The group is clearly violating the law and Obama is calling them on it. What is so unreasonable about that? Groups supporting him have to follow it, why shouldn't groups opposing him? If you want to say that the law is unconstitutional and challenge it that's fine, but I don't buy for a second that you're defending the first amendment here.

If it was a pro-Obama group doing this and McCain's camp was suing I'm sure you'd see the other side of that coin.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

We have warned you comrade. Questions on free speech will not be tolerated. Off to the gitmo free speech zone (your cell) you go.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??

For a prof your reading comprehension fails.

2. The group, by engaging in express advocacy against Sen. Obama and engaging in no other activities, is a political committee. But it has not registered as a political committee and has not followed the rules applicable to political committees.

All the groups you mentioned engage in other activities besides solely political endorsement/critique of a candidate.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.

The right wing version of free speech amounts to corruption and corporate favoritism.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jonks
Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.

Your first three lines have NOTHING to do with this ad. They have researched the hell out of the details in the ad and Obama is not even trying to refute the actually content of the ad.

You may be right that this group is violating the law by exceeding the boundaries set for such organizations.

However, these people still have a right to be heard and at the end if the day their right to free speech should trump any laws set up to regulate political action groups.

Good lord this is even stupider than a jpeyton post. Seriously....go back, and reread this. If you realize "holy shit! I'm an idiot for thinking that!" and decide to edit your post, I'll even take this one down!

See, I'm all about giving second chances.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I have only skimmed this thread. From what it looks like is you have one side wanting free speech while the other wants to have the ad blocked? Is that correct?

Both sides have their merits, however, if it is slander (lies to make him seems worse than he is) then Obama can sue to have it removed. Free speech only goes so far and does not include slander. I guess you could still slander someone but the consequences wouldn't be good.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have only skimmed this thread. From what it looks like is you have one side wanting free speech while the other wants to have the ad blocked? Is that correct?

Both sides have their merits, however, if it is slander (lies to make him seems worse than he is) then Obama can sue to have it removed. Free speech only goes so far and does not include slander. I guess you could still slander someone but the consequences wouldn't be good.

The ad is factually true so no slander/libel. This group set itself up in such a way that they aren't doing anything illegal.

In the end the goal is accomplished - people get to hear the truth about his ties to this maniac, AIP does what needed to be done and now they can show how obama doesn't like free speech because he disagrees with it. Win/win.

For now it seems like lawyers making their case but the goal of the ad was achieved - show people his ties to the maniac.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can someone explain to me why you can't understand that the issue is NOT one of free speech, but of the legality of certain donations to this organization. Doesn't all of this spinning make you dizzy, PJ?

It's not spinning. Free speech is worthless if the gov't places limits on how the message gets out, for example limiting contributions to advocacy groups. In a theoretical sense, even the Chinese have "free speech". I'm sure you can say whatever you want in your cell or a labor camp. But if a dissident complains and no one hears him, does he make a sound? Of course, McCain in complicit in all this as well - he's opposed free speech for years under the guise of "campaign reform". He's no First Amendment protector.

Then it should be taken up with the SC. Free speech is not absolute, as the SC has said time and time again.

I'm aware of the slander/libel limits, but are they relevant here? Is the ad demonstrably false?

Yes, that is for a court to decide, which is why it is being brought up. The joke here is that Socio is saying this is wrong just because AIPs people say so.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have only skimmed this thread. From what it looks like is you have one side wanting free speech while the other wants to have the ad blocked? Is that correct?

Both sides have their merits, however, if it is slander (lies to make him seems worse than he is) then Obama can sue to have it removed. Free speech only goes so far and does not include slander. I guess you could still slander someone but the consequences wouldn't be good.

The ad is factually true so no slander/libel. This group set itself up in such a way that they aren't doing anything illegal.

In the end the goal is accomplished - people get to hear the truth about his ties to this maniac, AIP does what needed to be done and now they can show how obama doesn't like free speech because he disagrees with it. Win/win.

For now it seems like lawyers making their case but the goal of the ad was achieved - show people his ties to the maniac.

You're missing the point, but it's cute.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have only skimmed this thread. From what it looks like is you have one side wanting free speech while the other wants to have the ad blocked? Is that correct?

Both sides have their merits, however, if it is slander (lies to make him seems worse than he is) then Obama can sue to have it removed. Free speech only goes so far and does not include slander. I guess you could still slander someone but the consequences wouldn't be good.

That is not a correct synopsis. The Obama campaign contends the ad doesn't comply with election laws, the OP (and the ad proponents) claim this is an attack on free speech. Slander has nothing to do with it-that is a seperate legal remedy. Under US law, slander is almost impossible to prove for a public figure-you have to show not only was the statement factually false (not just an expression of opinion) but the speaker had actual malice when they made the statement. Plus the fact that it would take years for such a general civil tort suit to get through the courts.

Allowing distribution/publication of ads that violate election laws effectively makes those election laws meaningless and of no effective importance.

In contrast to the OP, I say let's see what the appropriate agency does before accepting one side's briefing position as gospel truth. Given the politicalization of the DOJ, the Obama campaign isn't dealing with an honest impartial venue anyway-so I don't blame them at all for taking an agressive stance to get this into the courts ASAP.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: loki8481
he's a lawyer who won his first election by getting all of his opponents disqualified before a vote was cast, why would this surprise anyone?

the non-PAC obviously left themselves open for this.

^this



But I do love the anti attack ad hussein puts out and attributes the ayers attack ad as being a mccain creation. Guess they just referenced the wrong group in their letter to the DOJ.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

McCain - Feingold

This.



I was really hoping that USSC would have tossed this law out, or at least the free speech component of it.

This is where it can really get unfair:

Group X can not run an ad, but say a an already established show (tv or radio) decides to run a story based on the same content. That is permissible.

I understand what they were trying to accomplish with McCain - Feingold, but those kind of laws never work- they will never take the influence of money out of politics.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have only skimmed this thread. From what it looks like is you have one side wanting free speech while the other wants to have the ad blocked? Is that correct?

Both sides have their merits, however, if it is slander (lies to make him seems worse than he is) then Obama can sue to have it removed. Free speech only goes so far and does not include slander. I guess you could still slander someone but the consequences wouldn't be good.

The ad is factually true so no slander/libel. This group set itself up in such a way that they aren't doing anything illegal.

In the end the goal is accomplished - people get to hear the truth about his ties to this maniac, AIP does what needed to be done and now they can show how obama doesn't like free speech because he disagrees with it. Win/win.

For now it seems like lawyers making their case but the goal of the ad was achieved - show people his ties to the maniac.

So you won't mind the ad linking McCain to Ayers through SC Gov. Sanford!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Ask John McCain, he wrote the law that this group is flaunting.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems like Obama is only going to hurt himself more with this line of attack.

I wonder how long until this group starts to run adds pointing out how Obama is trying to shut up his critics.

^^ Proof of extended brainwaishing right there... if it will look bad to prosecute political criminals we shouldn't do it...

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: skyking

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Keep diverting, it is working well for you.

Disgusting isn't it...

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jonks
Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.

Your first three lines have NOTHING to do with this ad. They have researched the hell out of the details in the ad and Obama is not even trying to refute the actually content of the ad.

You may be right that this group is violating the law by exceeding the boundaries set for such organizations.

However, these people still have a right to be heard and at the end if the day their right to free speech should trump any laws set up to regulate political action groups.

Free Speech should trump laws? you really should seek help

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

It is mainly abused by supercilious posters.
But anyway.
GO OBAMA, NAIL THAT SCUMMY GANG OF SWIFTBOATERS TO THE WALL!!
AND ALL THEIR ILK.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: loki8481
he's a lawyer who won his first election by getting all of his opponents disqualified before a vote was cast, why would this surprise anyone?

the non-PAC obviously left themselves open for this.

^this

But I do love the anti attack ad hussein puts out and attributes the ayers attack ad as being a mccain creation. Guess they just referenced the wrong group in their letter to the DOJ.

Do you really expect any credibility when to continue to try and link Obama's middle name to radical islam?