Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

What a strange duck Feingold is. He's against the Patriot Act for supposedly infringing on our rights yet authored a bill that blatantly restricts our first amendment rights.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to put an internment camp/deportation (like the Japanese in WWII).

We aren't going to do that because it's insane, so why do we bother with this worthless bullcrap that doesn't work.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

I hear he is also a member of the ACL-Jew and supports the War on Christmas.

(If you can't tell, that is supposed to be sarcasm.)

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hear he ... supports the War on Christmas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that obvious? I mean he's a Christ-killer, right?

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

Many republicans voted against it too. Even BILL FRIST voted against the patriot act. Why would he do that?

Every instance in history where the people trade in their freedom for security, the government takes advantage to represses its own people. A fact the corporate media doesn't want you to know.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even BILL FRIST voted against the patriot act. Why would he do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read the article?

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a strange duck Feingold is. He's against the Patriot Act for supposedly infringing on our rights yet authored a bill that blatantly restricts our first amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome analysis.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a strange duck Feingold is. He's against the Patriot Act for supposedly infringing on our rights yet authored a bill that blatantly restricts our first amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're claiming that campaign finance reform infringes on your first amendment right, then I roll my eyes at you sir.

And for those of you you can't read past headlines, this was simply a vote on cloture, not on the bill itself.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

This piece of news, along with the word that GWB personally authorized what could be illegal survellience of Americans, should put the nails in the Patriot Act for a few years.

Actually starting to feel maybe the American People are starting to wise up - Either that or the petition I signed did wonders - LOL

RB

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're claiming that campaign finance reform infringes on your first amendment right, then I roll my eyes at you sir.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications." "Electioneering communications" are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election."

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/l...on/mccain.html


TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Clearly, the McCain-Feingold Act abridges "freedom of speech, or of the press."

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly, the McCain-Feingold Act abridges "freedom of speech, or of the press."

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly anti-fraud laws and defemation claims abridge freedom of speech, or of the press.". They must be unconstitutional, too, right? Oh, wait, they're not. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clearly, the McCain-Feingold Act abridges "freedom of speech, or of the press."

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly anti-fraud laws and defemation claims abridge freedom of speech, or of the press.". They must be unconstitutional, too, right? Oh, wait, they're not. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Anti-fraud and defamation laws are totally different animals from normal political speech. You have no right to harm other people through your speech. But endorsing a political candidate is not harming anyone.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have no right to harm other people through your speech

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does the first amendment say that? I've read it a couple of times, and I can't find it anywhere. Maybe it's in one of those less important amendments....

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where does the first amendment say that?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to. It's intuitive. It's also why you can't yell fire in a crowded place if there is no fire.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does the first amendment say that?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to. It's intuitive. It's also why you can't yell fire in a crowded place if there is no fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

So our legal system is based on intuition now? I don't think that's gonna work out too well.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
So our legal system is based on intuition now?

[/ QUOTE ]
It certainly isn't based on the idea that all of our rights are written down in the constitution...

Is this really so hard to understand?

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly isn't based on the idea that all of our rights are written down in the constitution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Liberals have been trying to get people to understand that very point for a long time.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, the McCain-Feingold Act abridges "freedom of speech, or of the press."

[/ QUOTE ]


Clearly anti-fraud laws and defemation claims abridge freedom of speech, or of the press.". They must be unconstitutional, too, right? Oh, wait, they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]


Defamation claims are not LAWS, but SUITS seeking compensation for unjust damages.

It isn't against the law to libel or slander; but you can be sued for damages if you do.

Anti-fraud laws have nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you commit fraud you may be sued for damages and/or prosecuted for a criminal act.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

Come on Elwood, with your legal knowledge, you should be the one correcting Elliot not me.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

Are you speaking of when you made the novel legal argument that defamation and fraud were not laws??

Under your "laws" vs "suits" argument (note that "suits" is a shortened version of "lawsuits", but I digress) would it be constitutional to allow suits where you could recover damages if anyone stated an opinion with which you disagree? Why not? It's just a "suit" not a "law."

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you speaking of when you made the novel legal argument that defamation and fraud were not laws??

Under your "laws" vs "suits" argument (note that "suits" is a shortened version of "lawsuits", but I digress) would it be constitutional to allow suits where you could recover damages if anyone stated an opinion with which you disagree? Why not? It's just a "suit" not a "law."

[/ QUOTE ]

If the suit had merit (though it sounds like it wouldn't) it might manage to go forward. Probably the judge would just throw it out as frivolous, no?

Other than that, I don't see the relevance of your question.

Civil lawsuits seeking compensation for at-fault and unjust damages are different than making it a criminal or punishable offense to say something.

And Elliot's argument was not just "novel"--it was plain wrong, too--right, Elwood?

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Civil lawsuits seeking compensation for at-fault and unjust damages are different than making it a criminal or punishable offense to say something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. That doesn't change whether there are constitutional implications. The first amendment doesn't say congress shall make no law criminalizing speech. If McCain Feingold only allowed civil (not criminal) remedies, would it be allowable under the Constitution in your opinion (note that I don't know whether McCain Feingold even has criminal penalties)?

There are constitutional implications for FCC actions even though they involve civil, not criminal penalties. Your distinction between "laws" and "suits" was just plain ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
And Elliot's argument was not just "novel"--it was plain wrong, too--right, Elwood?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. His argument seems to be that we limit speech all the time (defamation and fraud were two examples) --- the mere fact that speech is limited is, apparently, not what causes something to violate the Constitution. Elliot seemed to be question what, then, causes a constitutional violation. Your response seemed to suggest that you think the differentiating factor was one of "laws" and "suits" (which I am assuming means the difference between civil and criminal.) There are countless examples of where civil laws are violative of the first amendment, so I don't think that's the distinction either...

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]

Civil lawsuits seeking compensation for at-fault and unjust damages are different than making it a criminal or punishable offense to say something.

--------------------------------------------------------

Correct. That doesn't change whether there are constitutional implications. The first amendment doesn't say congress shall make no law criminalizing speech. If McCain Feingold only allowed civil (not criminal) remedies, would it be allowable under the Constitution in your opinion (note that I don't know whether McCain Feingold even has criminal penalties)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Civil suits being different than criminal laws, and also being different than government imposed fines.

[ QUOTE ]
There are constitutional implications for FCC actions even though they involve civil, not criminal penalties. Your distinction between "laws" and "suits" was just plain ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
And Elliot's argument was not just "novel"--it was plain wrong, too--right, Elwood?

-------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about that. His argument seems to be that we limit speech all the time (defamation and fraud were two examples) --- the mere fact that speech is limited is, apparently, not what causes something to violate the Constitution. Elliot seemed to be question what, then, causes a constitutional violation. Your response seemed to suggest that you think the differentiating factor was one of "laws" and "suits" (which I am assuming means the difference between civil and criminal.) There are countless examples of where civil laws are violative of the first amendment, so I don't think that's the distinction either...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you can overcomplicate things, you know. The simplest meaning (in this matter and most others) is generally the best.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Civil suits being different than criminal laws, and also being different than government imposed fines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even private rights of action have Constitutional implications (not just government imposed fines.) Say Congress gives (or a judge creates through his/her common law powers) a private right of action that allows you to sue for hurtful (though true) speech. Are you suggesting that there aren't constitutional implications?

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest meaning (in this matter and most others) is generally the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Mr Ocham, what is the simplest meaning of the phrase "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" and how would that simple meaning incorporate financial contributions into the meaning of "speech." How would the simple word "no" be defined so that laws against defamation and fraud, the fcc, and countless other examples could exist.

Sometimes, if you try to oversimplify you just sound like a simpleton.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. His argument seems to be that we limit speech all the time (defamation and fraud were two examples) --- the mere fact that speech is limited is, apparently, not what causes something to violate the Constitution. Elliot seemed to be question what, then, causes a constitutional violation. Your response seemed to suggest that you think the differentiating factor was one of "laws" and "suits" (which I am assuming means the difference between civil and criminal.) There are countless examples of where civil laws are violative of the first amendment, so I don't think that's the distinction either...

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood 1 MMMMMM 0

Elwood is entirely correct. The point of my post is that the argument that M-F is unconstitutional simply because it "abridges" speech is bogus. Although the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . " it simply has not been and will never be interpreted literally. Thus, if you want to argue the constitutionality of M-F, MMMMMM, you must do more than quote the amendment if you wish to be taken seriously. You need to explain why this particular abridgment is unconstitutional based on First Amendment law as it has evolved over the centuries. BCPVP made an effort in this direction by bringing up "political" speech.

As an aside, MMMMMM's distinction between a criminal penalty and legal enforcement of private rights is totally wrong in this context. Private defamation suits are indeed abridgments of the freedom of speech. See NY Times v. Sullivan.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even private rights of action have Constitutional implications (not just government imposed fines.) Say Congress gives (or a judge creates through his/her common law powers) a private right of action that allows you to sue for hurtful (though true) speech. Are you suggesting that there aren't constitutional implications?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know and with that hypothetical I think we're getting pretty far afield. Nor do I see that hypothetrical as a likely real-world possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
So, Mr Ocham, what is the simplest meaning of the phrase "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" and how would that simple meaning incorporate financial contributions into the meaning of "speech."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with contributions; the part of McCain-Feingold which abridges the freedom of speech is the prohibition against running ads in the electronic media.

[ QUOTE ]
How would the simple word "no" be defined so that laws against defamation and fraud, the fcc, and countless other examples could exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Defamation is not prohibited by law, but civil defamation suits can be brought and wrongful injuries may be compensated. Fraud is criminal, and is not specific to speech or expression at all; there are many types of fraud. The FCC should not have the power of censorship.


You have the Constitutional right to free speech. That does not mean that free speech is always without consequences, such as the potential consequence of being sued in civil court for damages. If you don't see a difference between that, and a law which imposes government penalties for exercising your right to free speech, I fear we may be at an impasse. Defamation suits are civil; the other is involves a governmentally imposed fine or punsihment.

The correct way to address the issue of negative ads is with civil suits for libel or slander if the ads contain false and defamatory information. Government has no proper role in saying you can or cannot run such ads:

TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is not a punishable offense to falsely proclaim your neighbor is a criminal and a wife-beater, nor is it against the law. You may have to face him in court in a civil suit if you do so, but that is a far cry from the government fining or imprisoning you for making such statements.

Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes, if you try to oversimplify you just sound like a simpleton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood 2, MMMMMM 0