[MMMMMM]

[ 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.