[MMMMMM]

[ 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.