Senate rejects Patriot Act

[MMMMMM]

[ 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."

[ 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]

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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....

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[PoBoy321]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[MMMMMM]

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