Re: More on suppression of speech, expressly for foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging troglodyte conservatives

Starkiller used a stick in the sand to babble
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>> You've got proof that the cattlemen and apple growers were
Conservatives..?
>>
>>Texas cattlemen?  By definition.

Score.

>On the other hand legislation that has been pushed into law by the
>left such as Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974 and the Campaign
>Reform Act of 2002.  And they regularly try to get the ball rolling to
>reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.  Whenever the democcrats get a
>large enough majority in congress it will be reinstituted.

Unlikely.  Political campaigns make too much money to seriously
restrict it's use.

>These laws do contain a notable exception. Newspaper owners may spend
>as much money as they wish publi****ng arguments in sup****t of
>candidates with whom they "coordinate." This solitary exemption from
>restrictions on free speech is, of course, no mistake: The dominant
>newspapers in America are liberal, and the 1974 law was passed by a
>Democratic Congress on the day before Richard Nixon resigned in
>disgrace from the presidency. 

And then signed by Republican Gerald Ford?

>Campaign finance regulation stands in direct opposition to the
>Founders' understanding of the First Amendment. For a large class of
>people, it effectively prohibits and punishes the most im****tant thing
>that the right to free speech is supposed to guarantee: open
>discussion of candidates and issues at election time.
>
>Those who favor campaign finance regulation sometimes claim that their
>primary concern is with "corruption and the appearance of
>corruption"—that is, what used to be called bribery or the appearance
>of bribery. But that is not the real agenda of the reformers. There is
>a good reason why the 2002 Act, like the 1974 law, was voted for by
>almost every House and Senate Democrat, and opposed by a large
>majority of Republicans: These laws are primarily about limiting the
>speech of conservatives.

Nonsense.  In 2002 the Republicans had a majority in both Houses and
had the White House as well.  Certainly passage can't be blamed on the
Democrats.  Republican passed it and a Republican signed it.

>Here are some quotations from the 2002 congressional debate: 
>
>Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): "This bill is about slowing the ad
>war.... It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the
>flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to
>permeate the airwaves." 
>
>Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): "These so-called issues ads are not
>regulated at all and mention candidates by name. They directly attack
>candidates without any accountability. It is brutal.... We have an
>op****tunity in the McCain-Feingold bill to stop that."
>
>Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.): "I think these issue advocacy ads are a
>nightmare. I think all of us should hate them…. [By passing the
>legislation], [w]e could get some of this poison politics off
>television."
>
>
>In other words, the law makes it harder for citizens to criticize
>liberal politicians when they disagree with their policy views.

The law isn't designed to suppress free speech, it's about doing
something to ensure that claims made by political advertisers are
actually true.

>Some congressmen were willing to be even more open about the fact that
>the new law would cut down on conservative criticism of candidates.

That law passed and signed by the conservative party?

You wrote a bunch of other stuff but it all proceeds from your above
premise, that the Democrats passed legislation in 2002 designed to
suppress conservatives' free speech.

Since Republicans controlled both Houses and the White House, your
premise is fundamentally flawed therefore so is any argument you make
from it.

Swill
-- 
****ft Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
 Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeoKQbT8BKs&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr