how can they blame the az shooting on palin

[ohmwrecker]

I am in favor of it. But I don't think putting free speech on the chopping block is a good solution to the problem, nor do I think the courts would sustain such a solution.

Nothing I am talking about comes close to violating free speech.

[Winehole23]

Take away the power of a candidates unchecked ego and you have truth without agenda. The weak will be exposed without their support system.

I don't buy it.

So, do you think someone running for office should be allowed to say anything the choose about their opponents whether it is true or not?

Yes, but that's not just my opinion. Free political speech is part of our political cons ution. That means people can abuse it.

[Winehole23]

Nothing I am talking about comes close to violating free speech.

Having defined restrictions on "smears" is a de facto abridgment of free speech, and having an electoral 'truth panels' to police the expression of candidates could lead to more than a few invidious distinctions.

[ohmwrecker]

I don't buy it.
Yes, but that's not just my opinion. Free political speech is part of our political cons ution. That means people can abuse it.

All speech is not covered by free speech.

[ohmwrecker]

and having an electoral 'truth panels' to police the expression of candidates could lead to more than a few invidious distinctions.

That's your baby, friendo. I never suggested that.

[Winehole23]

All speech is not covered by free speech.

I'm aware of that. But you have yet to show the 'clear and present danger' to public order or the state that would justify restricting political speech.

[Winehole23]

That's your baby, friendo. I never suggested that.

You said political candidates oughtn't be allowed to tell lies. How would you prevent them from doing so, friendo?

[ohmwrecker]

I'm aware of that. But you have yet to show the 'clear and present danger' to public order or the state that would justify restricting political speech.

I think that the concern is justifiable. What's wrong with requiring candidates to defend their positions and statements in a public debate balanced with the number of political rallies they organize where there is no accountability.

[ohmwrecker]

You said political candidates oughtn't be allowed to tell lies. How would you prevent them from doing so, friendo?

As I said, they should be required to defend their positions and statements in public forum where they are challenged to substantiate their agendas.

Not in public rallies where they are encouraged to say whatever will whip their cons uency into a rabid frenzy.

[Winehole23]

I think that the concern is justifiable.

Begging the question.

What's wrong with requiring candidates to defend their positions and statements in a public debate balanced with the number of political rallies they organize where there is no accountability.

Not sure I know what you mean. Is it sort of a fairness doctrine for political campaigns, mandating comparable time for rallies and debates?

I don't see how that would necessarily solve anything. Ands I have a hard time seeing how it wouldn't increase the bs ratio (absent some sort of truth panel to keep everyone on the straight and narrow.)

[MannyIsGod]

As I said, they should be required to defend their positions and statements in public forum where they are challenged to substantiate their agendas.

Not in public rallies where they are encouraged to say whatever will whip their cons uency into a rabid frenzy.

The problem with this is simply that we as a people don't care enough to find out if what we hear from our leaders is true or not.

[PublicOption]

you know sarah palin's self serving bull didn't come off well when foxnews.com doesn't have a link on its homepage.

[Winehole23]

The problem with this is simply that we as a people don't care enough to find out if what we hear from our leaders is true or not.

If so, shouldn't the focus be on changing the electorate and the press, rather than trying to compel the politicians by force of law?

[boutons_deux]

"changing the electorate"

The electorate has been disenfranchised by corporate/capitalist ownership of govt. Candidates can't win without dollars from corps and capitalists, and without coverage from the corporate media. eg, tea bagger candidates are already corrupted by corporate money, and are hiring corporate lobbyists as staffers. Change is not possible.

"and the press"

... owned by corporations enslaved to advertising $$ from other corporations. Change is not possible.