(June 27, 2014 at 12:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: Pamphlets and the publishing of books or views on the internet all cost money. They all employ the use of using money to multiply the size of the audience which can hear your speech. It seems you are okay with some kinds of political ads but not others. If you are okay with the publishing of pamphlets but not TV ads, I think your position is a little inconsistent......and I still think it amounts to censorship.
Well, I do know you like to commit the ad neuseum fallacy, so I won't debate the "free speech" issue any further.
I can see your point about the costs of blogs. A distinction could be made over their picayune costs of a website, even a professionally designed and maintained website, relative to dumping millions of dollars into slick 30 second TV ads.
The alternative that I can see would seem to be variations on our current system, where the wealthy and monied interests can buy elections and thus our government leaders can be bought and sold. If you're fine with that, then by all means keep our current system.
Your tweaks are not unlike the others introduced over the years that attempt to distinguish "good corruption" from "bad corruption" and figure out where those lines are. As others on this thread have noted, the distinction between a "bribe" and a "campaign contribution" is a fine one indeed.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
