(June 28, 2014 at 3:55 pm)Cinjin Wrote: I don't see what the big deal is Heywood. You scream free-speech free-speech like a butthurt hippy when it has absolutely nothing to do with DP's proposal.
I'll explain as you seem to be a little thick on the matter.
Is Marlboro being denied free-speech because they are not allowed to advertise on television? No
Is Warner Brothers denied free-speech because they are only allowed to advertise General Audience Previews on television? No
Are pornographers denied free-speech because they aren't allowed to post their product in public arenas? No
Are politicians denied free-speech because they are not allowed to spend money on campaign elections? Fuck no.
You've created this BULL SHIT coupling of campaign funds with free-speech. The two are mutually exclusive.
Regarding television.....the radio channels TV is transmitted over are not owned by individuals. The owners of the radio channels(i.e. the people of the United States) have some say in what they will be used for.....and those owners have deemed they will not allow them to be used to advertised tobacco, porn, etc.
Still not allowing certain things to be broadcasted is an impingmate on free speech. But allowing unfettered free speach over the airwaves would dilute the rights of the those who own the airwaves. You have two rights conflicting and in this instance property wins out.
