(October 26, 2014 at 11:19 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I don't like the proposal one bit. I don't see that expanding the government's control of speech is a good thing. The proposal is to control political content that is not even paid-for. It would be the equivalent of the Crown restricting Paine's ability to write pamphlets.
It doesn't help that the chairman's motivation is so transparently political in itself; this wasn't a problem until it impacted his boss. It appears that he's willing to encroach upon a right for partisan advantage, and I'm tired of that shit.
What is it with republicans and lying?
Quote:Con·trol
verb \kən-ˈtrōl\
: to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want
There are no restrictive clauses mentioned at all. That is all in your head, planted there by faux news. Having to say that you're not a campaign committee who's using illegal funds is not a restriction of speech anymore than paying your income tax to the IRS. The content is not curtailed by quantity or amplitude.
If you disagree, give us a fucking citation, and if you can, we'll agree with you. If you can't you're a typical Limbaughbot.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
