The Almighty US Government

[Cinjin]

No it wouldn't. Private parties can be heard on CNN and Fox News and any other news show. They can also be heard on websites and in print. And don't forget, they would only be restricted DURING an election.

Right, so, however long our elections went on for that would be the span of time in which these people had no right to free speech. The span of time in which our government used its firmly established authority to say "Hey, shut the fuck up, we're trying to engage in the democratic process". Shaky.

(Have you considered the incredible advantage this would give to incumbency btw?)

The reason for point no. 4 is only one thing: Candidates must win elections on their own merit. We regulate a multitude of things seen by the public for the good of the public. This would be no different. Key thing here: Nowhere is it written that Free Speech must ALWAYS include radio and television. In fact if that were the case, we'd have porn on every TV channel and a multitude of companies screaming about the government violating their rights.

No I get it (that you think it will accomplish a goal), but it would be different- We'd be telling people, during an election, that they were not allowed to express their political opinions except at the approved times... in the approved manner.

:late edit. What if their political opinion - is that my opinions about the approved times and approved manners is bullshit and I ought to be impeached?

Come on Rhythm, now if you want to debate this for real, address what I wrote point for point instead of the strawman you just hit me with.

1. We regulate a multitude of things seen by the public for the good of the public. This would be no different.

2. Key thing here: Nowhere is it written that Free Speech must ALWAYS include radio and television. In fact if that were the case, we'd have porn on every TV channel and a multitude of companies screaming about the government violating their rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps I've simply misunderstood. Are you not suggesting that we set aside a period of time in which people are not allowed to freely speak their minds about politics? Is this period of time -during an election- ?

[Heywood]

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.

[Cato]

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.

Air wave transmission 'space' is finite. Allowing wealthy individuals, regardless of political affiliation, unimpeded access by virtue of their wealth by default limits the 'free speech' (as you use it) of others. Your only way out of this is to claim that everyone has the same opportunity to generate wealth. I can't imagine you would seriously propose this, but you are trapped by the notion if the only means of allocating a finite resource is to the highest bidder.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Wrong.

These things are government regulated.