- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Charles Koch in the WSJ
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:33 pm to jamboybarry
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:33 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
So to fix this, Fedgov restricts person A's speech.
Brilliant
No, to fix this Fedgov ensures that your speech can't be drowned out by someone else's speech, which is effectively restricting YOUR speech.
4
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:34 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
No, to fix this Fedgov ensures that your speech can't be drowned out by someone else's speech, which is effectively restricting YOUR speech.
by restricting someone else's speechPosted on 4/2/14 at 8:34 pm to Draconian Sanctions
So, you are of the opinion it's ok to restrict some speech so your speech can be heard?
Posted on 4/3/14 at 12:31 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Aye. So... does this mean if my neighbor gets at two guns, the government should give me two guns? Or take both of his away? You know... so we have equal right to bear arms.
No, to fix this Fedgov ensures that your speech can't be drowned out by someone else's speech, which is effectively restricting YOUR speech.
Also, does this mean all newspapers get the same amount of words for each edition? We wouldn't want one newspaper having more freedom of the press than another, right?
The only "freedom of speech" guaranteed by the Constitution is that the government will not limit the activities of citizens. It does not give you a right to be heard.
This post was edited on 4/3/14 at 12:41 am
Posted on 4/3/14 at 9:52 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
No, to fix this Fedgov ensures that your speech can't be drowned out by someone else's speech, which is effectively restricting YOUR speech.
In the age when for $14.95 a month any yahoo can get a webpage and start a blog, I find the idea of someone's speech getting drowned out implausible.
What does this scenario look like? Can you point to an election where it happened?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News