Who will defy 60-day "ban on free speech" before elections?

today - a day that WILL live in infamy | epluribus_2

[epluribus_2]

Here's your chance, Free Republic hero. If you are really incensed about the 60 ban on political speech (...congress shall make no long banning...) then step up with your intentions to excercise your formerly constitutional right next fall, committing a federal crime in the process. And when you get convicted - and you will - your recourse will be to appeal to the supreme court. While O'Connor and company stare down their noses at you and CNN reports. Doesn't get any better than this, does it?

[epluribus_2]

Anyone with a few years free on their hands? I hear a lot of words but this issue - is the foundation of this site.

[2banana]

I might even do it wearing a shirt that says "Merry Christmas"

[IGOTMINE]

It will be very, very difficult for me to violate this law.

I would have to buy airtime on a tv or radio station attacking or defending a candidate. There are significant barriers to this, the first being financial. Next, since the media represent a business, they can refuse to run my ads.

Nonetheless, if I had a spare $20K or so lying around and could find a willing media outlet, I'd do it.

[finnman69]

The trick is to get a radio or tv station to air your ad.

[The_Victor]

Do you think the RATs will try to shut down FR 60 days before the election?

[tomahawk]

They will be jailed for such speech. This nation is no longer free.

[LS]

It doesn't prohibit INDIVIDUALS from doing anything, but only from running campaign ads or "hit" ads during the 2-week period, so really the only Freepers who would have any chance to do anything would be those who owned TV stations.

[tomahawk]

In the 21st century, campaign ads and "hit ads" are the very essence of free political speech. Ban them and you have banned free speech. This is what has now occurred.

[epluribus_2]

I can hear Dustin Hoffman's lawyer character yelling "NO YOUR HONOR - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER" as they carry out the first convict. Maybe a small town station with a news department that has a "Viewer Response" feature or "Talk Back". By the way, how are talk radio stations affected by this. OMG is this bad.

[epluribus_2]

How about buying time on a local cable outlet.

[apillar]

Everyone should do what the Democrats do in most elections. Blatantly flout the law... The result, in two or three years the FEC my give you a small fine or slap on the wrist, but the damage is done and the results of the election is never questioned.

[Captain Kirk]

A Bush....err....Free Republic Hero? Don't think so. This monstrosity was signed by Bush and most Freepers, despite some moaning and groaning, will loyally support him next year, hence he can safely ignore anything they do or say. He knows that they can be taken for granted. This law is now a permanent part of the landscape, thanks to the GOP.

There might be a more serious rebellion had it not been for the war. The war, however, trumps any conservative misgivings about domestic issues thus proving that Randolph Bourne was right when he said "war is the health of the state."

[Bob Buchholz]

I think epluribus_2 is absolutely right.

The way I read the law, it is illegal for a politically defined group (which FreeRepublic is) to run the ad. If we (or a subset of we which would have to divorce itself from FreeRepublic unless JR wants to go to jail with us) donate money to produce the ad and get someone to run it then we will have effectively broken the law. An individual on his own with his own money is still free to run any ad that he wants which Soros can and probably will do.

I think that what I have stated above is correct, but there is plenty of time to find out for sure. I guess I really don't want to go to prison, but I can't think of a better reason to do it.

[epluribus_2]

Think maybe some support from remaining constutionalists might help deliver the message? (Paging The Honerable Congressman BillyBob)

Other ideas - broadcast it on WIFI internet all over internet hotspots or do Cell Phone mobbing (google it). Or how about buying ad space on pop-ups (ugh) to put it in their face (www.democra... or www.nytimes.com). This is such offal I can't believe what I'm writing but it is the law of the land.

[doc30]

This is a ridiculus ruling on the part of the SCOTUS. It was also ridiculus that Bush signed the law. I hate saying this, but the constitution has no meaning. It is a worthless piece of paper that should be burned. The three branches of the government ignore it so why do we need it?

[foolish-one]

I have considered and am still considering doing something like this. The problem would be to find a way to stay within existing laws and only challenge the free speech infringement of the campaign finance "law". If, for example, the limit is $10,000.00 on ads paid for with other than an individual's personal assets that mention a specific candidate within 60 days of an election then someone would have to somehow receive that amount or more in cash donations in envelopes with no correspondence and no return address so that he or she couldn't later be prosecuted for accepting contributions and failing to properly record or track them. Then the individual could record each contribution as cash with no name in the 'contributed by' portion of the ledger.

Maybe FreeRepublic is the only way something like this could be done.

[squidly]

None of y'all need to worry about challenging this ruling, as George Soros is sure to give it a shot.

[goldstategop]

Any one prepared to go to prison for a felony? Cause that's what you're now facing for simply questioning a politician by NAME 60 days before an election.

[Dominic Harr]

At times like this I'm always reminded that the Supremes once declared a black man could be property.

The Supreme Court is just a collection of political individuals.

[foolish-one]

Does anyone have a copy of the law or a legal interpretation?

[MainFrame65]

I don't think the law really works the way that is represented by this thread. First, I believe that any candidate can use "hard money" to put on the kind of ads banned by this law. What is prohibited is ads from political parties, affiliated organizations, and anything paid for by soft money.

The hole in this is going to be enforcement; will the law be enforced equally against both parties? Or will MoveOn get a pass while anyone on the right gets slammed (slammered?).

[Bernard Marx]

None of y'all need to worry about challenging this ruling, as George Soros is sure to give it a shot.

Soros already has ways of circumventing campaign financing laws by shelling out donations to "front" groups like moveon.org and hate bush meetings. The NRA is already testing this new ruling, to the outraged cluckings of the French-looking candidate, Kerry. It's trying to buy a radio station or TV channel to spread its views and in so doing is pointing out the absurdity of this new O'Connor-enabled ruling. What gives the "establishment" media the sole right to broadcast political opinions? Who decides what media are "official?" If only state-sanctioned media have the right to political opinions 60 days before an election then we have a real problem here. Instead of challenging the law myself I think I'll make a generous contribution to the NRA.

[goldstategop]

The law will be enforced against challengers. If incumbents are threatened Congress will change the law to make sure the playing field is tilted so as to keep those in power safe. Just so no one gets any ideas CFR is really about "clean elections." Its really nothing of the sort.

[mware]

I got a feeling that the NAACP will not be prosecuted if they run another dragging to death ad come October of '04.

[js1138]

Ordinary people will not have to opportunity to break this law. It applies primarily to campaign ads, and the media will enforce it by not accepting such ads.

I can't imagine any political party stupid enough to be unable to work around the prohibition on mentioning names.

[WackyKat]

Even if you wanted to violate the ban, which media outlet would risk it's license by running it?

The ban effectively muzzles citizen criticism of incumbents, which was its purpose

[foolish-one]

That depends. If the reporting requirements are imposed upon the individual or organization sponsoring the ad and there is no risk to a station's license then, while the major networks may not want to play their own game, with so many independent radio and television outlets around I'm sure one would be found that would air a paid political announcement. Plus there is always public access on cable.

[o_zarkman44]

massive demonstrations could garner a 10 second spotlight in the media, allowing the messages of defiance to candidates to be broadcast free of charge. There is nothing that says an individual can't become a news media outlet with a little paperwork, allowing free commentary as a public service. Any ideas around this law?

As in every law created by and for lawyers, there are always loopholes to allow litigation, furthering a lawyers profit potential. We just have to find the loophole to exploit.

[narby]

Put me on a list for this. I'll donate, whatever.

We could form a PAC, just for this purpose.

Maybe advertize specifically against McCain or Feingold. Paybacks are hell.

[bigeasy_70118]

Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

How does this effect the JBS and our Trim bulletins?

[CommandoFrank]

Does this mean I won't be interupted with boring political boasts and lies during 'Survivor' or football games?

Huummmm....

[epluribus_2]

no, they would get FRONTLINE to do a special segment on it.

[Iconoclast2]

That rule only applies to Leftists, or incumbents. A Right-wing non-incumbent will be treated harshly, to show how serious they are about the law.

[July 4th]

You've got it. Individuals are still (individually) protected, but the Supreme Court has limited our ability to associate. You and I can't get together with 20 other Freepers to fund an ad on TV. A candidate may still spend his/her own hard money on ads, however.

[Jimbaugh]

I am going to form a syndicated news show and then as a journalist I am protected by the Constitution. That is why the NRA is forming its own network. You will pay for advertising and that is deducible for any business.

Wow this is great. Businesses can contribute and deduct it from their taxes.

Is it legal?  You can bet on it.  We just do what NBC or ABC does and it is legal.

[kimmie7]

bump for later

[dr_lew]

I can hear Dustin Hoffman's lawyer character yelling "NO YOUR HONOR - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER" as they carry out the first convict.

"Let him march to the music he hears, however measured or far away."

[Travis McGee]

But who will be watching your tiny news outlet? Or the NRA's?

If the SCOTUS has declared that an advocacy group is forbidden by law from buying ad time on ABCNNBCBS 60 days before an election, then free speech is as good as dead in America.

We don't have a constitutional form of government any more, we just have the "Rule of Five" (black-robed radicals).

In their smug little world, the "Rule of Five" is the absolute last word.

The little commissars forget why the 2nd Amd was put right behind the 1st.

[Triple]

What about as a protest, writing a "personal ad" that names McCain and Fiengold (or others who supprted CFR) and having individuals place the add in newspapers across the country.

Sample

Not-Wanted
Politicians like McCain and Fiengold
that flout "The Constitution" of The United States of America.
Congressman __________, voted to limit free speech.
Tell Congressman __________ you disagree - vote against him.
(Feel free to place this same add in your local paper)

End Sample

Anybody also think this idea is worth consideration?