Congress Wants to Tape Your Mouth Shut, Steal Your Wallet

Oh, also...

Dear Moderators,

Please add "marij***a" to the list of words that get excised automatically from posts!

 

SizzleChest, we are trying to have a good natured exchange of ideas here. Your 'tired routine' jab was a departure from that exchange.

I eagerly await your apology.

 

The government is outlawing advertisements that question its policies. Think about that. Pro-lifers question the government's policy on abortion, so should they be banned from protesting that policy? Absolutely not.

You should be able to advertise and protest against *any* government policy, regardless of the law. It doesn't matter if someone is protesting abortion laws or mar1juana policies -- they absolutely have the right to do it.

The government has no place in restricting advertisement against their policies. That's muzzling dissent, and that's a terrifying step toward tyranny.

 

Advocating and advertising rape and murder is one thing. Advocating a reexamination of those laws is totally different, and those voices should not be muzzled.

 

but i'm not sure that matters.

remember, the american psychological association ( or some such group) came out about a year ago or so and said that child molestation was really not that big deal...that most children weren't really all that affected by it...and that for some, it was a bonding experience with a loved one. they also tried to justify it by saying that people just have certain predilictions they're born with.

so let's say, using that data, some group decides, "you know what...we're going to seek to educate people about the truth of this...that we're really not hurting kids...that we really love them..and we want to do so sexually."

ok..incredibly offensive to me. ridiculously offensive to me. even if the APA (or whatever the hell it is) is right...it's still offensive to me. but i suppose that's somewhat irrelevant.

can the government be justified in saying, "you know what...we're not putting those all over our trains and buses."

remember, of course, free speech is not some unlimited right. there are all sorts of restrictions placed on free speech...even political speech.

 

wait...in fairness to TJ...i don't think he's equating them...you don't have to equate them. we have some arguments in this thread that free speech..particularly of a political nature...can never be unfettered. so if you can argue against the policy of marjuana laws on a subway, why can't you argue against the policy of child molestation laws in the way and venue?

 

I think a disctinction needs to be made. The government wants to outlaw this particular "pro-mar1juana" view on federally funded things (in this case - vehicles). The government is not trying to outlaw the "pro-mar1juana" view on private advertising methods.

 

this point keeps getting missed...so i'll bump it one more time.

i'm still not sure where i come down on this argument, though.

 

My media law prof said that the First Amendment existed to protect unpopular speech and I think that is applicable here. This sort of thing, let's go waste more of my tax dollars on "just say no" ads that kids pay no attention to while prohibiting the truth about mar1juana prohibition, just kills me. And you guys wonder why I call it the "Imperial Federal Govt?"

 

again...this is not what the article is about. they're not prohibiting you or me or anyone else from going out and buying time or space for ads railing against mar1juana prohibition...they're simply saying you're not going to rail against govt. policy on govt. owned things...like public buses, trains, etc.

 

by the way...great topic, Andy...can i bill my time to you?

 

Excellent point. There's definitely a distinction, but I vehemently disagree with the policy. It's still muzzling dissent.

If our tax dollars are spent pushing anti-drug messages on public spaces, then private groups should have the same right to get their message across (with their money and their resources).

I understand that it looks silly for a government to sell space to a group questioning their policies. But the government's job isn't to "not look silly." It's to be fair and open, and this policy is neither. A sound policy withstands dissent and questions -- only a poor one needs protection from free speech.

 

Says who?? you? isn't that the problem we're talking about here? who gets to say what content of political speech is more important than another?

ummmm...those agencies are public entities. they are branches of the government. they're supported by public dollars directly. they are absolutely a state actor...and absolutely subject to govt. control. be careful what you wish for or we might end up with Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus, again.

1. it's not being quashed...they are putting a restriction on time and place of this type of speech. there's tons of precedent for that. you can't just start a rally up in a public square without a permit...there are other factors to be taken into consideration.

2. there is a group out there that has received national attention for its efforts to reverse policy on sex with children. i can't remember the name of it right now...but it's quite disgusting. and they're dead serious.

 

By restricting the venue for the advertising, the gov is effectively restricting the ability of the 'other' side to raise their concerns.

Unless this bill restricts all partisan adverts from federally funded things, including its $145m campaign, this is an unreasonable silencing of debate.