1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Congress Wants to Tape Your Mouth Shut, Steal Your Wallet

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003.

Tags:
Page 4 of 5
  1. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,914
    Likes Received:
    41,461
    It doesn't matter if they are or aren't. The fact is that you or I could go and do it if we wanted to, but if we wanted to run a pro drug ad we couldn't.
     
    #61 SamFisher, Dec 5, 2003
  2. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,914
    Likes Received:
    41,461
    If you've ever smoked weed and then had sex you would realize that there is probably a negative chance of an argument for incitement with the first part in.....
     
    #62 SamFisher, Dec 5, 2003
  3. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    No, I am saying that NO speech should be PROHIBITED by the government. The government has not prohibited ads on any other topics and I do not see any reason to start here.

    I do not believe that the hypothetical regarding child molestation would ever be an issue because the people who sell the ads would never run something advocating a repeal of those laws due to community pressures. If there were significant community pressures to remove the drug reform ads, then the agency would be justified in removing the ads, but the federal government is not justified in any way, shape, or form in banning political speech that disagrees with the government position.

    As was mentioned before, anti-mar1juana ads could still run, but pro drug reform ads are to be prohibited. That is government quashing one side of the debate on a political issue.
     
    #63 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  4. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    ok..do we know for sure that's the case?? i mean..this article is just a tad bit slanted.
     
    #64 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
  5. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    that's just wrong...the government has prohibited ads before...and you don't want to live in a world where NO speech is prohibited.

    again...community pressures are not at issue. we're talking about the constitution. the constitution means the majority doesn't always win. if you say one political ad can be up there, then how can you say they all can't??

    and again...the fed govt is justified..according to the Supreme Court..in limiting political speech for certain reasons.

    this is your best point...but i'm not sure if it's correct...i'm not sure if anti-mar1juana ads are being run...or still will be under this proposed legislation.
     
    #65 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,685
    Likes Received:
    16,213
    The government has not prohibited ads on any other topics

    This isn't true. I believe that government prohibits political advertising on public property, and we know that government prohibits cigarette advertising on semi-private property (TV). I'm sure there are others too. The question behind them is the compelling reason to do so.
     
    #66 Major, Dec 5, 2003
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Here is a quote from the bill:

    SEC. 177. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to any Federal transit grantee after February 1, 2004, involved directly or indirectly, in any activity that promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812 et seq.).
     
    #67 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  8. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,685
    Likes Received:
    16,213
    I believe that government prohibits political advertising on public property

    To clarify, I was referring to campaigning by candidates.
     
    #68 Major, Dec 5, 2003
  9. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    roundabout argument...but this isn't the govt. putting an out and out restriction on free speech, is it? it's the govt. putting limits on funds that will flow to a mass transit grantee if they choose to place ads onboard that advocate the legalization of illegal substances.

    so the mass transit company can absolutely run the ads...they just won't receive federal funds from certain pools of federal money...they will still, however, be able to receive funds from the municipality they serve and the state they reside in.
     
    #69 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
  10. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Article was very slanted -- and pretty sparce on facts.

    We were really debating the issue as to whether ads on public space should be prohibitted based on their message assuming they met all the other criteria regarding not being obscene, hateful, racist, inciteful, etc.

    I can understand prohibitting an ad that promoted an illegal activity -- "Go smoke Weed!" I cannot accept prohibitting an ad that lobbied for a change in laws "Legalize and Tax Weed"

    This was presented as a proposed issue based ban. I would feel equally strongly against if they proposed to ban ads regarding one side of the pro life/choice, capital punishment, foreign policy or other matters that may have several 'sides' -- assuming those ads otherwise met the acceptability guidelines -- and especially if the organization presenting the other side was not so restricted.

    Please Max....tell me you're still 'playing devils advocate.'
     
    #70 bnb, Dec 5, 2003
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I am talking about political speech. I do not believe that any political position should be prohibited from advertising.

    I am saying that all political ads should be allowed. There may be other constraints (community concerns, audience), but the federal government should not have the right to quash one side of a political argument while it spends public money to promote the other side.

    What reasons are those? The reason they don't want these ads to run is because they don't have an effective argument to counter them. The government should have to have a more compelling reason than just not wanting people to see a message. What is so compelling about killing these ads?

    Read the passage from the bill. Anti-MJ ads could run, but any ads that advocates legalization or even medical use is prohibited.
     
    #71 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  12. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    i thought i was playing devil's advocate until i read the proposed legislation.
     
    #72 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
  13. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    So they are just going to take HALF of their money away if they run the ads (most transportation funds are matched against local funds)? Basically, they are saying that if they are going to run those ads, it better be woth the BILLIONS they get from the federal government.

    Come on, Max, I know you can see that this is effectively a ban on drug reform ads.
     
    #73 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  14. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    i can certainly see that's the ultimate effect.
     
    #74 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
  15. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Techically you may be right.
    But we all know what a threat of cutting off funding does. So lets just call it a ban, which is the effect it will have -- regardless of semantics
    Advocating the legalization of illegal substances is quite different from advocating use of illegal substances.

    I'm not fomfotable with this kind of restriction on advocating a change in the law. Seems that should be a citizens right.
     
    #75 bnb, Dec 5, 2003
  16. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I agree with you. If they were running ads that promoted smoking pot, they should not run any more than ads for cigarettes should. This, however, is government trying to quash a form of advertisement that is having an impact on the target audience, something the fat cats just can't handle.
     
    #76 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  17. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    When it comes to government policy, the ultimate effect is the real point, isn't it?
     
    #77 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 5, 2003
  18. Chump

    Chump Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0

    just a side note

    mar1juana shouldn't be listed as a schedule I substance.

    schedule I are substances that have no accepted medical use.

    the Supreme Court even said Doctor's could talk to their patients about it and many states allow it for medical reasons.

    but getting Congress to change the listing is the next major hurdle in the legalization fight I think...


     
    #78 Chump, Dec 5, 2003
  19. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Damn you lawyers....so smooth you even sway yourself :D
     
    #79 bnb, Dec 5, 2003
  20. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    restricting funds is not necessarily a ban that merits constitutional consideration...and this isn't even between private actors and the government...this is public actors (legislature)restricting decisions made by other public actors (municipal transit authorities)....and it's not necessarily a restriction...it's just a loss of funding. do we know for sure this pool of money they're talking about is the entire federal subsidy for mass transit??

    but i definitely appreciate the use of the word fomfotable in any and every post!!! :D
     
    #80 MadMax, Dec 5, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 5

Share This Page