IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New It is all about intent
I don't agree with the logic that censoring speech about drug use is safe guarding the students. Nor would I agree with allowing the censorship even if I felt it would actually do anything to dissuade drug use.

My point is about the who gets to judge the intent of the speech and who doesn't. The Supreme Court is allowing schools to use their judgment about speech supporting drug use because they generally agree with the schools judgments. But, they decided not to allow the FEC to judge the intent of the speech because in my opinion because they think they will agree with the FEC.

If the web sites you mention ran ads similar to the Wisconsin Right to Life ad, they should be banned also.

The first amendment is for an individual's speech. Speech from groups can be regulated. It is our job to agree on what is reasonable regulation.
Seamus
New speech from non commercial groups CANNOT be regulated
go pass a law that the green party cannot say anything bad about the EPA. See how long that lasts
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Let me be clearer
If any other group, even a liberal group, ran an ad similar to one the Wisconsin group ran than their commercials should have been banned also.


Seamus
New I have not seen the ad, what in detail was the content
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
     I hate it when they're right - (andread) - (56)
         "Money talks!" -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         What makes them right? - (Seamus) - (45)
             mass speech is free, commercial is not -NT - (boxley)
             Re: What makes them right? - (andread) - (40)
                 In the real world, it doesn't really work that way - (jake123) - (14)
                     Re: In the real world, it doesn't really work that way - (andread) - (13)
                         The problem as I see it is this: - (hnick) - (10)
                             Nice theory :-) -NT - (bepatient) - (8)
                                 What part? - (jb4) - (7)
                                     Re: What part? - (bepatient) - (6)
                                         Not sure it was really ever a theory... - (jb4) - (5)
                                             Lofty ideal perhaps? -NT - (bepatient)
                                             Ok, so it's a joke these days. - (hnick) - (3)
                                                 land of the safe home of the whiners? -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                     Better, but I'd likely be more caustic. -NT - (hnick) - (1)
                                                         Land of the somnolent shopping sheep? - (Ashton)
                             Money tilt - (tablizer)
                         So the well heeled should be alowed to drown out . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                             you are either a mass movement that can collectively - (boxley)
                 Anyone can be heard - (Seamus) - (24)
                     wrong conclusion - (boxley) - (23)
                         I disagree - (Seamus) - (22)
                             School property is not the issue - (crazy) - (16)
                                 No it is not the issue - (Seamus) - (13)
                                     its the CENTRAL ISSUE to the ruling sheesh -NT - (boxley) - (12)
                                         It was the intent to promote drug use - (Seamus) - (11)
                                             splutter! - (boxley) - (10)
                                                 Are you really this dense? - (Seamus) - (9)
                                                     Re: Are you really this dense? - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                         What was that about "it's a free country", again? -NT - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                                             Couple of issues with this - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                 Dude, not only is 18 over the "age of consent" - (jb4) - (4)
                                                                     Ask it another way - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                         Begs the question of his Majority - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                             This is a litmus decision? - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                 Litmus only in the sense that - - (Ashton)
                                                     Im not the one who cant understand the basis of the case - (boxley)
                                 Re: School property is not the issue - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                     Prec\ufffdsamente - that would be a 100% Murican cop-out. -NT - (Ashton)
                             so all for censorship I see, no free speech allowed - (boxley) - (4)
                                 It is all about intent - (Seamus) - (3)
                                     speech from non commercial groups CANNOT be regulated - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Let me be clearer - (Seamus) - (1)
                                             I have not seen the ad, what in detail was the content -NT - (boxley)
             I'm ambivalent. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Between Washington and Franklin, - (Ashton)
             Remember, according to a previous ruling, money == speech -NT - (jb4)
         What the week's rulings taught us. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
             Yes, just that Simple. 5-to-4s ... til the 'revolution'. -NT - (Ashton)
             Re: What the week's rulings taught us. - (andread) - (3)
                 Depends on exactly what is meant by "corporate" - (jake123)
                 Heh. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     It's a fine line between naive wishfulness and gullibility. - (Ashton)
             There's still a bit of hope... - (scoenye) - (1)
                 :-) .. a few truffles amidst the turds, anyway -NT - (Ashton)
         Re: I hate it when they're right-eously dissembling - (Ashton)

Gollum!
187 ms