It is important to remember that Freedom of the Press in the constitution refers to the printing press, not to the media industry. It protects the freedom of the public to access and use the printing press, and therefore protects the right of all to publish. That includes modern analogs of the printing press, such as radio and tv broadcasting and the internet.
See here
You mean itās written loosely enough to allow restrictions on the purchase of elections (depending on the political winds) without being so loose that it will restrict the press. Or are you really trying to get us to confuse the existence of a law with its enforcement?
In other words, you are right in that the political winds allow for the lack of enforcement. Itās not a relevant point, though.
I was at a local shopping mall, and out of the corner of my eye I spotted something on the Fox News channelāsomething about the bill banning Saturday Night Live political satire-- so apparently thatās the thought process-- Money is speech, and any amendment that would differentiate the two is an assault on free speech. But itās Fox News, so I didnāt stick around to actually watch it.
That was Ted Cruz:
Ted Cruz says SNLās Lorne Michaels could be jailed under Democratic-backed amendment
When I asked the senator from Minnesota (Al Franken, a former Saturday Night Live writer and actor) in the Senate Judiciary Committee, āDo you believe that Congress should have the constitutional authority to prohibit Saturday Night Live from making fun of politicians, the good senator promptly reassured me he had no intention of doing any such thing. But what we are debating is not the intentions of 100 senators. What we are debating is a constitutional amendment that 49 Democrats are proposing to be inserted into the Bill of Rights. ...What the amendment says is for any corporation, Congress would have the constitutional authority to prohibit it from engaging in political speech. Well, NBC, which airs Saturday Night Live, is a corporation. ā¦ Congress would have the power to make it a criminal offense. Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician.
Yeah, figured it was a Republican Meme/Taking Point/Lie.
How strange - people I have never noticed posting before are popping out of the woodwork to defend Citizens United. Simply the opinion of one private citizen, with no financial stake, I have no doubt.
I mean itās written loosely enough to allow any kind of restrictions on either natural persons or non-natural persons, as well as leaving āpressā in Section 3 open to whatever the courts might decide Congress (or the States) meant, or should have meant.
I meant nothing WRT enforcement. Enforcement will be up to whatever organization(s) Congress and the States specify when enabling legislation is passed. After the first attempt at enforcement, the meaning of the whole mess will be up to the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, to decide - and itās written loosely enough for them to decide just about anything. The Amendment was written either by starry-eyed idealists or swindlers, hard to tell which, and should have been written by a paranoic.
There is a much easier and less controversial way to accomplish most of the desired result here, rather than this proposed amendment (which could well be titled āThe Incumbency Protection Amendment of 2014ā):
(1) Federal legislators and senior employees of regulatory agencies should be barred from any employment, consulting, legal representation, or lobbying activity on behalf of any industry regulated by them for at least ten years after leaving office or federal employment.
(2) Federal legislators should be required to publicly disclose all financial holdings by selves and immediate family, and to recuse themselves from any legislation which would impact those holdings.
Item (2) could be accomplished by a simple amendment to the House and Senate rules, and would have the added plus of reducing the annual duration of legislative sessions to a couple of weeks.
Quite correct. And that includes the right of any incorporated entity - proprietary or non profit - to buy a press, or any analogous device, and to publish.
Thatās actually a pretty well-covered area of law. No need to imagine cats and dogs suddenly making googlely-eyes at each other. Itās not like each new Amendment we pass sets the clock back to 1800 when these questions hadnāt been considered.
Iām also thinking that former members of Congress and regulatory agency employees should be governed by laws similar to those of Medicaid - if you leave your position, you can collect your pension and benefits, but every dollar you earn from a new job reduces your pension earnings by one dollar, and if you get a position that offers you insurance, no matter how crappy, you can pay for that too, bub. Or better still, you get to go on the ACA Exchanges.
Wouldnāt keep anyone from taking juicy six-figure positions with think tanks and corporations or going on the lecture circuit, but at least weād stop being on the hook for them as taxpayers. OTOH, maybe it would incentivize a few to spend at least some of their post-government time working for some cause for free.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
