With freedom comes responsibility.

[originalpckelly]

Republicans and conservatives often call campaign finance laws "restrictions on freedom of speech", and I have to say that I agree with them.

The US Constitution does not say, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, unless it involves campaign contributions."

It says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

There is one profound difference, however, that I draw between myself, a liberal who believes in the US Constitution, and these corporate suck-up conservatives: I have come to the conclusion that with liberty comes responsibility.

We can observe from their advertisements in the past elections that Republicans/conservatives are highly irresponsible in exercising their freedom of speech, so much so that it is a threat to the very nature of our great nation.

I have little doubt in my mind after observing that campaign that Republicans, if those campaign finance laws were eliminated, would only become even more vicious in their attacks.

But here we are, we know what the US Constitution says and we know how they'll react if the laws are rolled back, it would seem we are at an impasse.

The problem is still here, the problem we are trying to eliminate. We can't eliminate viciousness from the minds of conservatives, that is unless we work to make sure they understand what they are doing to our nation.

We must get people to realize the damage our nation incurs when there is no real political debate about the best option going forward in whatever area of concern may present itself in a given campaign.

I must also say, however, there is not only viciousness on their side, there is viciousness on our side. It is something we do not want to talk about, but for the sake of this nation and its future, we must.

There will be no hope for this nation unless we can resolve our problems through democracy, but what we have right now is an insult contest. It is a dirty political discourse. It need not be.

Many will claim that politics has always been this way, and to a great degree I agree. However, no problem would be solved or bettered if we had no hope it could be. We may not be right, we may fail, but trying is a particularly worthy effort.

We can either choose to continue down this darkened path, or we can reverse course and find our way out by following the dim light off in the distance: the bettered America.

[B Calm]

1. Why does Free Speech cost money?

[originalpckelly]

2. Because someone has to pay for the electricity and other costs of TV stations

and other media outlets.

[B Calm]

3. So then it's not free speech.

[originalpckelly]

4. The freedom is that you may say what you want to, but you have to pay for the methods...

through which to distribute your speech.

And quite frankly, parties that cannot raise enough money to get ads on TV are probably not very popular. It's economic democracy, people vote with their money.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. We all ready own the airwaves. We should trade the right to use them in return for

somne free speech. After all, the TV stations don't own the airwaves and they aren't paying near enough for their methods.

[originalpckelly]

8. Why? Do you own the air that someone uses to speak their words?

Why is interference from competing signals any different than interference from competing chanters?

The FCC is an awful organization, because what they really do is keep the monopolies on the available spectrum, whereas if we had no regulation and it was a free-for-all people would have to compete with stronger signals. Pirate radio/TV stations would actually have a shot at broadcasting without having to worry about being bullied by big companies.

Any non-OTA transmissions are not owned by the public.

[B Calm]

11. Free speech is not a one minute ad on TV. It's getting off your ass

and getting out in the public and talking!

[originalpckelly]

12. Yes, it is. It's one of many mediums to communicate.

Why not boycott TV stations that air disgusting advertisements? I think most of us would agree the bank account is the best way to motivate a business.

We need to be responsible if we don't want this scummy political debate.

[B Calm]

14. I guess will have to disagree!

[John Q. Citizen]

13. It's the law. The public owns the frequecies as common ground. Get used to it.

Organizing the spectrum and virtual monopoly are two different things.

We own it. We can say how and what we want to do with it. That doesn't mean we crowd the dial.

What we are doing now is wrong for a lot of reasons. And we don't have to do it like this.

[originalpckelly]

15. The law is unjust. No one owns the spectrum any more than anyone owns air.

What you want is the convenience of not having interference on a radio and freedom of speech without the responsibility.

If the spectrum becomes too crowded and hissy, then no one will listen, companies that broadcast on it will go out of business, until there are fewer broadcast signals and people can hear a clearer signal again. It's called a market. It's a wonderfully self-regulating thing that models the reality of human behavior very well.

[originalpckelly]

17. I must also say this message.

When someone gives up the responsibility of being a good intelligent consumer to the government or to some damn corporation, it's very likely that the government or the corporation, or the corporate owned government will abuse that for its own benefit.

It's common sense.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Huh? We own it. Don't be giving away our resources, now to the big corporations, OK?

[originalpckelly]

19. Anyone should be able to broadcast as they choose.

Don't you think it's a little odd how there are so many media monopolies, ones that even formed during Clinton's term? Is the FCC helping us or the big corporations?

How much money do you have to pay to get a broadcasting license? Isn't that a roadblock to an independent radio station? Why not just let them broadcast and anyone else broadcast and have consumers smart enough to decide that CBS is not the best for them?

[omega minimo]

21. That was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 during Clinton's administration

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Money = Free Speech.

[originalpckelly]

6. No, free speech = free speech and money = way to distribute free speech.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. When the railroads had a transportation monopoly. farmers had to play along

with the railroads and be blackmailed, extorted, and abused or they couldn't distribute their produce.

Same deal.

We own the airwaves. Clear Channel doesn't. ABC doesn't.

[originalpckelly]

10. We need intelligent and responsible consumers. If a company is from another state...

and you've never heard of them, don't do business with them. People need to learn the power of not buying crap from monopolies.

Monopolies will always try to come into existence, but we the consumers need to be intelligent enough to know they are bad for us. We should make strong commitments to not shop at monopolistic enterprises.

Again the whole general message: "With freedom comes responsibility."

[John Q. Citizen]

16. With control of the air waves comes whatever we decide. I canvassed 40 hours a week

for three years to counter the effects of the rich and powerful coming into America's living rooms nightly. And they do. Most people I canvassed in the evening had the TV going.

But that's besides the point. We own the airwaves and that's the most powerful way to get into the most peoples living rooms the fastest with the most ubiquitous message. We don't owe CBS shit. Same with radio, microwave, etc.

[originalpckelly]

20. Do you really control the airwaves? I'm surprised you'd say that...

because to me personally it looks like the FCC and the big corporate media monopolies control the airwaves.

[B Calm]

22. Again, if it cost money to talk, then it's not free

[originalpckelly]

23. And if we were smart enough to ignore the ads, they wouldn't work.

[B Calm]

24. Then why not call it purchased speech?

[originalpckelly]

25. Why not call producing a sign for a march purchased speech?

Why not call call renting a PA system for a protest purchased speech?