|
VikingofRock posted:By this incredibly broad definition of "the press", aren't any advertisements which give information about their advertised product "the press"? Should the government not be able to place restrictions on advertisement? If an advertiser wanted to set up an entire news network devoted to their products, you probably couldn't stop them.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Also the advertising language of press outlets are regulated. Being a newspaper has never let you lie about your subscriber numbers to your ad customers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think there is a pretty good chance the moon landing will go on currency at some point. Rip_Van_Winkle posted:it'd better be a coin, and the back of the coin better look like the moon  
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If an advertiser wanted to set up an entire news network devoted to their products, you probably couldn't stop them. See: all cable news
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:By this incredibly broad definition of "the press", aren't any advertisements which give information about their advertised product "the press"? Should the government not be able to place restrictions on advertisement? Whether the freedom stems from freedom of speech or press is almost irrelevant - there's really not much doctrinal difference between the two. But sure, advertising has free press rights too. It's just that advertising is lesser speech. Advertisements are speech that proposes a commercial transaction (literally how they define that category of speech) and are distinguishable from other speech (and receive a lesser protection, as commercial speech is less important than political speech) as a result. The government is thus able to restrict commercial speech where the restriction furthers an important government interest and the means of restriction is substantially related to the interest. In contrast, political speech (like editorial content and political advertising) is core first amendment speech - literally what the First Amendment was intended to protect originally - and restrictions have to further a compelling government interest. The restrictions also have to be narrowly tailored - essentially, they have to show that there's no other way to further the interest other than by restricting the speech. E: in other words, government can place restrictions on both! It's just that commercial speech is easier to constitutionally restrict than political speech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Correct; however that % was the smallest percentage of all of the age groups, which indicates they turned out in much lower numbers; and given the larger demographic size, that translates to a relatively poor turnout. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/722834609612787712 Or the best turnout ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:In contrast, political speech (like editorial content and political advertising) is core first amendment speech - literally what the First Amendment was intended to protect originally - and restrictions have to further a compelling government interest. The restrictions also have to be narrowly tailored - essentially, they have to show that there's no other way to further the interest other than by restricting the speech. Could you give an example of such political speech, that the government has a compelling interest in restricting and no other way to further that interest? This has all been a very useful review for me, but I find that examples help me remember and analyze these things more effectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Could you give an example of such political speech, that the government has a compelling interest in restricting and no other way to further that interest? Sure. Direct contributions to a candidate, reducing possibility of/appearance of corruption. Buckley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Wrong, that contains a small sliver of the moon, it is not entirely moon, therefore a failure as both currency and art
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Sure. Direct contributions to a candidate, reducing possibility of/appearance of corruption. Buckley. Mmm. Is it realistically possible for literal, verbal/written speech (i.e. not money) to meet this standard?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Wrong, that contains a small sliver of the moon, it is not entirely moon, therefore a failure as both currency and art If you show the whole moon on a coin, how is it possible to show the landing? Or is it more that you want to memorialize famous werewolf presidents and union leaders?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:If you show the whole moon on a coin, how is it possible to show the landing? Or is it more that you want to memorialize famous werewolf presidents and union leaders? werewolf erasure is a serious problem, but also, the coin will have a small protrusion on the edge, to represent the moon lander to appropriate scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I'm out for union spies to represent me. Even better. gently caress the Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Whether the freedom stems from freedom of speech or press is almost irrelevant - there's really not much doctrinal difference between the two. But sure, advertising has free press rights too. It's just that advertising is lesser speech. This is a pretty good post, and I agree with most of it. Thanks. I guess my main point of difference comes from the fact that I think the government has a compelling interest to restrict the amount that can be spent on campaign ads, for much the same reasons that they have a compelling interest to restrict outright bribery. Also I'm not really convinced that freedom to spend money on speech is implied by freedom of speech itself, but I need to think over that one a little more before I argue it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Mmm. Is it realistically possible for literal, verbal/written speech (i.e. not money) to meet this standard? I'm not sure I follow your question. Are you asking if it's possible for a regulation on literal verbal or written speech to meet that standard? If so, sure, written offers of bribery. Same interest (corruption). I would also accept false speech with actual malice about a political officer (balancing criticism of political conduct with protection of reputation) as an answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm not sure I follow your question. Are you asking if it's possible for a regulation on literal verbal or written speech to meet that standard? Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:This is a pretty good post, and I agree with most of it. Thanks. I guess my main point of difference comes from the fact that I think the government has a compelling interest to restrict the amount that can be spent on campaign ads, for much the same reasons that they have a compelling interest to restrict outright bribery. Also I'm not really convinced that freedom to spend money on speech is implied by freedom of speech itself, but I need to think over that one a little more before I argue it. Honestly, if you're interested in this stuff, you could do worse than to read the court cases that set down the rules in the first place. Buckley v. Valeo is a good starting point. They can be frustrating reading but they really do have a lot of the theory and argument behind these distinctions. You should also read "Make No Law" by Anthony Lewis (about the NYT v Sullivan case) to gain an understanding of why you should be suspicious of anything that might allow the exercise of political power to restrict speech. E: also just because Lewis is an excellent writer and the story itself is really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Honestly, if you're interested in this stuff, you could do worse than to read the court cases that set down the rules in the first place. Buckley v. Valeo is a good starting point. They can be frustrating reading but they really do have a lot of the theory and argument behind these distinctions. Thanks for the recs, I'll check those out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Great new about Tubman on the $20. However, I always liked to imagine that being put on the fiat currency of a central bank caused Jackson to roll over in his grave so much that the energy generated from it could be used as an alternative energy source. That said having a woman who is also person of color on the $20 is far more important than the schadenfreude I get from Jackson being on there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Tubgirl should be on the $20 bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Great new about Tubman on the $20. However, I always liked to imagine that being put on the fiat currency of a central bank caused Jackson to roll over in his grave so much that the energy generated from it could be used as an alternative energy source. That said having a woman who is also person of color on the $20 is far more important than the schadenfreude I get from Jackson being on there. Jackson's corpse is too decomposed to build a good turbine with. Tubman lets the country transition to greener, cleaner fresh-corpse rotation using the bodies of rear end in a top hat baby boomers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Daniel Bryan posted:
I can understand it being a few years off, but 14? Why so far down the road? We're one GOP administration away from saying "Nah we're not gonna do that" and scuttle the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Ragequit posted:A U.S. Senator blasts Ted Cruz on Twitter:
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Wrong, that contains a small sliver of the moon, it is not entirely moon, therefore a failure as both currency and art Dawg 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Ballz posted:I can understand it being a few years off, but 14? Why so far down the road? We're one GOP administration away from saying "Nah we're not gonna do that" and scuttle the whole thing. There's probably a set time for when currency can be reissued and by the time they make and approve designs we will have passed the more recent one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Dawg an improvement, but, this coin contains a smaller moon than it could, since there is space on the coin face that contains text and does not contain the moon, and also the moon is obscured by a bell, both preventing the moon from being fully rendered and also deceiving the viewer into believing that a bell could be as big as the moon, which is much bigger than any bell, so far
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
gently caress it, just gather up all the current $20s and burn them all. Have banks do exchanges or something, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Ballz posted:I can understand it being a few years off, but 14? Why so far down the road? We're one GOP administration away from saying "Nah we're not gonna do that" and scuttle the whole thing. Saw someone saying that the 2030 thing was incorrect and that the change would happen as soon as Treasury could feasibly make it, i.e. probably pretty soon. Sorry I don't have a source for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:gently caress it, just gather up all the current $20s and burn them all. Have banks do exchanges or something, poo poo. Send all the current $20s to Oklahoma, forcibly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:gently caress it, just gather up all the current $20s and burn them all. Have banks do exchanges or something, poo poo. I used to draw goatees and afros on $1 bills. Lets just do that before phasing them out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Saw someone saying that the 2030 thing was incorrect and that the change would happen as soon as Treasury could feasibly make it, i.e. probably pretty soon. My understanding is that a new bill design is actually very expensive to set up, design, engrave, and produce, esp. Because of all the anti counterfeiting measures, so there is a long term timetable for production of new bills. It's not something that turns on a dime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Send all the current $20s to Oklahoma, forcibly. Supreme Court ain't gonna like that...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I think a better idea would have been putting a Seminole on the $20 bill. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Supreme Court ain't gonna like that... They can make their ruling. Then let them enforce it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:gently caress it, just gather up all the current $20s and burn them all. Have banks do exchanges or something, poo poo. This, but for $1 bills and then start minting Sacagaweas again 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Saw someone saying that the 2030 thing was incorrect and that the change would happen as soon as Treasury could feasibly make it, i.e. probably pretty soon. NPR said 2020 for the new bill. I haven't heard 2030 anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
I noticed an acquaintance who is very active in black rights on FB is coming out strongly against putting Tubman on the $20. A lot of comments in support and backed up by an article in one (http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2015/04/keep_harriet_tubman_and_rosa_parks_off_the_20_bill.html).quote:Harriet Tubman's face on the $20 bill is a pretty sick, twisted, disgusting irony if you ask me. Not here for it. I don't really know what to say about this, as a white, well-off, middle class male. I have opinions, but I'll be told I don't understand. Which is true enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Send all the current $20s to Oklahoma, forcibly. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:NPR said 2020 for the new bill. I haven't heard 2030 anywhere. Still too late, since all currency after January 21, 2017 will have Trump on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:This, but for $1 bills and then start minting Sacagaweas again Nah, Barrack Huseein Obama on the $1
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:15
|
|