A time, place and manner restriction would be limiting a pulbic rally to a certain time of day in the neighborhood park. How is this different?

Also, how is that a reductio creep? Just because some people have misused the tatic of analogy, doesn’t mean that you can dismiss any comparison between that which you agree with and that which you find absurd just by citing reductio creep? Instead, Chris, why not point out the actual difference between the two.

(via The Agitator) Julian Sanchez takes us down the merry path of politicians dealing with that pesky problem of free speech….

This isn’t comparable to prohibiting people from shouting “Fire” in a crowded movie theater.

I like both the title, and the content of this post….

“Once again THER IS NO BAN ON SPEACH in McCain-Feingold.”

But by your own admission, THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH, and that’s what the 1st Amendment by its very terms prohibits Congress from doing. The 1st Amendment doesn’t say that Congress may pass laws restricting speech so long as it doesn’t outright ban speech. It doesn’t say that Congress may restrict anonymous speech by requiring disclosure of those funding the speech. It says that Congress shall make no laws abridging speech. No amount of linguistic gymnastics on your part can change the fact that this law abridges free speech.

You and your hundreds of buddies are allowed to SAY whatever you like, and to convince people of that in the most efficient way possible (face to face or in small groups).

You are even allowed to raise money and put Ads on TV without limit SO LONG AS YOU DON’T MENTION THE NAME OF A POLITICIAN during the last 90 days of the campaign.

If you DO use his name, then you have to follow the usual rules for DISCLOSURE and contribution limits.

Which means basically, than you can use LOTS of money from a single person or corporation to make up for the fact that you can’t find a lot of people that agree to give you money for your Ad.

Once again THER IS NO BAN ON SPEACH in McCain-Feingold. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. There IS a ban on non-disclosure (i.e. Anonomous speach). And there a limits on the amount of money that you can collect from a single entity to amplify that speach.

If you REALLY have the support of thousands, then you have no trouble. Just get $100 from thousands of people and you have a pile of money that you can use to say whatever they want. (but not anonomously). What you can’t do is use thousands of dollars from 10′s of people to speak at the same volume.

Money doesn’t vote, people do. And the rule is one person one vote. Not one dollar one vote.

So Glen Whitman’s example of lots of people getting together to speak is dead wrong. The only way you get hit by McCain-Feingold is when you Don’t have lots of people getting to speak collectively. Or those lots of people want to speak anonomously.

Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, et. al. are the Non-conformists.

Ginsberg, Stevens, etc. are the Conformists.

The latter realizes that a majority will never support their insane policies, so they will simply circumvent (force/coerce) the majority by decree.

Serpent, You’re speaking in riddles. Help me understand. What I think you’re saying is that the liberals on the bench are theists/deists and the conservatives on the bench are atheists/secularists. That can’t be what you are saying. I would think it’s the opposite. I must be reading it wrong.

When I read Justice Scalia’s dissent, I actually felt a little bit of hope for the Supreme Court, since they obviously aren’t ALL wannabe law-makers.

Just when you thought the 9th Circuit was bad…

Well, if you listen to BW’s gibberish, he seems to think the 1st Amendment only protects individuals. Of course, that would mean that pretty much every newspaper and television station in the country is unprotected by the 1st Amendment.

Theist/Deist (i.e. Nonconformity or Forces of Light) = 5
Atheist/Secularist (i.e. Conformists or Legion of Darkness) = 4