Adeimantus has returned in full, posting glory, and he has a wonderful example of common ground between the U.S. and Chinese governments:
They're both in favor of restricting free speech on the Internet.
You see, it's things like that this that make people want originalists on the Supreme Court. Somehow we've arrived at the point where a woman sticking yams up her keyster is "protected speech" but placing your political opinions on the public airways is not. This is INSANITY. This is reason for despair, for revolt, for praying for a hurricane to do a Katrina to Washington until the Potomac covers the Capitol Rotunda. This is not what was intended.
Someone explain it to me. How is speech any less free because you have to pay good money for the format? Newspapers aren't free, nor are any of the things that go into making them, yet newspapers routinely print whatever they want whenever they want. And not just anyone can afford to run a newspaper; it's often commented that a handful of media bigshots own all the major communications corporations and thus all the mainstream media. Does anyone pretend that newspapers are silent on political decisions? Why can't I get my fair share of the freedom of the press? It's an issue screaming for regulation, I tell ya.
This is STUPID. Because not everyone has equal access to a particular format for political speech, we're going to prevent EVERYONE from using it? Except we're not. In the run-up to the election in Virginia, I saw ads from the two candidates for Governor on the friggin' day of the election.
Ah, but that's "hard money," stamped, sealed and approved by the Man. And who gets to use "hard money"? Why, the candidates' campaigns, of course. Who else is there?
And that's the practical upshot of "campaign finance reform": the polticical class saying smugly to itself: "Who else is there?"
No comments:
Post a Comment