Issywise:

Oh for God's sake. Your are better than this.

From your post, you appear to believe that "free speech" is basically a government program, and that the government should be aggressively regulating the "speech" market to ensure "fair" representation in that marketplace.

Bullshit. That's a strawman of your own invention that you've thown-up to demonize my position. I'm not advocating any diminution in free speech. I'm advocating improving the marketplace of ideas.

Don't go jumping off a cliff calling me names.

Our government, though, is based upon the idea that power corrupts

So, therefore we can't adopt regulations that provide for a better functining a free marketplace of ideas?

Do you read your own posts? You explicitly state that you want government regulations to provide a better functioning of the marketplace of ideas, but then you attack me for inferring that you view one of government's functions as ensuring the "fairness" of that marketplace. It's not a strawman, it's your own words.

Issywise:

Bullshit again. Law created the properties that are broadcast airway licenses. Law can serve to have them operate as a better marketplace of ideas without empowering incumbents (rather than plutocrats) to use media power to manipulate our democracy. It is the Supreme Court that recently said money is free speech. The Supreme Court can back off from that doctrine in ways that cause no ill effects for free speech.

Why are you so focused on the broadcast airwaves? What year is this? We no longer live in a world of 3 broadcast networks. How many channels does your cable/satellite provider carry? Because I've lost count. Rupert Murdoch saw a market niche for a conservative-oriented cable news channel, and he created one. MSNBC saw the opportunity to create a all-but-admittedly liberal counterweight and tacked accordingly. If the Communist Party wanted to establish a cable channel, and could convince carriers that enough people would watch it, they could establish a cable channel, too.

Issywise:

You are wrong on the "hands-off" absolutist view of free speech. It was a recent (1965) Supreme Court decision that took the courts out of the defamation business for public figures. Prior to 1965, the law acted to regulate false speech by imposing civil liability. It is that change in the law that has turned the media reckless.

Anytime courts consider free speech issues they do not just say that the right is absolute--hands off, but balance the interest served by the exercise of speech against the public interest value of the restraint imposed.

Most folks view NYT v. Sullivan as a good thing, freeing the media to report on matters of public importance without fear of liability for mere negligence. Media "recklessness" is not excused under Sullivan; the press can still be held liable for defamation when they publish with knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.

As for the exceptions the court recognizes to free speech, they generally fall into the category of clear and imminent threats to public safety. Generalized social ills have never been recognized as exceptions to free speech, for should they be.

Issywise:

The Hillary infomercial is an example of time regulation. If the people behind the movie had wanted to contribute to a healthy discussion of issues, they'd have released their movie earlier and avoided the FEC limitation on late release thereby providing an opportunity for responsive speech. There is an interest in having political speech presented so that rational consideration of it can take place--I believe a compelling interest.

Who cares what their motive was? HRC is a politician, and maybe they just really hate her and want to see her fail in her effort to gain office. No one has an obligation to speak in a way that's fair; if their goal is to stop her from getting elected, the most effective way to do that could be to run it on the eve of the election. And where does this purported principle of yours end? What if, on the eve of an eelction, the media finds out a candidate was arrested for a DUI five years previously? Should they not be able to publish the story because the candidate won't have a chance to respond?

Campaign finance reform is one of those things that sounds great in practice, but simply is not consistent with the First Amendment.

As for the "money isn't speech" argument, that's just silly. Effective communication requires money.

Issywise:

Like I said, you jumped off a cliff howling insults at me with that argument.

Don't be so sensitive. No one insulted you.

Issywise:

Nonesense. There are ever fewer gatekeepers to access to a mass audience as time goes on. A free press exists if your name is Murdock or Sulzberger. Every day access to the national media by others is diminished some. Moreover, those gatekeepers are becoming less principled about maintaining a healthy marketplace of ideas.

Again, your speech is not unfree simply because it's not popular enough to get printed in for-profit publications or on for-profit televisoin programs. Speech becomes unfree when the government actively prevents you from engaging in it, which is what CFR does.

Also, I'd posit that the method with which we are communicating with each other is the greatest tool of free speech since the printing press, and possibly ever. (And not surprisingly, governments around the world, including our own, have shown a keen interest in regulating it).