|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21630595 - 05/03/15 03:12 PM (9 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Well so far, under your test, an owner of a TV station, magazine, or newspaper can have all of the political commentary they want. The rich need only buy a share of stock in all of those companies, and they are owners.
But a share of stock isn't going to give anyone the authority to determine what the company will print. It's not like the Times will say "gee, I guess you own one share of the Times, so we'll have to print your story about Sarah Palin on our cover".
Quote:
Enlil said: This makes them not 3rd parties according to you, so they can then put as much money as they want into their media companies and have as much political content as they want.
If someone owns enough of a media station to control the content, then yes, they can print what they want. But it won't do them any good unless people are seeking out their information.
Quote:
Enlil said: On the other hand, however, anyone with a bumper sticker or T-shirt with political content falls under your test, so one must determine the fair market value of such advertising and put that into the total.
Sure, but that's a whole lot of bumper stickers individuals can put on their car.
Quote:
Enlil said: The rich will still be able to control the message, and the poor will be subject to the whims of biased enforcement.
The rich can't dictate the content of anything unless they own most of the company, and they can't shove it in front of anyone who isn't interested in viewing their content. And the poor can stick hundreds of bumper stickers on their car before reaching the contribution limit.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Then change your test to reflect these new rules and state the new test, please.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21631001 - 05/03/15 05:26 PM (9 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Please have a look at the O.P. of the "What is a Political Ad?" thread. It has all the most updated rules:
Quote:
If political content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it, or if a 3rd party puts a political statement into content people actively seek, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
I'm not exactly sure what you think needs to be updated? My answers are all based on looking at this statement.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Your last post changed the rules. You said that an owner was not a 3rd party under your test. Now you're saying something different.
This test you quoted above is a huge departure from what we have been discussing, BTW, and is even worse for the poor.
Under this new test, all political content is banned from TV. All it takes is two people not actively seeking it, and it's subject to the individual spending limit which is clearly going to be less than it costs a station to air the content.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21631523 - 05/03/15 07:38 PM (9 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Your last post changed the rules. You said that an owner was not a 3rd party under your test. Now you're saying something different.
A media station can put out whatever content it likes, as long as a 3rd party isn't paying them to do it. If a shareholder has to pay his company to put a political statement into the programming, then he is not acting as an owner, but as a 3rd party. Any court should recognize that.
Quote:
Enlil said: This test you quoted above is a huge departure from what we have been discussing, BTW, and is even worse for the poor.
Under this new test, all political content is banned from TV. All it takes is two people not actively seeking it, and it's subject to the individual spending limit which is clearly going to be less than it costs a station to air the content.
What kind of a program do people watch that they don't want to watch?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
The rule you quoted doesn't support your interpretation. And everything on television has content that at least two viewers didn't actively seek out. Otherwise, all ratings would be perfect.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21632829 - 05/04/15 12:19 AM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What kind of a program do people watch that they don't want to watch?
when you flip through the channels you are always perfectly aware of absolutely everything you are going to skim by?
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21632909 - 05/04/15 12:44 AM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: The rule you quoted doesn't support your interpretation. And everything on television has content that at least two viewers didn't actively seek out. Otherwise, all ratings would be perfect.
I disagree. If you pay your own company to put a political statement in front of people, then you're clearly NOT acting as an owner/officer, but as a 3rd party. If you care to rewrite the rule to something you agree with more, that'd be great.
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
What kind of a program do people watch that they don't want to watch?
when you flip through the channels you are always perfectly aware of absolutely everything you are going to skim by?
No, of course not. But that doesn't qualify as "actively seeking" the content.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,475
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21632996 - 05/04/15 01:13 AM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Under this new test, all political content is banned from TV. All it takes is two people not actively seeking it, and it's subject to the individual spending limit which is clearly going to be less than it costs a station to air the content.
Firstly, let's clarify. Nothing is getting banned. Absolutely nothing. The correct terminology would be 'limiting' political content on tv. There would still be plenty by the way. There are many many ways to put out political speech, within these rules, that isn't subject to any sort of penalty.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 If political content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it, or if a 3rd party puts a political statement into content people actively seek, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
I think you should remove the part that says 'then the statement is an ad', and just write something to the effect of, 'such spending will be subject to the political spending cap'. Things get confusing when you expand the definition of the word 'ad', I think.
I was thinking more on the subject of the editorials we were talking about previously. I was thinking maybe something to the effect of, 'political speech that presents itself in a manner indistinguishable from methods employed by a political campaign is subject to the cap' might be usable. I'm sure it could be reworded in a more effective way.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/04/15 01:34 AM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21633619 - 05/04/15 07:39 AM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: Firstly, let's clarify. Nothing is getting banned.
Use whatever word you want, but the effect is the same. Any political content that a TV station airs will be put in front of at least two people not actively seeking it. That makes it subject to "limitation". That limitation will certainly be less than the thousands it costs to air that content.
Call it a ban, or call it a limitation. If it's the latter, it acts exactly like a ban.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21634593 - 05/04/15 12:31 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I think you should remove the part that says 'then the statement is an ad', and just write something to the effect of, 'such spending will be subject to the political spending cap'. Things get confusing when you expand the definition of the word 'ad', I think.
Great point! Done:
Quote:
If political content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it, or if a 3rd party puts a political statement into content people actively seek, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I was thinking more on the subject of the editorials we were talking about previously. I was thinking maybe something to the effect of, 'political speech that presents itself in a manner indistinguishable from methods employed by a political campaign is subject to the cap' might be usable. I'm sure it could be reworded in a more effective way.
I think any political editorial would be hard to distinguish from campaign material. The key point is whether a 3rd party pays a media outlet to air such content.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21634607 - 05/04/15 12:34 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Any political content that a TV station airs will be put in front of at least two people not actively seeking it. That makes it subject to "limitation".
Not sure why you think that. If I choose to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I'm actively seeking such content. If I don't want to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I won't watch him.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said: Any political content that a TV station airs will be put in front of at least two people not actively seeking it. That makes it subject to "limitation".
Not sure why you think that. If I choose to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I'm actively seeking such content. If I don't want to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I won't watch him. 
not if you accidentally run across his show while channel surfing. You then ingest the material, even if its for a short amount of time, while not actively seeking it. You make the assumption that every piece of media ever is intentionally consumed.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21634662 - 05/04/15 12:50 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
then turn off your TV.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: akira_akuma]
#21634750 - 05/04/15 01:09 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I think we're all in agreement regarding intent. If people make an effort to view something with a political message, then that message is not subject to individual spending limits unless it is paid for by a 3rd party.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
according to your test as long as SOME people don't actively seek it then it is subject to a spending limit. This includes absolutely all political press.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
You must really be a tyrant at home if everything on your television is what you're actively seeking. Most households have a more compromising policy.
Everything on television is put in front of at least two people who aren't actively seeking it
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21636666 - 05/04/15 08:07 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If I choose to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I'm actively seeking such content. If I don't want to watch Rush Limbaugh, then I won't watch him. 
not if you accidentally run across his show while channel surfing. You then ingest the material, even if its for a short amount of time, while not actively seeking it. You make the assumption that every piece of media ever is intentionally consumed.
Exactly!!! If you run across Rush Limbaugh while channel surfing, then you are not actively seeking it and so his program would not be subject to contribution limits.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21636671 - 05/04/15 08:08 PM (9 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: You must really be a tyrant at home if everything on your television is what you're actively seeking. Most households have a more compromising policy.
I agree! See my previous post.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Your previous post is contrary to your stated test. If anyone runs across rush without seeking it, it's subject to the limitation according to YOUR test.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|