psyconaught said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Absolutely.  As most of us believe it should.

---

at least you admit you want all political speech limited.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Because you weren't seeking out the ad.  It just came on, whether you wanted to watch it or not (you weren't seeking it).

---

Who says I wasn't? Is someone monitoring my actions to decide what I'm actively seeking?

---

It's kind of a stretch to say you were seeking a political ad that happened to pop up during a show you were watching, but even if you were, isn't it's safe to say a majority were not?

---

That depends on how you are defining actively seeking, and I'm still not sure how you are. Does it require that I plan ahead some amount?

You might think that a majority weren't seeking it, but that is subjective. I view using actively seeking as being akin (not the best analogy, I know) to saying that a person is too drunk to drive when they are clearly too drunk to drive as opposed to having a BAC limit. It's subjective, regardless of how obvious you may think it is, it still isn't an objective test.

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

The same argument can be made that if I watch the Simpsons and an episode of South Park comes on afterwards that I didn't actively seek to watch South Park, I just watched it because it came one.

---

It's not the same though.  Because once a new program starts, you're no longer tied to the channel you were watching to see the content you were originally seeking.

---

But have I begun to seek the new content? I'm still not sure how you are defining seeking.

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

Regardless, my point with all of this is just to say that these interpretations that you're offering are not included in your definition. I feel like my interpretation of what actively seeking means is just as valid as yours, and because it isn't clear from the text, any interpretation is useable. This is why a more clear and objective way of defining a political advertisement is needed.

---

I get what you're saying, but I think in most cases people are only considering bits and pieces of the definition, or making up definitions (not actively seeking is not even close to being “forced to watch”).

---

But my interpretation of actively seeking does not hinge on your definition, it can be evaluated separately. I think that if I choose to watch something or want to watch something, then I am actively seeking that content, regardless of how I am exposed to that content. Why is that interpretation objectively false?

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Anyone can say anything they like in their own program, as long as they're not getting paid by a 3rd party to say it.

---

Okay, that makes more sense now. However, once again, I do not think your definition conveys that at all (apologies if this is not the most recent iteration). All these discussions we have about interpretation have to be expressed in the text so that it isn't open to as much interpretation.

"If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content."

Per this definition, as long as a majority of the crowd are not there to hear a political statement then it would be subject to individual contribution limits.

---

I agree with you on this - the current definition could be interpreted both ways.  I'll think about a modification tomorrow, or you can suggest something if you like.

---

Your revised definition below addresses the concern I raised above. However, I still think it is overly vague and applies too broadly. As I read it, nearly any political speech is subject to limitations, from I guy protesting in a park to a billboard to a commercial. How do you evaluate the money spent on speech that doesn't have a clear price tag (e.g. guy in the park protesting)?

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

Opinion doesn't go far enough, IMO. If a statement simply states facts, with no opinion, it could still clearly be an ad. For a quick example, an ad that simply states that Obama cut the deficit in half would clearly support Obama, despite only stating a fact and offering no opinions on the matter.

---

Another good point.  This was the first we’ve talked about “political content”, so I expect it will go through a few iterations. 

---

I don't think it will be an easy task, but we'll see what comes of it.

Enlil said:

Frankly, Fal, you have reached a point where you plug your ears (eyes) to all of the arguments against your test and hum to yourself to cover the sound.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Why do Wooof and I have to keep correcting people on this?

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

psyconaught said:

at least you admit you want all political speech limited.

---

For possibly the 100th time, it's political spending that should be limited.  Why do Wooof and I have to keep correcting people on this?

---

Because you refuse to see that you're, as usual, wrong

---

I'm wrong about me wanting to put a limit on political spending and that I want to limit all political speech instead?

Show us all where I said that, or you're lying about me yet again.  Your lies are really getting old, as you have not once been able to back them up.

Let's see if this is any different. 

BoldAsLove said:

depends on how you are defining actively seeking, and I'm still not sure how you are. Does it require that I plan ahead some amount?

---

BoldAsLove said:

You might think that a majority weren't seeking it, but that is subjective.

---

BoldAsLove said:

How do you evaluate the money spent on speech that doesn't have a clear price tag (e.g. guy in the park protesting)?

---

Quote:

Why do you think a guy protesting in the park would have a price tag?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

depends on how you are defining actively seeking, and I'm still not sure how you are. Does it require that I plan ahead some amount?

---

Good question.  I updated the definition a bit.

BoldAsLove said:

You might think that a majority weren't seeking it, but that is subjective.

---

Majority is objective.  I'm saying I'm not aware of a situation where there would even be a question, and I'm asking for an example of that.  But if there ever were, you could conduct a survey, or something similar.

Take a look at the latest update and see if that answers your current set of questions.

---

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

How do you evaluate the money spent on speech that doesn't have a clear price tag (e.g. guy in the park protesting)?

---

Why do you think a guy protesting in the park would have a price tag?

---

psyconaught said:

do you take into account the price of materials? What about his time? If he makes $20 an hour and is taking time out of his day to protest do you factor in lost income? There are a myriad of ways to be creative with this.

---

Quote:

Spending includes all costs and opportunity costs, except one's own time and labor.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Majority is not the part I have any problems with. It's how you define a desire. That is the subjective part.

By your new definition, I don't think anything at all counts as political speech. If a person desires to watch/see/listen to something, they will. If they don't desire to, they won't. Therefore, anytime a statement is seen, it can be argued that the person desired to see it. Or do you disagree?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Majority is not the part I have any problems with. It's how you define a desire. That is the subjective part.

By your new definition, I don't think anything at all counts as political speech. If a person desires to watch/see/listen to something, they will. If they don't desire to, they won't. Therefore, anytime a statement is seen, it can be argued that the person desired to see it. Or do you disagree?

---

I strongly disagree.  If I'm watching a concert, I have no desire to see political billboards in the concert hall, nor do I have a desire to have the concert stopped so a political ad can be played.  Of course, I'm not trying to stop this from happening - if people pool their money together to do so, then it's ok.

---

BoldAsLove said:

if you are at home, on the street, reading a publication, listening to the radio, you have a million different things that you can do other than watch that statement. If you chose to watch the statement regardless, you obviously had some desire to do so.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

if you are at home, on the street, reading a publication, listening to the radio, you have a million different things that you can do other than watch that statement. If you chose to watch the statement regardless, you obviously had some desire to do so.

---

I agree. And such programs or publications shouldn't be subject to individual spending limits (provided a 3rd party isn’t paying to insert or dictate content).

---

BoldAsLove said:

I'm saying that if you watch something, regardless of whether or not it came on during something else you were watching, it can be said that you had some desire to watch it. Without actually knowing the intentions of every person, how could you say that they had no desire to watch the statement that they chose to watch?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

I'm saying that if you watch something, regardless of whether or not it came on during something else you were watching, it can be said that you had some desire to watch it. Without actually knowing the intentions of every person, how could you say that they had no desire to watch the statement that they chose to watch?

---

I'm saying it depends whether it was an advertisement or the next program.  If it was a political ad, I think it's safe to say a majority of people had no desire to watch it.  If it's the next program, and you choose to keep it on, then you did have a desire to watch that program (but again, not the ads therein).  Sure, I can't say with certainty if 3% of people want to watch the political ads or 20%, but I'm confident it's never "most".  Wouldn't you disagree?

---