BoldAsLove said:

do you intend to ask them every time new content is aired?

This has nothing to do with a majority v. the individual. The word in question here is "desire" and how it is defined. You have previously said that if a person watches a TV show then they likely desire to watch it, but if a person watches an ad, they don't. Why are the person's actions (which are extremely similar in both cases) leading you to two very different conclusions?

This, in my mind, is crucial to your definition. Unless you want to take a survey for every piece of new media that comes out, you need to have an objective way of defining whether or not people desire to watch it.

---

BoldAsLove said:

you haven't actually answered it as this has nothing to do with a majority of people.

---

BoldAsLove said:

This question brings up the other point which you seem to be trying to make, in that ads are somehow different from other content. Can you objectively describe how they differ and how you can tell an ad from other content?

you've said if a person consumes some form of media (movie, tv show, etc.) they desired to do so, but the same is not true for an ad. What is your test for determining if something was an ad or not (and therefore if someone desired to view it or not)?

---

BoldAsLove said:

I completely understand your point. But you admit that your law would send people to jail for a particular type of political speech, the expensive kind. I think sending people to jail solely for any non-violent kind of political speech is so outrageously unacceptable that if such a law were to pass in this country (and somehow ruled Constitutional) I would move away, never to return.

---

Ok, we can disagree about this; the main point of this discussion is whether or not this could even be workable.  Now I understand why you're arguing points that don't make much sense (that a majority of people might desire to see paid political content with their program/publication). 

akira_akuma said:

make your own television and/or radio station's.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

That's because we have expanded the limitations beyond advertisements. Falcon previously had an outline that addressed 'ads', but we are after more than just ads.

---

'after more than just ads.....hmmmmmmm...... I guess adding censors to review books and approve them based on whether or not they contain government
allowed political statements....you

while we are at it, perhaps they can have TV an newspaper monitors to approve whats written. 

And the next thing you know each time you cross a county line you stop at an inspection station and show the government man your 'papers'

Bigbadwooof said:

Ok, Television stations will have a monopoly on speech, as they already do, to some extent.

---

Quote:

However, wealthy people will no longer have a monopoly on speech.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

So the position of you and your buddy is:

Free speech for me and mine, fuck the rest of you.

---

Well, for some people, there is nothing auite like a goverment man up everyone's asshole 24-7 with a microscope, and leading everyone around by a nose ring and controlling every aspect of their life. 

Because everyone is too stupid to think for themselves except liberal elitists.....

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

You seem to think that approximately 50% of people want to have paid political content added to the programming or publications they are viewing and that it's going to be a tossup each time paid political content comes on.  I say let's take a poll on The Pub, and see approximately how many people would like to have paid political programming inserted into the program or publication they are watching.  I'll bet it comes no where near 50%.

---

Quote:

Because if I desire to watch basketball, I'll turn the tv channel to the basketball game.  If I desire to watch political ads, I'll go to the Internet to watch all the political ads I desire.  Sure some people might like both, but it's not 50%.

---

Quote:

Ok, we can disagree about this; the main point of this discussion is whether or not this could even be workable.  Now I understand why you're arguing points that don't make much sense (that a majority of people might desire to see paid political content with their program/publication). 

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Quote:

If this were the end result of such a system, TV stations having a monopoly on speech, I think you'd have a much worse scenario than we currently have.

---

TV stations already have a monopoly on television. That is the only place they would have a monopoly. If you want to get rid of that then you're really going to be limiting speech.

---

starfire_xes said:

'after more than just ads.....hmmmmmmm...... I guess adding censors to review books and approve them based on whether or not they contain government
allowed political statements....you

while we are at it, perhaps they can have TV an newspaper monitors to approve whats written.

And the next thing you know each time you cross a county line you stop at an inspection station and show the government man your 'papers'

---

luvdemshrooms said:

So the position of you and your buddy is:

Free speech for me and mine, fuck the rest of you.

---

Serious question:  With the current proposal, how do you feel the poor would get more free speech than the wealthy? 

BoldAsLove said:

Let me start fresh and try to explain this a different way, because I'm clearly not explaining this in a way that makes sense to you.

My argument, summed up is: your test is subjective. There is no two ways around it. Your definition is based entirely upon whether or not people desire to watch something. You could measure this objectively with a survey for every new piece of political content produced, but that is completely unreasonable. Since we can't measure it objectively, is there another way we can determine it? You say yes; people never desire to watch ads (or at the very least, a majority don't).

Your definition for what a person does or does not desire to watch thus hinges entirely on how whether or not the media in question is an advertisement. I've asked several times now, and I've yet to see (maybe I missed it, if so, link?) how you define an ad in an objective manner. Just like you've offered this definition for how to determine if something is political, you should provide a similar objective definition to determine if people are desiring to watch something.

Does what I'm saying make sense? You need a way to describe things objectively and saying "a majority of people will never desire to watch ads" without even defining what an ad is, is hardly objective.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Any broadcast program or publication is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit.

If a majority of people desire to see political content in any particular venue, then there would be no spending limits on that content either.

---

Political statements are those which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.

A 3rd party is anyone not acting on behalf of the publication or production.  A 3rd party can pay a political publication/program to insert or dictate non-political content.

---

BoldAsLove said:

There are certainly ways to punish and deter people without sending them to jail for non-violent speech.

---

How would you deter rich people? 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

In summary, what wooof and I are saying is (bear with me, I know you don't agree):

Quote:

Quote:

Any broadcast program or publication is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit.

If a majority of people desire to see political content in any particular venue, then there would be no spending limits on that content either.

---

Political statements are those which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.

A 3rd party is anyone not acting on behalf of the publication or production.  A 3rd party can pay a political publication/program to insert or dictate non-political content.

---

I understand it's not possible to say precisely how many people want to see paid political content, but I'll bet if the people who want to make this work did flash cards, we'd all agree on when the majority of people would want to see an ad and when they wouldn't.  But since you disagree, I'd love to hear variations on the above to make it work better.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

There are certainly ways to punish and deter people without sending them to jail for non-violent speech.

---

How would you deter rich people? 

---

BoldAsLove said:

Massive fines and/or sanction on business would work wonders for making the cost of political ads just far too high to be worth it. Keep in mind here, when I say 'massive' I really do mean outrageously high penalties. Why do you think that wouldn't work as a deterrent?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

luvdemshrooms said:

So the position of you and your buddy is:

Free speech for me and mine, fuck the rest of you.

---

Serious question:  With the current proposal, how do you feel the poor would get more free speech than the wealthy?

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Free speech for me and mine, fuck the rest of you.

---

Serious question:  With the current proposal, how do you feel the poor would get more free speech than the wealthy?

---

An even more serious question: Why do you frequently make shit up? Is English your second language or do you simply feel truth and accuracy doesn't matter?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Free speech for me and mine, fuck the rest of you.

---

Serious question:  With the current proposal, how do you feel the poor would get more free speech than the wealthy?

---

An even more serious question: Why do you frequently make shit up? Is English your second language or do you simply feel truth and accuracy doesn't matter?

---

Then who did you mean by "me and mine" and "the rest of you"?  If not the poor and rich?

And how are "the rest of you" getting fucked any more than "me and mine" by the proposal in this thread?  What do "me and mine" get that others don't?

---