(in which case, accuser or accused, the least popular person is the one who suffers)
I notice you don't provide any stats to back up that bland assertion. The connection of a rape charge (even obliquely) is sufficient to ruin your life. A lot of the damage is done *prior* to being vindicated. Does the innocent party get reimbursed for the loss of time/freedom/property/job/friends/acquaintences? No. It's gone.
i stopped reading here
No you didn't. But you're pretending you did so that you can avoid having to actually do what you're being challenged to do: come up with your version of a government law that limits speech while not violating the first amendment. You know you can't do it, so you're pretending you didn't see that part.
Everything else you're saying is you trying to distract from the fact that what you want is irreconcilable with the constitution. So that you can avoid confronting that reality, you're just blathering. This is exactly what you did when presented with contextual facts surrounding the second amendment. The moment you're asked to reconcile your agenda with the constitution, you have a fit and leave, so that you don't have to demonstrate that your position is untenable.
Too bad. Not letting you off the hook. Try again:
How would you write a law that empowers the government to prevent speech, without changing the first amendment? Be specific.
the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies
No, the law said absolutely nothing about the content of the political speech. You know this, so saying that it was about "lies" is you: lying. The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.
What the law did say was that if you, yourself, personally, ran an ad in the local newspaper to say that, maybe, you think gay marriage shouldn't be illegal, and that congressional candidate (or party) X is wrong for saying it should be illegal
your stunning naivete
Blah blah blah
Since you can't manage to defend your position on constitutional grounds, why not try this: propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics
OK, I'll save you the trouble: you can't write a law that uses government power to shut people up unless you violate the first amendment. So we get to what you really want: you want to trash the first amendment. Just admit it, you'll feel much better not having to pretend you mean something else, and knowing that everybody can see right through your little charade.
no one is telling anyone not to talk
The law that was struck down did exactly that. It made it a federal crime for some people, and not others, to talk. You know this, so why are you lying?
what is being said is that your speech should rise and fall on its merit alone
But because you can't get enough people to find your personal ideas to have enough merit to "rise," you want the government to stop other people from gathering together to speak their minds? You don't want merit, you want to use government force to make other people silent because you don't like what someone else has to say.
they are stopped
How? They are prevented from running web sites? No. Prevented from using social media? No. Prevented from doing what you're doing right now? No. But under the law you say you prefer, they WERE prevented, by the government, from expressing political opinions
you're trying to deny a very obvious fact: that money can influence opinion unfairly
It's only unfair when people like you use the power of the government to pick and choose which groups of people are allowed to communicate. You want to trash the first amendment so that political appointees working in the FEC can choose to prosecute someone for running that page-two ad, while MSNBC can spend half an hour on the air expressing the opinion you prefer. Are you really so foolish that you think your hypocrisy on this isn't completely transparent? Are you so unable to find merit in your own opinions or your ability coherently communicate them that you'd prefer to take away other people's rights to speak, just so you don't have to get your act together? Talk about craven intellectual laziness.
people are easy to confuse and don't have the time to research topics
So instead of using your constitutionally protected rights to assemble with like minded people and speak to your heart's content in order to inform and persuade others to see things they way you'd like, you're opting for "people are dumb, so we need the government to silence others with whom I disagree." Right out of every totalitarian's playbook. Hope you're proud of yourself.
those who derive cash from unfair sources
Ah, now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You don't think it's fair that other people make money in ways of which you don't approve. Are you talking about criminals? Then you should be supporting the prosecution of crime, not the destruction of the constitution's protection from government muzzling of free speech. But then, people who know they don't have a persuasive message always look to use force to prevent others from saying things. You're in good company with lots of tinpot dictators, fascists, and other totalitarians throughout history. It's a good thing the people who wrote the constitution had just had lots of experience with people just like you, and constructed a national charter that prevents people like you from using government force to silence those you don't like.
you do understand people lie in the service of their agenda, right?
Of course, people do it all the time. I've watched you do it here, many times. But would you prefer that the government stop you from being able to talk?
keep people dumb and divided, and you can keep robbing them
Which is exactly why we have a First Amendment. So that the government can't be in the business of shutting down speech.
this notion that money is the equivalent of speech is stupid and laughable
So why do you keep perpetuating a false idea? Money isn't speech, speech is speech. And you want to get more people to hear what you have to say, you're going to have to get what you want to say out in front of a larger audience. What's your suggestion
People who have good enough ideas to attract the support of others, so that they can voice their opinions in concert, aren't stopped from doing so. But the law you seem to prefer was shutting them up. If your ideas can't seem to get any support from other people, I guess I can see why you'd be in favor of the government silencing other people. Luckily, we have a constitution that doesn't allow that.
you can pay large amounts to have ads run on a particular issue that just so happens to be one of the core parts of a particular candidate's campaign platform
Yes. Imagine that! Expressing your opinion about politics! This must be stopped! We can't have people saying what they think. And we certainly can't allow them to assemble as a group and speak their minds about a political topic on which they share an opinion. Unacceptable! That pesky first amendment is dangerous and must be taken away!
Why are you so emotional about it?
Because it was a reckless stunt in the service of a guy who wants to limit free speech. I consider his motivations to be wrong-headed, and thus his willingness to risk other people's lives in pursuit of his agenda to be especially obnoxious.
Yes, "dodgy." The very nature of that aircraft is that it's especially delicate, particularly susceptible to unexpected changes in wind conditions, and particularly dangerous to bystanders if it comes down in an uncontrolled way. It's a big weed-eater.
would have been legal over Atlanta
Actually no, it would not have. You're confusing the FAA's requirements for (or lack of them, for certain machines) a pilot's license with their take on reckless operation. The best footage of this idiot's approach to the capital lawn was taken from within a group of students standing one twitch of his control stick from being what he landed on. Never mind his deliberate violation of the DC FRZ, which brings very real risks to the people around him as he flies a machine in a place where he's very much at risk of having his aircraft shot out of the sky.
Speed? He was going plenty fast enough to kill someone, even without the exposed lawnmower blades.
Why do you hate helicopters?
Why pretend I've said or implied something I haven't? It's the behavior, not the tool. Gyrocopters don't kill people, gyrocopter pilots do.
Should they all be banned from urban areas? If not, you are a lying hypocrite.
I think they should be subject to exactly the same rules that govern the flight of a Piper Cub (though the Cub is much safer).
It's a lot easier to be heard when you have money
Right. It's a lot easier to hand out leaflets if you have a printing press. Can't afford one? Have a good enough message that people who DO have a printing press will agree with you and help to print some stuff up. Or help air an ad, etc.
This is what was wrong with the law the court struck down: it was preventing people from gathering together and pooling their resources to speak in a more organized way. Counter-constitutional on many levels, and absolutely deserved the fate that it got. And you're exactly correct about the hypocrisy when it's the left's darlings throwing around big piles of money.
After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed.