Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
That is a fantastic diagnosis, doctor - I'm sure you didn't leap to any conclusions there at all.
Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.
Actually have you found any private details in the publicized materials or are you just theorizing?
Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.
For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.
But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.
Nothing like proving your critics right while also accomplishing a lot of nothing.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics"
That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.
Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech
It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!
Do you even listen to yourself?
You want the government to limit speech, but you don't have the personal integrity to say it out loud. What are you afraid of? Explain how you'd reconcile the censorship you desire with the first amendment. But you'll pretend, once again, that you didn't see anyone asking you to face the music. Pretty childish way of admitting you're wrong, but I guess it's one way for you to do it. Glad you've come to your senses.
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.