Playing right into his hands . . .
Apparently Section 100.29 of McCain-Feingold is being reviewed by the ever-sensible FCC [who has yet to comment on the WaPo using "fuck" -- literally, no @#!% or ...] to determine if he can advertise his filim within 30 or 60 or somedamthing days of the election/conventions/Washington's Birthday. You know how I feel about F911 and thatLet me rephrase that; I'm not appalled, I'm furious. I can't believe we are even discussing this. We have six men sitting in an office somewhere, deciding if they should censor a movie because it's too political! Let's review, shall we? "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." That's not so hard, is it? It's quite easy, actually... you simply don't make laws abridging the freedom of speech! What the fuck is the matter with these people?
Well said. And perfectly true. And the very best way to make little Mikey wet himself with glee. It is pandering in an almost pornographic degree to MMoore's paranoid flavor of narcissism. He will be the darling of all the news conferences/channels/shows decrying the "censorship of the gooooooovernment!" "Bushitler is trying to shut Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee up!! It's like a double hot fudge macaroni and cheese and salami and ribs and donuts and kielbassa and cake and spaghetti and stew and french fry and fried egg and ham and bacon and BigMac sandwich for the boy. With extra mayo.
It’s not really the FCC.... blame our Congress for passing the stupid McCain-Feingold law that abridges free speech. The FCC is just trying to figure out when it applies.
The law basically says you can’t pay for political ads if ‘s within 60 days of an election. Does that apply to Moore? To Rush Limbaugh? To ME? If it applies to me, it’s unconstitutional.
Bush should have never signed it; he said he had misgivings, and I guess he expected the Supreme Court to strike it down, which it didn’t. Bad idea all around.
Posted by Michael on 06/25/04 at 03:46 PMblame our Congress for passing the stupid McCain-Feingold
Oh, I *do*...My understanding was that a *corporation* cannot pay for an ad but an *inbdividual* can—right? FCC is not the only confused ones around here…
Posted by Claire on 06/26/04 at 02:13 AMThe President does share some responsibility for this, since almost the entire reason for having a President in the first place is to have them veto some things, some of the time. He vetos no legislation, ever, no matter how blatantly illegal it is. The SCOTUS is supposed to be the next line of defense, but there’s no reason for him to have placed any trust in them. I’m starting to hate him almost as much as I did the first time I voted for him.
Posted by Dave Munger on 06/26/04 at 02:20 PMI’m starting to hate him almost as much as I did the first time I voted for him.
no kiddin’!
*frantically searches horizon for someone to vote for with whom I agree on more than one issue*
Posted by Claire on 06/27/04 at 03:20 AM
Next entry: Cheney Update:
Previous entry: Outdoor Blogging -- it's good for the soul
