Comments on: Online Freedom of Speech Act — Delayed?

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:56:34 +0000

Maybe so. The stand I make is that I simply won’t comply.

If we want to make a stand with a veto, though, I’d prefer we stand on the side of stopping them from infringing on liberty, not on the side of upholding infringements on liberty.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:43:20 +0000

The problem is, we are accepting as legitimate the legislature’s right to make laws regulating freedom of speech. You have to take a stand somewhere.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:35:34 +0000

Eric,
They never should have passed McCain-Feingold, which is an abridgement of speech. But at the least, HR 1606 would help to protect speech. McCain-Feingold should have been vetoed, but considering it’s still standing, I’ll support every legislative chance we have to gut that piece of trash.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:20:56 +0000

Either bill, if passed, should be vetoed. Since the First Amendment prohibits any law abridging freedom of speech. We don't need any laws on the subject whatsoever, the First Amendment takes care of the issue. Of course, that would assume that we actually believe the Constitution is anything other than a 220 year old document, which is apparently the only thing we, as a country, think it means any more.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:10:42 +0000

The whole spectacle of the the Congress debating who gets free speech protection and who doesn’t is appalling.

The only value in either of these bills is if they generate a law suit that winds up killing McCain/Feingold.