netmouse | (no subject)

(no subject)

Does anyone besides me wish there was a rule that television broadcasters had to pull/cancel political advertising that was demonstrated to contain out-and-out lies?

I mean, somewhere in there where you get a broadcasting license, you agree to serve the public. Permitting deceptive advertising just because you've received your pieces of silver is not serving the public.

ETA: this post is in reaction to this ad, which as discussed here posits a lot of things unrelated to Prop 8 as an argument for it, as though it defends people in the state against things other than the state's recognition of the right of gay couples to get and be married. Further discussion here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm of the opinion that the restraints on political speech we already have are unconstitutional. And I don't really want to re-open the first amendment and try to rewrite it; I don't think I'd like the result.

Yes, rich people who choose to use their money that way can have more impact on public policy than poor people. Many attempts to fix that end up preventing ordinary people from joining together to make their voices heard.

Put your effort into cleaning up lobbying, is my advice; that's a much more important way in which people with money get disproportionate power.

We already have plenty of restraints on speech... especially when dealing with television... I happen to believe that a modicum of restraint on political speech of any of it is a lot more important than making sure little johnny doesn't hear the fuck or see a boob.

I'm not saying to run everything through a screener but even something as "simple" as at least at the presidential level all "commercials" must be submitted with a fact check sheet backing up their assertations. Sure, they can spin a lot of things...but I don't want to really stop things just make it more difficult for out right lies.

I think lobbying would clear up if the people in power actually knew about the issues and had knowledge of things.

I think lobbying would clear up if the people in power actually knew about the issues and had knowledge of things.

Because then they would turn down free home improvements, "fact finding" vacations with their families and nice dinners on the lobbyists' tab?

Oh no not at all... that is a factor of ethics... which is sorely lacking in all of our "leaders."

But we have people sitting on the finance committee who have no business knowledge/economic background/etc... as just one example.

Heaven forbid if we elect people who are knowledgeable about the issues they speak about... for President we elect a economics/international relations expert... just as an example.

Why do we elect lawyers? They make up a larger proportion of law makers...it makes no sense... the people expected to make the laws are the same people who stand to make the most out of making the laws as confusing and out of touch of the common people....

how about... before any law can be sent to the president we add another layer in their... a random body drawn from a pool of people say 7... every 6 months who read each law... if they don't understand it....not agree just understand it and be able to read it... this group of 7 must include 1 person from 6 geographically different regions and 1 person under the age of 16. Laws should be understandable by a 12 year old imo.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but... I'm going to defend lawyers as lawmakers. Because legal language really is kind of a specialty. It's a specialty that can be learned (and usually is, over the course of a legislative career), but it isn't as simply as speaking, and due to the nature of what's at stake, a law can't always be written for a 12 year olds understanding. There are historical cases, though rare, of life-or-death court decisions hinging entirely on the placement of a comma, and lawyers are those who have devoted themselves to the study of the logic, the languague, and the tradition in which legal phrasing will be interpretted and - therefore - really are the most qualified to draft law.

this is where I disagree... of course I look at things differently... I'm not saying you're wrong..because in the view that you're taking... you are very much correct.

But I look at things and say...hey this is broken... this is how it should be... I really don't care that this is how things work and because of all the history behind it... laws have gotten to the point that they need to be done by specialized people...

but sit back... and ask yourself... should a life or death decision come down to a comma? Or should it come down to a person using their judgement... someone ethical and knowledgeable?

Of course, I also believe I can create a society where people are ethical, loving, understanding and open minded... it will never happen :( but i still prefer my world. :)

I prefer your world as well, don't get me wrong. And the current system *IS* broken. As for the comma... hard to say. The case I'm referencing was (if I recall... it's been a while) a case of treason in WWI or WWII Britain, and the law in question was atleast 150+ years old. It was all really a technicality and the guy was obviously guilty as hell of treason. The only question left was whether or not to hang him.

See the question of the comma really comes down to one of repeatability. We do need legal language so that the law can, figuratively speaking, be written in stone. While I applaud your judgement ideal, I can't see it working in a republic of 300+ million people. Because the question becomes WHICH people are going to be doing that deciding? People who think abortion is murder under ALL circumstances, and those who feel otherwise should be locked away? Someone who feels that everything is okay, as long as you feel sorry afterwards? Someone who thinks that people who aren't his/her color aren't REALLY human beings? Someone who thinks animal lives are more worthwhile than human lives and, therefore, more worth protecting? They are all extremes, but they are people, and they are all people in this country, and they could all be the people in question, exercising their judgement. I'd rather have that comma in place so that it atleast gives a very strong guidepost for them to work from *AND* accountability from higher courts to answer to.

So the legislators should hire lawyers as advisors/drafters. I have no problem with that; hiring technical experts for their expertise is a good thing.

But the fact that someone is supposedly good at understanding (or writing) laws isn't any reason to believe they're good at deciding which laws should be written.

And the next time I see an Income Tax bill that isn't shortly followed by a Technical Corrections Act will be the first. So much for their ability to write laws correctly.

True. A well-written law and a "good" law are far from the same things. Unfortunately, mileage varies on what people consider a "good" law. Which is pretty much the entire point of a democracy.

And while no, being able to understand legal language DOESN'T mean you are going to be good at deciding while laws "should" be written (in your - or my opinion), it does mean that between two representatives, both of whom are closer to YOUR opinion of which law is good, the one with the better understanding of legal language and systems will be the one who more agrees with you AND is more likely to actually GET STUFF DONE. Which is why there is a disproportionate number of lawyers IN the Congress. That and, ya know... it's a bootstraps situation of law and politics and connections.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pack the Congress with lawyers. I want there to be lawyers and businessmen and rabble rousing populists with nothing going for them but a quick wit and a passionate constituency. I want them all in there, punching it out and playing nice, making friends and making enemies, helping each other and spiting each other. Because, ideally, they are representing the citizenry and, when the dust settles, the law that exists and is ratified should resemble something that is in keeping with our constitution and is also something that MOST of us kinda like and ALL of us (or almost all of us) can live with.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only