Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
well, two questions...
1) if this "documentary" is full of slander, then wouldn't that be in violation of the first amendment? from my understanding, free speach isn't absolute, slander, and things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are not covered.
|
read my last post for the fire-in-a-theater analysis - - I'm not retyping all that
libel / slander / defamation of character are torts, not crimes. They do not violate the first amendment. You have the right to say anything you want, but you must be responsible for the consequences of your actions.
We don't know if this documentary is full of slander since it hasn't aired yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it's chock full of it. However, that would not violate the first amendment, and in order for any action to be taken, the one slandered (Kerry) would have to file a slander / defamation lawsuit against the producers of the documentary, which of course he won't do if he's smart.
Quote:
|
2) if sinclair's showing of this violates campaign laws, then i don't see why the govt. couldnt' stop him.
|
You're right. But that's a big if, and it doesn't violate them.
Quote:
|
if i want to show a movie i made, there are laws that say i can't go into a movie theater and force them to show it, or i can't put a projector up outside and show it on the side of a building without the proper permits.
|
That's very true. However, no one is forcing Sinclair to broadcast this documentary. Sinclair is broadcasting the film on its own stations of its own voilition. Perhaps there's a bit of confusion here. Sinclair is showing the documentary, preempting the network programming. That doesn't mean it's wronging the network. Networks affiliate themselves with local stations so that their programming can get out, but local stations ALWAYS reserve the right to preempt the network and broadcast their own programming. That's how they're able to break in with breaking news or tornado warnings - they're preempting the network.
Now, if the network thinks the affiliate is abusing the power of preemption, then the network is free to pull its affiliation with that station. This would be rather bad for the station because suddenly the station would be responsible for producing ALL of the programming for the whole day - generally the station only has to produce the news shows, and (more and more rarely these days) local kids shows.
In other words, Sinclair is taking a big risk here, because if it pisses off the network too much it stands to lose all but about 4 hours worth of programming, which means 20 hours of every day fail to make them money. They'd be broke within 2 weeks.
However, they're not violating any laws.
Quote:
|
so i guess the questoin is how do you reconcile the what he's doing (if it were to violate the campaign laws) and my examples.
|
I'm not sure who "he" is. if you mean Bush, he's not doing anything. He didn't make the documentary. He didn't force Sinclair to show it. He didn't even ask Sinclair or pay Sinclair to show it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'll get you started
Its pretty cut and dry. You don't need to be in a 'well regulated militia'. Its two seperate thoughts. We need a militia, we need the people to armed to form a militia, so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The only argument is that a militia is outdated (I don't agree with this thought, but liberals think that way), the right to bear arms is clear as day and does not require you to be in a milita to do so.
|
You're dead wrong, but this is not the thread to argue it. Feel free to start another and I'll be happy to debate you for the next 3 months