(V): This country has an ingenious set up, (or it DID originally, unfortunately we have a socialist dictator who sees differently), where there are (simply) 3 levels of government. Federal, State, and Local. The Federal level was NEVER intended to INTRUDE upon our lives the way it is starting to do. Really, the level CLOSEST to the common person is the one that should be most involved in our lives. You don't like what your local government is doing, you either vote them out, or you MOVE to an area that is suitable to what you want.

Stupid votes like the volume of TV commercials irritate me, and if I find out that someone I CAN vote for was responsible for wasting the federal government's time with it then I will certainly keep that in mind with the next election. Now, the FCC is a totally different thing. THAT was set up for that sort of thing, and if THEY had regulated on it? Well, I would probably feel differently. (I'm NOT against people lowering the volume on commercials. LOL. I agree completely, it's annoying. It's NOT the job of the SENATE to decide that though.)

I find this an hilarious conversation on free speech

it sure as hell doesn't happen in here does it, when your opinions have to be passed by someone who thinks they are a higher being.

I wonder if this will get passed.....

Sounds like if you have a big business and like to trample on the little people.. move your business to the USA!!

Vikings: Really?

It sounds like the only free 'people' are the big companies who you'll let trample all over you anytime, anyplace.. anywhere..... As long as local law says it's ok.. even if they might be bought (as has happened in the past)... you have no rights but to lobby (timely) or move.

.. That's really great... NOT!!

(V): it's obvious that you don't understand the meaning of the UNITED STATES, Each state has the right to make up their own own laws, you see the constitution was designed to protect us, the citizens, from the federal government over reaching it's authority, that is why we are truly a free country

Vikings: Within the law?? Now you are saying you can trespass and affect mob rule on a business.

"local business here have been run out of town by not being citizen friendly."

What happened to free speech??

(V): and since you have brought this example up, look at New York, they are loosing many of their highest tax base because they do not like what the local government is doing and the town will suffer untill the will of the people have worked their magic

(V): bussiness have the right to do whatever is within the law,you are twisting it all around, local business here have been run out of town by not being citizen friendly.

and I wouldn't want to live in such a corrupt town , they wouldn't be getting my tax money for long, as it is my right to live where I want to live

Vikings: IF it did happen you are powerless you are saying... I mean, some councilmen might have a nice job lined up after via the advertising company and not give a damn. Lobbying can take a while...

.. basically it sounds like you are saying businesses have the right to do whatever and your rights don't matter as it's a business?

(V): That won;t liklely happen as even city councilmen like to be re-elected, and that wouldn't be very likely the case once you brought it up to the attention of the local media, but if that wasn't to be the case, you'd have the right to put up with it or move or lobby against it

Vikings: So if the local gov was bought out ... then what?

(V): yes you can, it is called local jurisdiction, a city ordinance which is different
but you were talking about the federal government not local government, try again

Vikings: Ok.. but someone could if they wanted to place an advert 100 feet tall (with permission of the land owners) opposite your house selling say.. "Obama healthcare works" in neon lights.. and you can't do anything?

(V): it is a criminal offense here, the severity depends on the situation, ie. inside or outside

Vikings: Isn't trespassing in the USA a civil offence like here in the UK.

ie sellers can still knock.. especially if they have no morals... which isn't unusual considering past records on what they will try and get upto.

Tuesday: I agree it's tasteless, just like flag burning and mosques 2 blocks from ground zero.
Our constitution never guaranteed that anything would be easy

Advert just on UK TV.....

A blonde woman dancing with moves suggesting the injection of drugs... she speaks claiming she is our addiction for a perfume who's name is based on opium.

Gee.. why not not just name it Eu da heroin!!

Tuesday: I am posting a sign that warns of trespassing, just like you can do by turning the chanel or complaining and boycotting that particular channel

Vikings: Unfortunately, it also means that some whako church group can stand outside a funeral of a fallen soldier and spew tasteless messages

Tuesday: Yes, unless I post clearly a "No soliciting" sign. And that happens all the time, every time someone makes news, the media camp out on that persons lawn until the story no longer fills their needs

Vikings: First it was free speech.. now it's "speech".

Make up your mind!!

Tuesday: selling is a right, it is in the constitution, it's called THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

(V): if you look it up on wikipedia you would find out that it was in fact judges that took that right away
and tell me how a comercial is not a form of speech, you can't

Tuesday: Its a privilage to drive, its a privilage to purchase a t.v., its a right to talk

Vikings: They were talking about free speech not adverts... you have given NO proof, just an opinion.

That.. in the past adverts have been subject to legislation does suggest that you are wrong regardless of your stance of "free speech". As such, it is selling, not speaking or having an opinion.

Tuesday: apples and oranges, first of all it is up to the states to impliment the drivers liscense and laws. next I'm not aware as to where in the constitution that would be covered

You have touch on something very important, the first amendment doesn't require you to listen to those advertisements which goes right back to rods point

(V): you have given an opinion of your point of view. I haven given you proof that your opinion is just that your opinion(but free speech) and that it is a right of free speech, The amendment doesn't say "except when someone has an opinion as to what is free speech"

Tuesday: I like to pause a prog as it starts.. then fast forward past the ads.

Vikings: I already have explained my position. You are disagreeing stating it's free speech.. well then. Explain yourself.

If you are just exploiting a bit of the constitution to defend your point.. then just say so.

Tuesday:Having a T.V. is not a right, nobody forced you to purchase it, I agree it is annoying tho

(V): You send a signal to your nerve in your throat and that makes a muscle reverberate and noise comes out and whala speech is formed and that is deemed free by the first admendment

you explain how it is not

Vikings: Adverts are free speech?? Explain how please.

(V): it's called free speech!

Tuesday: to sue the government

Vikings: I see nothing about TV ads mentioned in your quote. Nothing at all.

It's not opinion it's fact, and it is covered in the constitution
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is just another example of judges illegally making law

rod03801: So being as it's not there either way on TV and radio, it's just an opinion that it's not supposed to "insert itself into such matters." .. But then again.. ain't you guys in the USA had rules on things that can be shown on TV, especially regarding sex, foul language and Saturday morning TV?

Which implies that the gov does have some right.

As for money talks. Please.. we are talking about companies that were happy to use subliminal messaging in adverts... is that still legal?

(V): NO, and that's EXACTLY the point. The constitution had NOTHING about anything as silly as that, because it's not supposed to insert itself into such matters.

Doesn't need to be legal either. People could stop doing business with the offending parties. Money talks.