Democrats’ First Bill Attacks Free Speech Rights Of Conservatives

How would this proposed bill exactly does this proposed bill restrict your free speech?

You've filled this whole thread jumping...jumping up and down... and making accusations in which you have given no examples on how that law would impact you,

The right does seem to have a problem using ID to know who is voting.
Why should there not be a identifier as to who is posting on the internet? Showing from where that poster originates?

The right to free speech is mine as a subject to the US Constitution. The 1st amendment does not protect some Russian troll trying to stir up trouble on Face Book.


Is the US Constitution a global document? Must I give foreigners on the WWW free speech as they work to destroy mine.

 

For the same reason members of the public are not legally required to walk around with their name, address, and social security number plainly visible on their shirt at all times of the day.

 

And in a nutshell, you have perfectly described why the bill is DOA. It's unconstitutional and impractical. Hopefully at some juncture, this House matures to be a workable, functioning organization.

 

Sad that it takes someone 12,000 miles away to remind some of us... maybe half of us...

 

Even if it were a good idea - and it is a terrible idea - it is utterly unenforceable.

 

The one who is twelve thousand miles away cannot be silenced by those in the united states who do not wish for the truth to get out.

 

I don't like not knowing who is behind pulling strings, so I am ok with that. But that needs to go for Unions also. I can't see how anyone on the right can go along with the citizens united, which effectively allows the rich (one group) a bigger say in our political choices than other groups. And I am all for gerrymandering reform as long as each board is 1/2 dem repub of each group with a state judge as the final arbiter. Hell, I am ok with making them statewide elections and let the top vote getters serve.

 

and yet no one can explain how this limits conservative's free speech?

 

It can easily be weaponized by whoever holds the political majority at any given time, and be utilized against those that are the political minority.

 

It is unenforceable. Another set of do nothing laws that the people who made them can point to and claim they “did something.”

 

Amazing conclusion. Please cite your research so we can all learn from you.

 

Careful what you wish for.

 

They can be president, but you shouldn’t vote for them.

 

The "Institute for free speeach" is nothing but a far right think tank that opposes any and all regulations on campaign finance, laws against voter suppression, etc....They can't be trusted to do a fair anaylous. When the OP can cite an non-partisan, non-political group that supports these "findings" I would be more inclined to take it serious.

 

I myself read the bill thoroughly, and I saw things that are pretty much common sense, but full disclosure on political donations. The American people deserve to know who politicians are taking bribes....er.."Political Donations" from.

 

Actually, advocacy for amending the Constitution would be protected speech. I say give them all the rope they need...

 

Just as possible as blacks marching against racism.

 

Such disclosure tactics have been weaponized in the past against those who are classified as political enemies. Such as the names of every private individual who contributed money in support of Proposition Eight in the state of California, which prohibited homosexual marriage. As a result, those who contributed were subjected to harassment and loss of employment due to boycotts.

 

I don't think you can propose an amendment to abolish the Constitution, but sure.

If they ever succeed, the survivors will break their necks putting it back in place.

 

Amend =/= abolish??

 

Leftists aren't interested in changing the Constitution, they want to get rid of it.

The Constitution is an impediment to power.

 

But I did not say abolish. I said amend. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial. They have a right to advocate their position. In fact, they do have a right to call for abolishing the Constitution if they wish. I suggest we give them all the rope they need.

 

Actually no, a government official does not have the right to call for the abolishment of the Constitution.

There's a little thing in their oath of office about that.

 

All they have to do is argue they have to abolish it to defend it. Like I said, let them have all the rope they want...

 

Only those with something to hide having any reason to oppose full disclosure of donations.