Should political commercials be banned from tv?

[TribalElder]

TV is almost unwatchable with all these bullshit political ads.

[Frosty]

In a way, political ads are kind of worthless except at the most local level. It seems that in national elections, 90% of the people out there would vote for Satan himself if he were running for their party.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Except for the part about networks being able to refuse political commercials--they are actually very limited in what political ads they can refuse to run--especially the broadcast networks which use the public airwaves.

Yes they are "considered" public airwaves and being such they are "considered" to have to serve the public. However, they do have leeway in not airing certain commercials and they have done so. Political campaigns perhaps not. However, the notion that these are "public" airwaves can be challenged. So that's arguable.

There's not really much legal basis to the concept of public ownership of the airwaves. It's just been repeated so often without examination. When the Radio Act of 1927 was passed Congress specifically deleted a House-passed “declaration of ownership.”

A co-author of the Radio Act of 1927, Sen. Clarence Dill also said “The government does not own the frequencies, as we call them, or the use of the frequencies. It only possesses the right to regulate the apparatus. We might declare that we own all the channels, but we do not."

Even the Congressional Research Service, which conducted a study of the problems raised by proposals to assess fees from broadcasters for use of the spectrum, concluded that “the notion that the public or the government owns the airwaves is without precedent. We find no case that so holds."

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas...

...debunked the argument that the government can control broadcasters because their channels use airspace by comparing broadcasters to people who speak in public parks—like the airwaves, also in the “public domain.” He added, “Yet people who speak there do not come under government censorship.”

The spectrum is there, whether we use them or not. So the public does not own them. Govt is there so ensure they are used in an "orderly use of the electromagnetic spectrum so signals won't crash into each other, and clear communication could be impossible."

The area needs reform because too much central planning has entered in here and the public can benefit from reforms based on freely transferable property rights. But that's another argument.

The public's recourse is to change the station.


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...ves-myth/75018

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

Maybe not ban them, but some new rules would help.
Rule #1: you are not allowed to mention your opponent by name. This will prevent mudslinging. If you can't run on your own merit, you don't deserve to run.
Rule #2: Any political ad will be considered under oath. Lying to the public about what you are going to do should be considered perjury.
Rule #3: You are limited to airing your ads once per hour. I hate seeing the same ads every commercial break.
Rule #4: No more actors giving testimony. If someone wants to get up there and give their legitimate story, fine, but paying people to say how great you are, and is misleading. see rule #2.

That kind of regulation, and I am assuming the govt is to do all that, is an infringement on free speech too. Infringement merely means to limit or encroach upon in someway. None of those are legitimate controls on free political speech. If that starts, what's to stop govt from taking the next step in regulating speech?

Now in the case of fraud, well, perhaps we can implement a way to remove an official for having committed fraud, but I don't know what that would be. We have impeachment for a president...and still it doesn't get used enough.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

congratulations ... you just sold the political process the person with the deepest wallet.

stupid people deserve what they get


no mystery to why the American political process is so broken

Doesn't that have more to do with the kind of candidates that run, their characters and how gullible the public are in believing them?

[TribalElder]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Here are the cases on free speech and freedom of the press:

The First Amendment Center
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...dment-timeline

Nice try

These political commercials are simply advertising.

They are full of blatant lies

Red Bull just got sued because people claimed they did not get wings from drinking the product.

Politicians and the companies plastering these lies across the tv should be sued out of existence

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by scho63

How about political commercials where the candidate can ONLY talk about themselves and not their opponent? Wouldn't that be interesting?

That doesn't bother me in the slightest, what does is the billion dollar campaign funds for the presidential elections, and the ever increasing costs of gubernatorial election campaigning costs. Lets have that money funded elsewhere, so it can be used for, you know, good things.

[BWillie]

Part of me likes Brownback. That Davis ad said that Kansas is spending less on schools more than ever. That is wonderful. I don't have kids, not going to have kids, so if we can somehow get the funding down to zero for public schooling, that would be great.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

congratulations ... you just sold the political process the person with the deepest wallet.

stupid people deserve what they get


no mystery to why the American political process is so broken

I didn't do that. I'm just saying the way that it is.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

Nice try

These political commercials are simply advertising.

They are full of blatant lies

Red Bull just got sued because people claimed they did not get wings from drinking the product.

Politicians and the companies plastering these lies across the tv should be sued out of existence

Again, it's that pesky First Amendment that keeps getting in the way.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

Nice try

These political commercials are simply advertising.

So.

They are full of blatant lies

Red Bull just got sued because people claimed they did not get wings from drinking the product.

Politicians and the companies plastering these lies across the tv should be sued out of existence

I agree there should be recourse. See that part of my post above. Some would tell you that recourse is voting. However,being public figures they can get away with more than a private individual promising certain results from selling a product.

But political advertising is still protected speech and it should remain that way. Committing blatant fraud should be a crime for them I agree. I agree there's corruption and probably the most than ever before. But that's a different argument in need of another solution than banning them from the airwaves. It ain't gonna happen under our Constitution. Your recourse until then, is to not listen to them and change the dial.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yes they are "considered" public airwaves and being such they are "considered" to have to serve the public. However, they do have leeway in not airing certain commercials and they have done so. Political campaigns perhaps not. However, the notion that these are "public" airwaves can be challenged. So that's arguable.

There's not really much legal basis to the concept of public ownership of the airwaves. It's just been repeated so often without examination. When the Radio Act of 1927 was passed Congress specifically deleted a House-passed “declaration of ownership.”

A co-author of the Radio Act of 1927, Sen. Clarence Dill also said “The government does not own the frequencies, as we call them, or the use of the frequencies. It only possesses the right to regulate the apparatus. We might declare that we own all the channels, but we do not."

Even the Congressional Research Service, which conducted a study of the problems raised by proposals to assess fees from broadcasters for use of the spectrum, concluded that “the notion that the public or the government owns the airwaves is without precedent. We find no case that so holds."

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas...

...debunked the argument that the government can control broadcasters because their channels use airspace by comparing broadcasters to people who speak in public parks—like the airwaves, also in the “public domain.” He added, “Yet people who speak there do not come under government censorship.”

The spectrum is there, whether we use them or not. So the public does not own them. Govt is there so ensure they are used in an "orderly use of the electromagnetic spectrum so signals won't crash into each other, and clear communication could be impossible."

The area needs reform because too much central planning has entered in here and the public can benefit from reforms based on freely transferable property rights. But that's another argument.

The public's recourse is to change the station.


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...ves-myth/75018

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said.

I stopped reading after the part where you said I was correct. I'm assuming everything after that is arguing with me even though you've acknowledged I'm correct.

[Coach]

**** yes they should be banned. I'm tired of hearing all that garbage spewing and blatant lies in every direction.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Part of me likes Brownback. That Davis ad said that Kansas is spending less on schools more than ever. That is wonderful. I don't have kids, not going to have kids, so if we can somehow get the funding down to zero for public schooling, that would be great.

I was surprised to see your name on the "yes" list based on your other views.
Also surprised to see ChiTown and 505 Chief.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

Nice try

These political commercials are simply advertising.

They are full of blatant lies

Red Bull just got sued because people claimed they did not get wings from drinking the product.

Politicians and the companies plastering these lies across the tv should be sued out of existence

That's not how the law treats them. And although they are annoying and misleading, I doubt people would actually want the govt judging their merits or interfering with who is allowed to run them.

You know with the Liberal Media and all...they would never allow a right-wing candidate to show an ad.

And if Red Bull actually got sued for that, it would be immediately dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit, so I don't know what your point is there.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said.

Not quite what you said. Only the first part. Note the quotation marks around the word "considered." I am disagreeing with that, tho' that's how it currently is. It need not be.

I stopped reading after the part where you said I was correct.

Then you'd not know I didn't merely reiterate what you said all the way through.

I'm assuming everything after that is arguing with me even though you've acknowledged I'm correct.

Nope. The public does not own the airwaves and I was showing that the way it's regulated today as "public" is arguable. Things would have to remain the way you iterated it. There's more nuance in there you did not spot.