is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
I agree with financial institutions being, by nature essential services. ISPs as well. Full first amendment rights for all consumers. Little less sure where I stand on websites-some, for certain, are completely private businesses; in our case, we present ourselves as a topical forum with a specific accepted slant. Even other .wins are technically separate entities from TheDonald, we don't host them as subreddits. Nobody would begin an interaction with this site without knowing you have to be pro-Trump to post or vote.
Defamation, calls to violence, all that but public indecency I agree with, and I think freedom of speech is so under attack on the broader issues that I'll be happy when the day comes when arguing the line of public indecency becomes majorly relevant. Should Gilbert Godfrey be able to read the raunchiest lines from 50 Shades of Gray on a public street corner? Should I be able to have a private but naughty conversation in a public place where someone, including children, may overhear? I think yes to both, but I do also see the difference to those two for debate.
I'm taking in different viewpoints on term limits and still unsettled where I fall. I do agree with all of your points about it, especially in light of Obama's abuse of power to keep his own party in power; imagine what he could and would have done if he personally were running again, if it were to maintain his own power rather than to make sure she got Her Turn.
So thanks for the insight!
The individual website issue certainly IS nuanced, and I would hope there would be an aspect of freedom of association applied. I’m okay with websites like us where we say that this is our viewpoint and only come here if you agree. The left should be allowed to have this as well, as long as they are open and honest about it, without pretending they are fair, balanced, and neutral.
As for the public indecency, what I was mainly thinking of was stuff like the nyc gay pride parade type stuff where people are running around naked and/ or with dildos strapped all over themselves. Really I’d be fine as long as there is no public nudity, or clearly violent or sexual language in places that children could reasonably be expected to be at that time of day. A comedian on stage doing a raunchy or vulgar set would be fine with me, anyone who doesn’t like it can either not buy a ticket, or get up and leave. Demonic drag queen story time at the local library’s kids corner? Hell no. As for where the line between those two should be, I have no clue.