Outlawing all TV media political ads

I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined the power of TV mass media during the age of printing press when authoring the First Amendment. The problem with TV mass media advertising is it is free-speech only accessible to the very smallest percentage of the population. The entry cost to use TV mass media means only the most wealthy citizen has a voice in democracy. TV mass media advertising is not free-speech. TV political ads undermines democracy making voting irrelevant. With TV political ads money equals representation. TV mass media is the most powerful outlet for manipulating political opinion to the widest number of voters. I would like to see Congress create an Amendment to the Constitution banning all TV mass media political ads. The Internet is all that is needed for publishing political opinions and platforms. The internet or any other media where the viewer "chooses" to see the information, should be the only legal outlets for political free-speech. Speech is regulated. You can't yell "fire" in a theater without breaking the law. TV mass media advertising needs to be regulated. People who are interested in becoming informed voters can browse political platforms as opposed to being brain washed or programmed by TV advertising in which the viewer has no choice to ignore.

Of course, the real owners of this country would NEVER allow the mob to have any real power:



The real owners of this country OWN us. We are all economic slaves. Cartels and monopolies ensure everyone remains in debt no matter how productive we are as a people. Political freedom in meaningless without economic freedom. The American dream is just a dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Any other constitutional rights you don't like that you feel need to be changed?
Free speech is non negotiable imo.
You don't like the ads you can use the ON/OFF button on your television.

Political freedom in meaningless without economic freedom.

that is the bs lazy people tell other lazy people to justify their lazieness

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'd be on board with banning all political adds.

But the leftists will call you racist because minority voters can't afford internet.

I mean, if you can't figure out how to have an ID, how could you possibly figure out how to get the internet?

a reply to: dfnj2015

They knew full well the power of speech, which is exactly why it is the First amendment.

They also knew that it could be used for evil as well.

They knew as well that power corrupts and an uninformed citizenry could be used to amass power.

Which is the reason for the Second amendment.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

Those times are behind us though... we now have a dumbed down and weakened citizenry that will continue to bow to the wishes of their political masters.

So giving even more power to the government to "regulate" speech is a step in the wrong direction.

Cartels and monopolies ensure everyone remains in debt no matter how productive we are as a people.

As far as that statement goes, speak for yourself... no debt in my home, tyvm.

It’s not that simple.

Media is too powerful for the masses and they do not understand they are being controlled.

You’ve got the wrong end of this thread I feel.

It’s about ensuring freedom. Not curbing it.

This is reply to shooterbrody not OP. BUT bad connection causing issues.

a reply to: watchitburn

I mean, if you can't figure out how to have an ID, how could you possibly figure out how to get the internet?

Capitalism has the internet part covered. The ID part leaves a person on their own.

Spoken like a sycophant that couldn’t fathom an original thought if their life depended on it. It’s become more and more evident over time that the average rwnj will allow any amount of facism to creep into their lives as long as Jesus says it’s good and they keep them believing lefty is coming for their guns. ‘Muricia..... a reply to: shooterbrody

a reply to: dfnj2015

The problem with TV mass media advertising is it is free-speech only accessible to the very smallest percentage of the population. The entry cost to use TV mass media means only the most wealthy citizen has a voice in democracy.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Citizens United ruled that money is speech. Even "dark money" is free speech, according to SCOTUS.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm not sure I totally agree.
The founding fathers knew how much power words had over people.
They were very careful in the wording of our constitution.

Today the pencil is digital.
Unfortunately the people reading the words today probably aren't as bright.

Dang , TV didnt exist then much less TV Ads
They used town criers , posters , and the written word
Boils down to one word
Media
What is the difference ?
Better yet, what is your problem ?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Unfortunately the people reading the words today probably aren't as bright.

There it is. Too many people are easily manipulated and it doesn't take a side.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Without government oversight in regulation, we do not have free-markets. You know we do not have free-markets because there is no mechanism in the market to wring out the inefficiencies of exorbitant CEO pay. So to answer you question, I would say yes. Government has a role in reigning in the excesses of laissez faire capitalism.

Of course, some people prefer the excesses of laissez faire capitalism over any restraints.

a reply to: Gothmog

I stated my problem in the original post. You are just ignoring what I said: The problem with TV mass media advertising is it is free-speech only accessible to the very smallest percentage of the population.

I guess for you, this is not a problem.

originally posted by: soundguy
Spoken like a sycophant that couldn’t fathom an original thought if their life depended on it. It’s become more and more evident over time that the average rwnj will allow any amount of facism to creep into their lives as long as Jesus says it’s good and they keep them believing lefty is coming for their guns. ‘Muricia..... a reply to: shooterbrody

Spoken like a true "patriot vet" you claim to be.
Any other rights you would like to see go away?
Was your cookie too large for the glass of milk this morning?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Without government oversight in regulation, we do not have free-markets.

Good thing in this country we actually have that.
Here is a good place for you to start with that research.
www.ftc.gov...
Just because YOU pretend it does not exist, does not mean it does not exist.

There is no political advertising on British television, by law, and I don't know that anyone has a grievance about that.
When I was younger, the three main parties were allowed a srictly rationed number of "party political" broadcasts. The "party political" would probably be five minutes of talking head; they would normally occupy the five minutes before the hour, scheduled to appear on both channels, so that people could not escape them by "turning over to the other side".
So thousands of viewers chose that moment to go out to the kitchen and make a pot of tea, as the gas and electicity companies would be able to testify.
I think the whole idea has been dropped under modern conditions.
If political advertisements were banned on American television, nobody would really suffer except the companies that make them.

I just found and interesting article I thought you might like as it pertains to the op.

I’m glad to see the first legislation the democrats will propose addresses these things. I’m not so sure I like every aspect of it, but overall it would be a positive step.

www.vox.com...





a reply to: dfnj2015

a reply to: dfnj2015

I will tell you what is wrong with this idea. It doesn't go far enough. Yea, get those political ads off. At the same time, ban doctor, lawyer, drug company, and health insurance commercials.

I don't recall seeing doctor and lawyer ads growing up. Or drug commercials either. I think there was a rule against it.

As far as politics, we had the fairness doctrine that gave equal time to both sides. So that was a limiter.

no what we need is an honesty in journalism act where if the media is outright lying they can be held criminally accountable where the truth of what they print is held to the standards of the court of law