Can you regulate a right and should you be able to?

[Dylan]

[Medius]

[Dylan]

[Medius]

[Dylan]

Of course it is. Campaign donations are limited from many actors, you can't show boobies on TV, you can't swear on most TV stations, you can't disseminate information about somebody's personal life (in some circumstances).

And very recently in the US you could not speak out in favor of foreign governments in time of war, you could not disseminate books with certain sexual material, etc etc.

You can't disseminate false information about others that is harmful, you can't shout in somebody's face over and over and over (in most cases).

These are all regulations.

Besides you seem to have conceded that commercial speech is regulable. This by itself proves my point that we pick and choose what is protected by rights and to what degree the protected stuff is permitted or denied.

[Dylan]

Now I think the point you are trying to make is that if you limit the concept of free expression to only a narrow sliver (political and artistic speech) of expression than there are no substantive, content based limits. This, you argue, means there is no regulation of speech.

But this is silly.

The very act of carving out expression X from expression Y and determining that X deserves greater protection than Y is an act of regulation.

[John Galt]

tv is airwaves that are licensed. you certianly, for example, can show boobies on the internet, it's its very purpose. that said the fcc is a monstrosity

as for campaigns, congress can regulate the elections, so it can regulate contributions (conduct, not speech, according to the court anyway), but it cannot regulate the speech so it cant regulate expenditures

[Medius]

[Medius]

[Dylan]

If you shouted that and people believed it and it caused me harm I could still sue you, win, and the first amendment would not save you.

My point that you can regulate rights hereby prevails, as you accept that commercial speech is regulable. I declare a victory for America.