You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer
supported by the Administrators.
Visit
The New DU.
Reply #21: my intent wasn't to raise fear.
[View All]
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-09-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. my intent wasn't to raise fear. |
|
Rather to indicate that if the govt loses it will be because of strict scrutiny not being applied.
Which means while a blanket prohibition all all funds for all ads by all corporations may be unconstitutional it doesn't mean a better definied law would be.
Can't ban all firearms but you can ban felons from having firearms Can't ban all speech in a movie theater but can make speech that causes a panic/threatens public safety illegal
If the govt loses it isn't a lose and lose everything kind of verdict (as most fear on DU) but rather a "the govt went too far and needs to reign in the scope of the prohibition" loss.
How to word the law to be "narrowly tailored" and "least restrictive" while still accomplishing the goal that is the question and sadly one I have no answer for.
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.