I think we're pretty familiar with each other's views on speech (esp. campaign finance reform). But what the heck? I'm bored at work.
I'm bored at home, but 'sall the same...

[Stuff about bad filtering software] I agree completely. Even the supposedly fascist Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed with you on that one.
We'll see with this next big one...

You're shooting at fish in a barrel there.
Yup. the key with speech is that it does have to say something...

Here we start to part ways. (You're referring to ABC being allowed to broadcast porn.) Restrictions on obscenity have *always* been permitted. And I think they are entirely justifiable. We can argue about the evolving definition of "obscenity," but I firmly believe that the gov't has not only the ability but also the responsibility to regulate it.
Obscenity has to be unable to say something. If ABC was airing 'pornographic' content with some sort of statement to make, I would allow it. That said, ABC CAN be regulated because of the 'public interest' argument. It can be easily stated that it runs counter to the public interest to broadcast porn on saturday mornings, when Kids can see it.

I guess you agree with me to some extent that regulation of obscenity (in this case, child pornography) is desirable. I'd spread the net a little farther out.
I disagree with Child Porn not because it is obscene, but because it harms children. In fact, I've argued in the past that the best solution might be to take siezed archives of child porn, make them availiable, for a fee to those who need to get it out of their system, and use the proceeds to 1) crack down on child abuse/molestation, and 2) find other ways to reduce the demand for Child porn that actually harms children. I agree with the courts past rulings on 'virtual' child porn because no child is being hurt. I don't see any reason why existing material should be burned. destroying it only maintains constant demand for new material. (see the case of Pee Wee Herman and his archives of 60's gay erotica.)

And I'm also in favor of copyright extension for corporate copyrights (although not for individual copyright holders). I see absolutely nothing in the public interest in allowing some pirate to make money off of Mickey Mouse *while Disney is still in existence.* Now for corporations that have gone out of existence, it's a different story, but to me there's no difference in the value of the Mickey Mouse copyright now as compared to in the 1920's when it first arose.
This is probably the most vicious disagreement we're going to have. I'll agree with you that McCain-Feingold poses freespeech issues. It does, though I think we can move past that...

but this one - you've hit the other issue close to my heart. The Eldred decsision was so horribly wrong it's frightening. I'm okay with extending copyrights for the FUTURE. But Retroactive? How on earth does that promote the progress of science and the useful arts? Because thats what copyrights are supposed to do. Basically, Congress has given disney 20 years of free money.

Nothing has entered the public domain in 50 years. Culture feeds on itself. Noone can do to Mickey Mouse what Walt Disney can do to the brothers Grimm, and, if, in 20 years, Congress passes YET ANOTHER Mickey Mouse Protection Act, as it has a number of times now, Copyrights are well on their way to becoming perpetual.

I still have some hope. I think it was Lessig who has recently put forward a proposal for a nominal fee to renew copyrights (50 dollars or somesuch trifle) that would allow moneymaking copyrights to be continued, while those which the creator wants to free into the public domain could be allowed to lapse. This would allow Disney to continue to see profits, while the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald and obscure 40's composers, and 70's underground music could be made readily availiable, for the dissemination of knowledge and the PROGRESS OF ART. One of the keys to the Early USA's success was rampant piracy of IP, after all.

Ahh, the "unconstitutional conditions" issue. I agree with you here. But be careful--the argument can taken you farther than you want to go, and not just in the free speech context (e.g., forcing states to raise the drinking age, forcing universities to allow ROTC on campus, etc.).
On drinking age - I take it you are referring to the highway money for 21? I would say thats allowable, though underhanded. Not an uncomfortable extreme in my eye.

I'm not sure I understand you here. But as I've said before, it's rather silly for pundits on the left to cry foul whenever someone threatens "censorship" with respect to publicly-supported art and then to turn around and insist that political speech be restricted through campaign

finance laws. But in any case, do you think, if there was public financing of electoral campaigns, that it would be justifiable to regulate candidates' pronouncements (a la Israel)?

Public Financing with Spending Limits, I agree with. Public Financing with Full Disclosure, I support. Public Financing with restrictions on the CONTENT of a candidates message? I disagree with. Bizarre racist candidates should be weeded out by mandating public support for financing. Not by banning them.

The Israeli situation I assume you are referring to is the removal of 5 Arab knesset members from the ballot? That wasone of the most deplorable things I have ever seen.



Keith (NOT BACK)
One always dies too soon-- or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-- your life, and nothing else. - Garcin, No Exit