Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
Mainly playing devil's advocate here: so you are willing to place limits on people's first amendment rights (of speech and assembly) to shorten the process?
I don't answer or listen to the calls so it's a pretty quick fix to hit delete.
If the parties both just agree to the terms because members of the public will hate them if they don't, it's not really a constitutional issue. But if there are actually legal restrictions, you get into some funny areas pretty quickly. Isn't this the biggest objection to the campaign finance reforms that almost all of us want? To make them, you actually interfere with other people's political expression?
|
I can see where this could be seen as a limit on a right to assembly, but not of speech. Nobody would be stopping them from saying anything they want during their alloted times, or at any other time either. However, we do have certain laws in affect with regards to elections that could arguably be seen as such also, so there is some precedent. There are limits on how close to the polls campaigners can be, where literature can be distributed, etc. I wouldn't see this as being all that different from those rules. All of those rules were more geared toward eliminating campaign funds/contributions than shortening the time.
Just before the last election, the calls completely filled up my voicemails both at home (while at work) and at work (while at home) to the point that I couldn't receive messages that I needed to receive. THAT is annoying. Perhaps this is considerably worse in battleground states?
Threaded Mode
