Still no definitive answer on Freedom of Speech law...

[seawasp]

I posted previously on the McCain-Feingold law, which some sources around the net have been painting as the greatest threat to our personal freedoms since, well, at least 9/11's aftermath (PATRIOT, etc.). If the allegations are true, it is.

However, so far I haven't been able to get any definitive proof that it DOES say what some people are alleging. Yes, it limits things like campaign contributions, and in a sense that does abridge our freedom to act in some cases, but it's not really much different in that area than many other laws already in existence.

I'm still looking for someone who can point me to the specific paragraphs in this law which are so dangerous.

Comments

Still...

[seawasp]

... you can't "interpret" the law without some justification IN the law. Otherwise, they'd never need to pass any law at all, they could just "interpret" the law in any way needed.

So there has to be some part of the law that clearly offers the opportunity to interpret it in some particularly nasty way.

Re: Still...

[murstein.livejournal.com]

In order to even see the "gotcha," you need to have an intimate understanding of not just this law, but the laws and case law that it modifies.

For a real-life example: the PATRIOT Act has been interpreted to mean that an individual who takes $20 for bus fare out at an ATM, every second or third week, can be prosecuted for money laundering; a bag of plastic BBs is 5,000 rounds of ammunition that must be accounted for; and that asking for legal advice on this matter is grounds for labeling one an enemy combatant. Try finding the justification for even one of those in that law, because my keyword-search-fu isn't up to the task, and I missed it the time I was pissed enough to spend a week scanning all 800 or so pages online with a Mark I eyeball.