Is a town hall a political event?

[glhs837]

MTV Denies That Obama Telecast Is Political - HUMAN EVENTS

Cliff notes.

President answers questions from a crowd screened to present a diverse audience, across three major cable networks, MTV, BET, and CMT, and a few bit players. No Republican time for response, Viacom, who owns them, says that a town hall is not political speech, and equal time is not required.

What say you? I say unless he speaks only on non-political issues, say....er..uh, damnit, there are NOT any non-political issues!!!!!!!

Oh, and theres what three weeks til election day?

 

[ImnoMensa]

MTV Denies That Obama Telecast Is Political - HUMAN EVENTS

Cliff notes.

President answers questions from a crowd screened to present a diverse audience, across three major cable networks, MTV, BET, and CMT, and a few bit players. No Republican time for response, Viacom, who owns them, says that a town hall is not political speech, and equal time is not required.

What say you? I say unless he speaks only on non-political issues, say....er..uh, damnit, there are NOT any non-political issues!!!!!!!

Oh, and theres what three weeks til election day?

Is this the Town Hall meeting that Obama sent out a casting call for?

Not political, ?? The hell it isn't. It's a free campaign ad is what it is.

I don't think it will help him as most people are on to his BS, but it damned sure is a free pol;itical ad and Republicans should have equal time as the law requires.

 

[Tilted]

This is interesting timing. The Supreme Court just last week declined to hear a circuit court decision that might relate to this situation. In doing so, they let let stand that lower court decision which had found that the free speech rights of people who had been excluded from one of President Bush's events (because of anti-war bumper stickers, IIRC) had not been violated.

I'll try to find the opinion in that case and see what it has to say that might be relevant.

 

[Tilted]

Here's the Tenth Circuit opinion I referred to: Weise v Casper

Here's Justice Ginsburg's (joined by Justice Sotomayor) dissent from the decision not to hear the case. It's much shorter than the opinion below but, unfortunately, doesn't give much insight into the nature of the event that the two people were excluded from (other than that it was open to the public).


EDIT: Oh, and I was wrong - the denial of cert came this week not last week.

 

[glhs837]

But the first amendment rights of folks who want to protest at an event are not the same as broadcasters giving equal time to the opposition party, are they, tilted?

I dont know where the legal line is drawn as far as equal time, I admit.

 

[vraiblonde]

If politicians are speaking, it's a political event. And a Town Hall is most definitely a political event.

The end.

 

[glhs837]

That's my thought, I wonder if whomever has the conn on this sort thing on a federal level will get involved? Judging by the whole Black Panther thing, I'm guessing not.

 

[Tilted]

But the first amendment rights of folks who want to protest at an event are not the same as broadcasters giving equal time to the opposition party, are they, tilted?

I dont know where the legal line is drawn as far as equal time, I admit.

I'd agree, though I'm not familiar with what the legal considerations are supposed to be in this kind of situation. What distinguishes 'political' from not, and is there some distinction between an 'event' and not? I just don't know.

Certainly most things that the President does in public are political to some degree. Various networks air interviews with the President without airing something from 'the other side' though. For that matter, they air the White House press conferences all the time. I'm honestly not sure what makes some things okay and other things not. This does strike me as an in kind donation to the President, as politician as much so as as President, but so many things could be considered as such.

It's an interesting issue but, having thought about it a bit more, the case I referred to probably doesn't have much relevance to it.

 

[glhs837]

Equal-time rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, according to this, since the President isnt a candidate, I dont think its applicable. However, if he uses the forum to pitch voting for his candidates, then I''m not sure.

 

[SamSpade]

It's likely that the morons at MTV intended to say that it was not a partisan event - that it wasn't intended to promote a political agenda.

Because as has been observed, it is patently false to invite the nation's foremost politician to discuss issues and to promote getting out the vote and in any way suggest it is not political. It's practically the very definition of politics. If anything, the fact that they had to cherry-pick the audience and the questions asked clearly implies it was totally intended to be both political - and partisan.

 

[Larry Gude]

MTV Denies That Obama Telecast Is Political - HUMAN EVENTS

Cliff notes.

President answers questions from a crowd screened to present a diverse audience, across three major cable networks, MTV, BET, and CMT, and a few bit players. No Republican time for response, Viacom, who owns them, says that a town hall is not political speech, and equal time is not required.

What say you? I say unless he speaks only on non-political issues, say....er..uh, damnit, there are NOT any non-political issues!!!!!!!

Oh, and theres what three weeks til election day?

Anything a president does publicly is, by definition, political.

This is one of the constructs of the progressive movement; that they are soooo inherently right on the issues that it's adherents are simply existing in a pseudo religious state of grace and can't help it if lesser minds don't get it.
Thus, the rules that apply to us peons do not apply to them.

That said, the larger issue, another progressive tenant, the concept of 'equal time' of 'fairness doctrine' will still exist this fall no matter who wins what race so, in that regard, they, progressives, are still winning.

 

[glhs837]

Anything a president does publicly is, by definition, political.

This is one of the constructs of the progressive movement; that they are soooo inherently right on the issues that it's adherents are simply existing in a pseudo religious state of grace and can't help it if lesser minds don't get it.
Thus, the rules that apply to us peons do not apply to them.

That said, the larger issue, another progressive tenant, the concept of 'equal time' of 'fairness doctrine' will still exist this fall no matter who wins what race so, in that regard, they, progressives, are still winning.

I bring you exhibit two sir

DRUDGE: MICHELLE CAMPAIGNED INSIDE POLLING PLACE?

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote.

After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.

She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.

"She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going," Campbell said.

According to a pool reporter from the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES at the scene, the conversation took place INSIDE the voting center, not far from the booths.

Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a) -- states: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place."

A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama -- a Harvard-educated lawyer -- may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.

"You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?" the official explained late Thursday. "I mean, she's pretty well liked and probably doesn't know what she's doing."

WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ELECTIONEERING

When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama's campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.

"I don't think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband's agenda," Gibbs smiled.

Developing...

Yet again, "we can do any damn thing we please, and if you dont like it, not our problem."

 

[Larry Gude]

Yet again, "we can do any damn thing we please, and if you dont like it, not our problem."

I do not think it quibbling to rephrase that into; "We aren't doing anything wrong. Because it's us. You doing what you wrongly claim is the same thing is not the same thing. It's wrong. Because it's you."

Point being they do not see it as doing anything they please; they see it as simply being, existing, in the right, thus it is impossible to see it as wrong when they do it. They aren't 'doing' anything. They are merely existing in the right.

It's a religion. :shrug:

 

[Bann]

Anything a president does publicly is, by definition, political.

This is one of the constructs of the progressive movement; that they are soooo inherently right on the issues that it's adherents are simply existing in a pseudo religious state of grace and can't help it if lesser minds don't get it.
Thus, the rules that apply to us peons do not apply to them.

That said, the larger issue, another progressive tenant, the concept of 'equal time' of 'fairness doctrine' will still exist this fall no matter who wins what race so, in that regard, they, progressives, are still winning.

 

[SamSpade]

Yet again, "we can do any damn thing we please, and if you dont like it, not our problem."

If *I* can get into hot water for talking politics inside a voting area, why doesn't she? People know who she is, and know what her opinion is going to be.

Granted, I'm not offended, because it's not as though she did any kind of significant grandstanding, but even I know I'm not allowed to chat about it while I wait in line.

 

[Larry Gude]

If *I* can get into hot water for talking politics inside a voting area, why doesn't she? People know who she is, and know what her opinion is going to be.

Granted, I'm not offended, because it's not as though she did any kind of significant grandstanding, but even I know I'm not allowed to chat about it while I wait in line.

Teachable moment! Shouldn't we argue FOR our free speech and NOT for limiting hers as ours is?

I think we aproach things too often from the 'they shouldn't be allowed to do that either!' the 'misery loves company' view and not enough from the 'I should be allowed to do that, too!' school of thought.

 

[SamSpade]

Teachable moment! Shouldn't we argue FOR our free speech and NOT for limiting hers as ours is?

No, keeping political campaigning outside of the polling place to me is a good idea. Someone advertising over the phone might say that it's a restriction on free speech to not be allowed to call me at all hours to hawk their product, but it infringes on my rights as well. As Oliver Wendell Holmes so concisely put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". I would like to cast my vote privately without annoying interference.

People are free to campaign all the way up to 100 feet of a polling place. It's kind of silly to seriously call it an abridgment of their freedom when they can do something pretty much everywhere else except in a place where people want to be free from such annoyances.

 

[Bann]

Teachable moment! Shouldn't we argue FOR our free speech and NOT for limiting hers as ours is?

I think we aproach things too often from the 'they shouldn't be allowed to do that either!' the 'misery loves company' view and not enough from the 'I should be allowed to do that, too!' school of thought.

I misunderstood what you meant about the Fairness Doctrine then. I don't believe the rule for no campaigning within whatever parameters of the voting place should be changed.

But I agree they think it's okay for them to do whatever they want, because they don't see themselves as wrong.

 

[Merlin99]

MTV Denies That Obama Telecast Is Political - HUMAN EVENTS

Cliff notes.

President answers questions from a crowd screened to present a diverse audience, across three major cable networks, MTV, BET, and CMT, and a few bit players. No Republican time for response, Viacom, who owns them, says that a town hall is not political speech, and equal time is not required.

What say you? I say unless he speaks only on non-political issues, say....er..uh, damnit, there are NOT any non-political issues!!!!!!!

Oh, and theres what three weeks til election day?

Does the state of the union speech require equal air time?
I'm kind of the opinion that this isn't an issue since he's not running for office any time soon.

 

[glhs837]

Actually, yes, the State of the Union does get a rebuttal response from the minority party. And if restricts himself to non-partisan responses, I say fair. But here, three weeks before his party faces its biggest challenge, to think his responses wont be scripted to push his agenda, and endorse his partys candidates is not realistic, I think.