Stuart Buck has a great
post exploring a query from Rick Hills:
It seems odd that the law distrusts the judgments of citizens in ordinary commercial transactions so much more than their judgments in political transactions. The law stringently regulates the quality of drugs, food, cars, and consumer products generally on the theory that consumers are not capable of accurately evaluating these products for themselves. But the First Amendment prohibits similar regulation of the political marketplace, apparently on the theory that ignorance can more easily be tolerated with matters like nuclear war and fiscal crisis than with matters like the purchase of a tube of toothpaste.
At the very least, should the law sanction blatantly misleading political statements more aggressively? Should there be an FTC of political ads?
I'm sure John McCain would be all for that. But read Stuart's post.
That was kind of a nasty and unfair crack at Senator McCain,
given his position on reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
At Big Lizards, Dafydd looks
at a recent (172-word) response
from the writer Stephen King to nine words of blogger criticism.
King's response to Sheppard's criticism was a perfect synthesis of all the qualities of contemporary liberalism: fear-mongering, know-nothingism, petulance, and utter disdain for freedom of speech.
"Other than that, though, it was fine." Like Dafydd, I used to read King, but Moved On years ago. I doubt I'll go back.
Just about every blogger who
bloviates on topics he or she doesn't know much about or reveals ideas he or she hasn't thought all the way throughmakes controversial statements will want to post Scott Meyer's cartoon advice within easy viewing distance of his or her keyboard.