PDA

View Full Version : Do you think we can sue to stop media polls?




voteronpaul08
06-08-2007, 06:28 PM
Hi everyone.

For sometime I have always felt in my heart that polls and labeling of presidential contenders would be considered as unconstitutional.

On the surface, polls are a snap shot of a few voices during a very short period of time. Because of that, many polls do not reflect the true outcome of the race. For instance, Kerry won many polls leading into the election of 2004. Further, Kerry won the Iowa exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html), yet he lost Iowa. Could one reason to believe that maybe people took the polls on the face value and didn't show up to vote thinking he handily won the state? Or was it just a flawed polling system?

Here is my argument:

Polls are now being used as tools to shape the mindset of the country. They are mainly used to separate the presidential candidates into artificial "tiers". This artificial labeling allows the media to focus on some candidates and even deny candidates any press. I believe that the process should not be up to the media and debate venues to determine how the political system should play itself out. Removing all polling data would allow the candidates to run on an even platform, without artificial "tiers".

Also, since we are in the process of restoring the election credibility. I would like to also see if the courts would listen to the argument of the "who won" commentary as unconstitutional. It is not up to commentators to TELL the American people who won the debate. The time after the debate should be open to allow each candidate to speak for an equal amount of time. Maybe to clarify what the stances are. That’s where it should end!

I know this is a long shot. But our system has become unconstitutional. I am so tired of the media telling me who the winners will be! Clinton was down by 20 points in the polls in 1992, guess who won!

Here is a good article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004883/posts

Any thoughts?

SeanEdwards
06-08-2007, 06:32 PM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the press's rights of free speech basically give them carte blanche to say whateverthehell they like. As long as it's not libelous, or whatever it's called.

dude58677
06-08-2007, 06:35 PM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the press's rights of free speech basically give them carte blanche to say whateverthehell they like. As long as it's not libelous, or whatever it's called.

On top of that it is a private company, Constitution only applies to what the government can and cannot do.

beermotor
06-08-2007, 07:58 PM
Yeah uh you are not going to see any lawsuit on this stuff, sorry. Personally, as a soon-to-be lawyer, I think that's a good thing.

AgentSmith
06-08-2007, 08:01 PM
NO

Spatch67
06-08-2007, 08:02 PM
What we need to do is find where the money trail starts that leads to the media and string the b***tards up!

That's just what I think.

kylejack
06-08-2007, 08:03 PM
Ron Paul would oppose this crazy idea.

voteronpaul08
06-08-2007, 08:52 PM
Guess that settles it. But these polls are pure crap. :mad:

Brandybuck
06-08-2007, 10:42 PM
Guess that settles it. But these polls are pure crap. :mad:
Yes they're crap. But you don't sue somebody just because you're mad at them.

Are you sure you're in the right forum? Over here we are about small government, free markets, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Lawsuits are antithetical to that.

Richandler
06-08-2007, 10:51 PM
I believe there was a time when it was illegal for media networks to have single opinionated hosts rant on about single candidates and such. I believe there was time where all sides had to be looked at by law. I also believe Reagan was the one who signed off the bill or whatever it was that got rid of that idea.