The heart of the matter, in my very humble opinion, is whether someone is victimized by the speech - deprived of life, or property, for example. If that can be answered in the affirmative, then the law is probably constitutional. If it can't, then it isn't constitutional.
Does refusing to disclose the source of who paid for some political "speech" create a victim? Not by any standard I would consider reasonable. But if non-disclosure leads to fines or jail time - then said persons are being punished for certain forms of speech.
The most telling reason to suspect campaign finance laws as bad law is to ask whether the U.S. was able to exist without them. And history says YES!
And yet, there is no constitutional mandate for judicial invention of text that does not appear in that same document. For example, the concept of "commercial speech" appears no where in the constitution. Yet commercial speech existed at the time the constitution was written. Check out Ben Franklin's commercial writings, for example.
Of course, the British probably would have had a much easier time squashing the American revolution if they could track the funding of publications critical of the Crown prior to the opening of hostilities - the revolution would have been nipped in the bud.
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Dang - I must have the abbreviated version of the First Amendment. All my copy says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Naturally your copy, and that of our esteemed judiciary, must have the small print version many of us lack. I have no doubt that as time goes on, more and more of that small print will be claimed to exist - all for perfectly high-sounding reasons of "fairness".
First, you are comparing an ash (nuclear waste) against a fuel (coal dust and carbon). Secondly, a bucket of coal and a bucket of nuclear fuel differ in available energy by roughly a factor of one million. Your question is poorly posed on two counts. A bucket of nuclear fuel comparable to a bucket of coal would weigh 1 millionth the amount of the coal bucket. So either bed would be safe to sleep in - though ironically both buckets would probably contain about the same amount of radioactive material:
"Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger"
It seems neither you nor the person(s) who modded you up didn't know that the researchers actually used the method you proposed to select the best models. The AFP story on Yahoo, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=15 12&e=6&u=/afp/scienceenvironment/, states that "Once the first batch of results was obtained, the researchers selected those models that had simulated the past climate accurately.
These best-performing models were then asked to predict how much the Earth would warm after CO2 concentrations had doubled from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm)."
Slashdot Mirror
The heart of the matter, in my very humble opinion, is whether someone is victimized by the speech - deprived of life, or property, for example. If that can be answered in the affirmative, then the law is probably constitutional. If it can't, then it isn't constitutional. Does refusing to disclose the source of who paid for some political "speech" create a victim? Not by any standard I would consider reasonable. But if non-disclosure leads to fines or jail time - then said persons are being punished for certain forms of speech. The most telling reason to suspect campaign finance laws as bad law is to ask whether the U.S. was able to exist without them. And history says YES!
And yet, there is no constitutional mandate for judicial invention of text that does not appear in that same document. For example, the concept of "commercial speech" appears no where in the constitution. Yet commercial speech existed at the time the constitution was written. Check out Ben Franklin's commercial writings, for example.
Of course, the British probably would have had a much easier time squashing the American revolution if they could track the funding of publications critical of the Crown prior to the opening of hostilities - the revolution would have been nipped in the bud.
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Dang - I must have the abbreviated version of the First Amendment. All my copy says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Naturally your copy, and that of our esteemed judiciary, must have the small print version many of us lack. I have no doubt that as time goes on, more and more of that small print will be claimed to exist - all for perfectly high-sounding reasons of "fairness".
First, you are comparing an ash (nuclear waste) against a fuel (coal dust and carbon). Secondly, a bucket of coal and a bucket of nuclear fuel differ in available energy by roughly a factor of one million. Your question is poorly posed on two counts. A bucket of nuclear fuel comparable to a bucket of coal would weigh 1 millionth the amount of the coal bucket. So either bed would be safe to sleep in - though ironically both buckets would probably contain about the same amount of radioactive material: "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger"
It seems neither you nor the person(s) who modded you up didn't know that the researchers actually used the method you proposed to select the best models. The AFP story on Yahoo, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=15 12&e=6&u=/afp/scienceenvironment/, states that "Once the first batch of results was obtained, the researchers selected those models that had simulated the past climate accurately.
These best-performing models were then asked to predict how much the Earth would warm after CO2 concentrations had doubled from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm)."