Image-this and following pages, Petr Kratochvil

large reddish plaid

The question is not how much impact a message can possibly have,

but what information the public needs to form reasonably informed opinions.

Safeguarding Speech with

Uniform Grants


Amendment XXVIII, (proposed), Section 1:
"[…] a uniform amount but when repeating these
will consider time, place and manner of speech,
including repetition." 

Second, and also protecting the public from unlimited invasions of our time and homes:

Above the guaranteed minimum grant, Congress may limit funding of the same view.

All views presented can apply for more than one grant

but there are limits to repeat funding.  


The method used is tracking applied speech protections as they affect political speech. 

Amendment I allows limiting political speech by time, place or manner in accordance with Article I, Section 4. 

Article I, Section 4:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”   


The question isn't how much impact a message can possibly have

but what information the public needs to form reasonably informed opinions.


The public debate is representative speech:

what matters is that a view can be presented to the public, not how much (see What Qualifies for Funding).


Amendment I doesn't assure any speech universal distribution.


Nor does it grant a license to harass, unlawfully invasive speech conduct. Not everyone has to care about every issue, and you have a reasonable right to decide when you have made up your mind. Implementing legislation should include a method for refusing contact. Section 5’s prohibition of coercion works with this.