Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list? (1 Viewer)

[Harshaw]

I don't have a problem with any of those exercises of free speech.

What I have a problem with is the ability of organizations with large amounts of money to be the sole or one of a few funding sources for such speech.
That gives them undue influence over that speech's content.

In effect, money in many ways currently dictates how many people hear your message, and thus how many minds are changes towards your viewpoint.
This gives such organizations power over the politicians who need that money, and thus power over the message.

And so, power over the end result.

Because if you think those politicians will tell their money source to **** off if the law they want will hurt people, you haven't been living in America.

So what you're saying is that "large organizations" should be denied First Amendment rights.

Do you understand that everything you say here would apply to large news organizations, to unions, to Planned Parenthood, etc.?

 

[The Mark]

So what you're saying is that "large organizations" should be denied First Amendment rights.

Do you understand that everything you say here would apply to large news organizations, to unions, to Planned Parenthood, etc.?

Of course.

As it damn well should.

 

[The Mark]

To an extent you are correct, however social media is a game changer. Everyone (less so if you are a conservative due to "algorithms") has the potential to reach a limitless platform due to the internet. Simply look at people like David Pakman, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc and the popularity they have gained through making simple online videos/podcasts and the vast audiences they bring in. I would say they have changed more minds and influenced more people than any campaign ad for a politician.

That does seem to be the trend.
The issue, in a way, is that the money is still on the side of the legacy systems.

One of the most difficult parts of this change I think necessary, should it come to pass, is applying it to media corporations.
For that matter, I think media corporation coverage of a specific politician over and above other politicians vying for the same elected position is in many ways (if not legally, yet) what is known as an in-kind contribution.
Since it benefits that politician by giving them free exposure to the public.

 

[Harshaw]

Of course.

As it damn well should.

So you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment in general.

That doesn't make judges wrong. It means you don't much believe in freedom of speech or of the press.

 

[The Mark]

The problem is that there is no legal way to stop it. If I am a billionaire and I really wanted a Libertarian candidate to win then you can't stop me from purchasing ads in support of that candidate, it is free speech protected by the 1st amendment (political speech at that, which is the primary reason for having the 1st amendment in the first place), just the same as if a group of people put their money together to do the same. At the end of the day having campaign contributions isn't that much of an issue imo. The politicians aren't legally able to profit personally from it and without them the odds of winning an election against someone with more disposable income than you lessens, you are essentially arguing for only allowing rich billionaires like Beto O'Rourke having the means to run for office. (Had to throw in the Beto joke because I find that race pretty hilarious)

I'm with you on lobbyists and much of the money in politics issues, however we likely have completely different views on how best to accomplish this, which is a different discussion altogether though.

I personally think elections should be entirely publicly funded, with a flat ban on all funding or even in-kind contributions outside the equally distributed funding.

That includes the personal wealth of any candidate and the donations or in-kind contributions of any other person or organization.


The goal is to put every candidate in a given election race on an equal footing in terms of funding and in-kind support.

 

[The Mark]

So you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment in general.

That doesn't make judges wrong. It means you don't much believe in freedom of speech or of the press.

I'm definitely a fan of the 1st Amendment.

I just don't think increased volume as a result of available funds should be considered part of said speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment

 

[The Mark]

why shouldn't wealthy entities who do far more to fund the government than poor ones, have a right to use their wealth to influence the government that they fund?

Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.

 

[Lursa]

Could not answer your post as it reflects your personal bias.

Yes, I worry about ANY Trump decision, period, and certainly regarding SCOTUS.


However under the law of the land, he is entitled to make such nominations.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Could not answer your post as it reflects your personal bias.

Yes, I worry about ANY Trump decision, period, and certainly regarding SCOTUS.

However under the law of the land, he is entitled to make such nominations.

That has to be exhausting.

 

[Lursa]

That has to be exhausting.

It does suck. And it sucks more to see my fears confirmed time after time.

Promises of preserving pre-existing conditions for health care...and current decisions to the contrary, come to mind immediately. We'll see.

 

[Harshaw]

I'm definitely a fan of the 1st Amendment.

I just don't think increased volume as a result of available funds should be considered part of said speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment

Fans of fundamental rights don't look for ways to limit those rights. If you think limiting someone's speech just because they have more means to speak is A-OK, then you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment at all.

Check my sig. It's been that way for a while. It's the Supreme Court's official line on it.

 

[The Mark]

Fans of fundamental rights don't look for ways to limit those rights. If you think limiting someone's speech just because they have more means to speak is A-OK, then you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment at all.

Check my sig. It's been that way for a while. It's the Supreme Court's official line on it.

I'm not proposing limiting the speech, I'm proposing limiting the means.

As to your sig, I do not consider limits on the application of those means to be a restriction on speech, in the political arena.

Rather, it is a protection of the right to speak that we all have, preventing our being drowned out by those with more means to do so.

 

[Cassandra]

Fans of fundamental rights don't look for ways to limit those rights. If you think limiting someone's speech just because they have more means to speak is A-OK, then you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment at all.

Check my sig. It's been that way for a while. It's the Supreme Court's official line on it.

You would think that there was an agreed upon definition of limiting someone's freedom of speech. I think not. I.M.O. , it was a disgrace and a tragedy that the Reagan admin. scrapped the Fairness Doctrine, yet every attempt to reinstate it has been met w cries of "attack on free speech!" from Repubs. How did it limit free speech? The F.D. was meant to expand speech! It was meant to guard against the deplorable state we now find ourselves in- where most people only hear one side of a debate. The result: talk of revolution, violence and just plain horrible uncivil speech. The absence of intelligent debate between people who honestly disagree and are not motivated by money or ratings- well it has become rare as hen's teeth. People are going mad w misinformation.

 

[Harshaw]

I'm not proposing limiting the speech, I'm proposing limiting the means.

Ummm . . .

That IS limiting the speech. By design. It's the reason you WANT to "limit the means": to control the amount of speech someone's able to generate.

This is exactly the same as saying you're 100% for freedom of the press; you just want to make ink prohibitively expensive so newspapers can't publish so much.

As to your sig, I do not consider limits on the application of those means to be a restriction on speech, in the political arena.

Rather, it is a protection of the right to speak that we all have, preventing our being drowned out by those with more means to do so.

And as such, the problem is with you, and not with the judges who consider freedom of speech to be exactly that, consistent with 800 years of English legal tradition. You're the one who's getting it wrong, not they.

So when you say:

Originalist jurists are a lie.
They only follow that when they want to.

The Citizens United decision, among many others, is an example of that lie.

There is no way in hell that money should be considered speech, and it's use in politics protected by 1st Amendment.

Which is what this is about . . . you're wrong. You fundamentally misunderstand, and are hostile to, the First Amendment, in its original (and current!) sense.

 

[Harshaw]

You would think that there was an agreed upon definition of limiting someone's freedom of speech. I think not. I.M.O. , it was a disgrace and a tragedy that the Reagan admin. scrapped the Fairness Doctrine, yet every attempt to reinstate it has been met w cries of "attack on free speech!" from Repubs. How did it limit free speech? The F.D. was meant to expand speech! It was meant to guard against the deplorable state we now find ourselves in- where most people only hear one side of a debate. The result: talk of revolution, violence and just plain horrible uncivil speech. The absence of intelligent debate between people who honestly disagree and are not motivated by money or ratings- well it has become rare as hen's teeth. People are going mad w misinformation.

You, too, should refer to my sig. The jurisprudence has already hashed all of this out.

 

[Mason66]

You have to be a fairly old tech geek to know that. RGB is back in the early days when there were still CRT monitors. (Cathode Ray Tube)

View attachment 67241733

Those are old?

I have quite a few still.

 

[Cassandra]

You, too, should refer to my sig. The jurisprudence has already hashed all of this out.

That is a non- response.

 

[Nap]

That does seem to be the trend.
The issue, in a way, is that the money is still on the side of the legacy systems.

One of the most difficult parts of this change I think necessary, should it come to pass, is applying it to media corporations.
For that matter, I think media corporation coverage of a specific politician over and above other politicians vying for the same elected position is in many ways (if not legally, yet) what is known as an in-kind contribution.
Since it benefits that politician by giving them free exposure to the public.

How do you feel about the inverse of that situation?

https://youtu.be/dWet2SbU07c

 

[The Mark]

How do you feel about the inverse of that situation?

https://youtu.be/dWet2SbU07c

Also problematic.

In effect, that was a case of in-kind contributions to everyone except one candidate.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.

but if you have more money, the government shouldn't prevent you from spending it to advocate what you want. BTW I believe that representation should be tied to taxation.

 

[Objective Voice]

I don't fear it, but I am concerned RBG will be forced to retire due to health concerns while Trump is still in office giving him 3 SC appointments during his presidency. If Kavanaugh's appointment didn't ensure a conservative SC for decades to come, Trump making a 3rd appointment to the bench most certainly will. Moreover, this appointment should it come to pass will remove any chance of having a swing vote on the bench. The hijacking of the highest court in the land will be complete.

 

[Ahlevah]

What I fear is RBG living long enough until they figure out a way to transfer her consciousness to a new sleeve. Maybe before that happens they'll just transfer her to a box made by Dell or Apple that sits in a chair at the front of the court, along with eight other boxes, all voting on our collective fate. :doh Just give it time. It's all physics.

Altered Carbon

 

[Harshaw]

That is a non- response.

And your post was a non-sequitur.