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.
Of course.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.?
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.
Of course.
As it damn well should.
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.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'm definitely a fan of the 1st Amendment.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.
Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.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?
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.
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
I'm not proposing limiting the speech, I'm proposing limiting the means.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.
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.
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.
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 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
You, too, should refer to my sig. The jurisprudence has already hashed all of this out.
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.
Also problematic.
Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.
That is a non- response.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?