Do You Believe in Free Speech?

[Cellar_Door]

wrong.
freedom of speech is being able to speak the truth without fear of reprisal.

don't confuse freedom of expression with freedom of speech.

I didn't actually give a definition of Free Speech and I don't agree with yours. It seems to contain a handy loophole: 'The truth' is highly subjective.

 

[Nasor]

I fear an oppresive government much more than I fear any corporation. Government can use force. It can literally send guys with guns out in the middle of the night and toss you in jail. It can seize all your assets, freeze you bank accounts, it can literally kill you.

Now are mega international corporations worthy of some concern as well, of course. The worst situation of all is the union of government with mega-corporations. Where does the individual turn then?

The union of corporations and government is exactly what campaign finance restrictions are intended to prevent - without them, it becomes easy for corporations to buy off politicians.

Clever argument. You want to limit free speech to protect it.

If a few people with extraordinarily loud voices are shouting so loudly that no one else can be heard, then yes, it's appropriate to put a restriction on their volume.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The union of corporations and government is exactly what campaign finance restrictions are intended to prevent - without them, it becomes easy for corporations to buy off politicians.

Campaign finance restrictions accomplish little more than ensuring that incumbents never lose. Over 90% of incumbents are re-elected year, after year, after year. And we wonder why things never change.

 

[Nasor]

Campaign finance restrictions accomplish little more than ensuring that incumbents never lose. Over 90% of incumbents are re-elected year, after year, after year. And we wonder why things never change.

It's not clear to me that having new people who were in the pockets of big business would be any better.

 

[madanthonywayne]

It's not clear to me that having new people who were in the pockets of big business would be any better.

Compared to the old people in the pocket of big business we have now? I really think that the allure and power of being in the federal government corrupts you. The longer you're there, the greater the chance you'll become corrupt. We need new blood. Citizen congressmen rather than career politicians.

 

[Tiassa]

Conflict in Motion

So citizens shouldn't be allowed to organize and present their views to the public at large right before an election?

As I see it, the question is a misrepresentation. To the other, I can see how your source might encourage that. Citizens United, for instance, is about corporate money, and what is curious is that conservative critics of "judicial activism" and "legislation by judicial fiat" haven't been up in arms over this case. Then again, that might be because, as with most real "legislation by fiat", the activism in question supports the conservative position:

If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

The Court probed deeply into Congress’ reasoning in its decades-long attempt to restrict corporate influence in campaigns for the Presidency and Congress, in a special sitting to hear a second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). At issue was whether the Court was ready to overturn two of its precedents — one from 1990, the other from 2003 — upholding such limitations.

(Denniston, "Two precedents", boldface accent added)​

What we have is originally a fairly narrow issue brought before the Court earlier this year, and the Chief Justice choosing to not make a ruling in June with the last batch of decisions handed down; instead, Roberts ordered that the case would be argued again in a special session. Sara Jerome, writing for National Journal, noted after oral arguments in that special session:

Court-watchers walked away predicting a win for Citizens United. What remains debatable is how broad the Court's decision will be.

Most broadly, the Court could entirely scrap Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, gutting some significant portions of campaign finance law including a ban on corporations using their treasury dollars to influence campaigns, and a ban on corporate funding for broadcast ads that mention federal candidates in the days leading up to a federal election.

The Court could also rule more narrowly, hewing closely to the particulars of the original issue, which involved whether the FEC was justified in limiting Citizens United's capacity to broadcast a disparaging film about then-candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary.​

Jerome also quotes the CATO Institute's Ilya Shapiro, who explained that, "Everyone says the chief justice is the swing vote on this." According to Shapiro, CJ Roberts' public demeanor suggests a broader ruling. Former FEC chairman—and member of the Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief sympathetic to the Commission—Scott Thomas noted that Roberts may have unwittingly opened a Pandora's Box:

The one reason I sensed that there might actually be some hope for those [in favor of campaign finance law] was when I saw how frustrated the chief justice got when realizing that all these different alternatives for resolving the case were being thrust up in front of him. There was this moment when the Solicitor General said that they should consider that this particular incorporated entity [Citizens United] might not have taken enough money from corporations [for its actions to be limited by the FEC]. That really angered him. What I saw there is that the Chief Justice is really going to have to look hard at the alternative bases for resolving the case. He didn't like hearing that. There are some very plausible statutory construction grounds for ruling on the case that don't entail the broad striking down of law. To me, that was a pivotal moment because he was forced to realize that the government is saying you can have many different ways to resolve this case that would stop short of the most all-encompassing ruling that they may be contemplating.

(qtd. in Jerome)​

And Karl Sandstrom of the Center for Political Accountability—which also filed an amicus brief favoring the FEC—said:

I thought Roberts changed course during the arguments. When he was questioning [Citizens United lawyer] Ted Olson, he didn't seem as sympathetic to the corporate interests. I was feeling good during that, but then I didn't feel very good when he was questioning Kagan. I was left unclear. But I still think there is room for him to do something narrow. He may not want his biography to contain a bad decision on this.

(ibid)​

Highlighting the political circus that this case is becoming, check Sandstrom's quote again. Ted Olson argued for Citizens United against the FEC. When he held the office that his present opponent, Solicitor General Eliza Kagan, now holds, Olson argued against Citizens United.

Interestingly, Kagan is making her courtroom debut as a lawyer in front of the Supreme Court. No pressure, right? Yet Doug Pinkham, president of the Public Affairs Council, suggested that Kagan made concessions up front, signifying that she probably didn't expect to win the case. Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman and currently chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics—which submitted an amicus brief favoring Citizens United—said that Kagan might have undertaken "a tactical ploy to throw this case". And Sandstrom said he was surprised by Kagan's apparent retreat. However, James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech—and co-author of that organization's amicus brief in favor of Citizens United—said that Kagan "conceded things that the truth of their position required her to concede", suggesting that she will face criticism from campaign finance reform advocates because she would not lie to the Supreme Court. Yet, if Kagan is making concessions required by "the truth of their position", how is it that she is retreating from, well Ted Olson's position when making this case was his job? Did Olson, then, lie?

Nina Totenberg summarized the issue recently for NPR's Morning Edition:

One major provision of the McCain-Feingold law banned the broadcast of independent political advertisements about candidates within 30 days of an election if the ads were financed by corporate or union funds. The Supreme Court upheld this provision six years ago, but since then, conservative groups have repeatedly brought new challenges, including a relatively minor challenge that was heard by the court in March.

The argument went badly for campaign finance reform advocates when a government lawyer was asked whether Congress could also pass a law banning the publication of a corporate-funded campaign book just before an election. Yes, said the lawyer, adding that no such law exists. At the prospect of book-banning, Justice Samuel Alito blurted "that's pretty incredible," and other justices openly gaped.

In June, the justices ordered the case re-argued, only this time, they said they wanted the lawyers to focus on whether the Constitution permits any ban on corporate spending in candidate elections. In short, the court said it is considering whether to reverse decades of its own decisions.​

It should be noted that the book-banning argument was one of Kagan's "concessions". That is, she disagrees with Olson's original argument. It's an interesting situation: Argue an untenable proposition that your successor must necessarily retreat from, and then take a job arguing—essentially—against yourself and watch that successor scramble back from all the damage you did when you had her job.

As Totenberg explains it, Citizens United sought to air a hit piece against Sen. Hillary Clinton, but the FEC ruled that it could not be broadcast within thirty days of the election:

The panel decided the film could not be broadcast right before an election because of the way it was financed. Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, if you want to air a movie that is the functional equivalent of an ad, just before a primary, you cannot use corporate or union general-treasury funds, and you have to disclose who paid for it.

Since Citizens United failed on both counts, the federal court judges said, neither the film nor ads for it could be aired. In making their decision, the judges pointed repeatedly to the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the McCain-Feingold law in 2003.​

The original issue is not the content, but the financing. Totenberg wrote—

Election law in the United States has been built for decades on the notion that corporations and unions cannot use their general treasury funds to elect or defeat a candidate, because shareholders and union members may disagree with how the money is being spent, and because the amount of money at stake would corrupt and unbalance the system.​

—and Scott Nelson, an attorney representing both Sens. McCain and Feingold, told NPR, "There's no prohibition on running any kind of political advertising. It's just a question of how it's funded."

Citizens United could have aired the movie if it didn't accept corporate contributions, Nelson observes, or if it had paid for the film with money from a political action committee, known as a PAC.

A PAC is a group of individuals who contribute their own money to fund campaign efforts. By law, their names must be disclosed. Citizens United has a PAC but didn't want to use it for the film. As producer Bossie puts it, "I shouldn't be forced to use some sort of mechanism because somebody in some building here in Washington tells me I have to."​

And, as the cynical might expect, the whole thing comes down to money.

"The most important right we have in a democracy is the right to participate in the electoral process. We've smothered that right with the most incomprehensible, burdensome, unintelligible set of regulations and laws, some of which are criminal laws, surrounding that freedom. That's intolerable," says Ted Olson, who argued in support of the McCain-Feingold law as solicitor general for the Bush administration. On Wednesday, he will be arguing against it.

Olson maintains that corporations are individuals, in a constitutional sense, and should be able to express their views. Money, he says, is speech.

"You can't speak without money," Olson says. "In this day and age, you need resources to reach people. And that's part of the right to speak." He adds: "There's nothing more important under the First Amendment than to talk about elections."

The question always is: Who does the First Amendment apply to? Do only individuals have the right of free speech? Or does this right extend to corporations and unions as well?

The answer has profound consequences, says Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a longtime McCain adviser.

"Does it apply to foreign nationals? Does it apply to the government of China or Russia or Iran in this country? Does it apply to corporations? Those are all different players who are not individuals, not voters, not citizens," Potter says

Corporations, he notes, are creations of the state established, in essence, to enable businesses to amass wealth. Corporations, unlike individuals, can live forever, and they have special privileges. Their owners, for instance, are insulated from liability in lawsuits and from responsibility for corporate debt.​

In the end, what you—like Citizens United and their advocates—are arguing for is the submerging of political campaigns in the detritus resulting from an orgy of privilege. Corporations have money, and demand rights, but aren't held to the same standards of accountability. And, as you correctly noted, the Santa Clara precedent establishing corporate personhood is suspect. As an equal protection issue, corporations are privileged people under the law.

And that's what you're hoping the Supreme Court upholds.

Thus:

Shit. That happens already. Consider the law regarding verification of contact lens prescriptions ....

.... I'm really hoping that some patient who suffers a serious loss of vision as a result of this will sue WalMart or 1800contacts and put an end to this bullshit.

Complete with the fake "grass-roots" movement? Okay, okay. More specifically, why complain about the bullshit? "That happens already," you say, and then go on to complain about it. Yet such an outcome is exactly what you're advocating.

In the meantime, here's an interesting question from the oral arguments; Justice Breyer addresses former Solicitor General and current Citizens United counsel Ted Olson:

Suppose we overrule these two cases. Would that leave the country in a situation where corporations and trade unions can spend as much as they want in the last 30 days on television ads, et cetera, of this kind, but political parties couldn't, because political parties can only spend hard money on this kind of expenditure? And therefore, the group that is charged with the responsibility of building a platform that will appeal to a majority of Americans is limited, but the groups that have particular interests, like corporations or trade unions, can spend as much as they want?

(Supreme Court of the United States of America)​

Strangely—or, perhaps, predictably—enough, Olson runs from the question. Breyer asks the question three times (asks, clarifies, then reiterates), and Olson never answers, choosing instead to evade and reshape the question. Indeed, Justice Kennedy stepped into that dispute—

Well, with reference to any incongruities that might flow from our adopting your position, are you aware of any case in this Court which
says that we must refrain from addressing an unconstitutional aspect of the statute because the statute is flawed in some other respects as well?​

—and Olson, finding no other route out, sucks up to Kennedy in hopes that the question will go away:

No, I'm not, and that's -- I think that was what I was attempting to say in response to what Justice Breyer was asking me.​

One would think that if the issue was as cut and dried as Citizens United's supporters might suggest, Olson would have no reason to evade the Court on such an obvious and essential question.

McCain Feingold makes no distinction between Haliburton and the ACLU or the NRA. Very few individuals can afford to run political ads, which is why we organize into groups to pool our resources. Yet McCain Feingold essentially bans this.​

No, it doesn't. We might point back to Scott Nelson—"There's no prohibition on running any kind of political advertising. It's just a question of how it's funded."—or look to Justice Ginsberg:

One answer to that is that no entity is being prohibited, that it is a question of not whether corporations can contribute but how. They can use PACs and that way we assure that the people who contribute are really supportive of the issue, of the candidate. But so the -- the corporation can give, but it has to use a PAC.

(Supreme Court of the United States)​

In other words, you're arguing—perhaps as a result of misunderstanding—that corporations should be entitled to do something that you and your organized resource pool can't.

Of course I don't support those things. But as Leopold said, truth should be an absolute defense against charges of fraud and slander.

Idealism as a defense against reality? Truth should, perhaps. But does it really, in practical effect?

A classic example of a reasonable limit on free speech with, of course, the caveat that it's wholly appropriate to shout fire when there is a fire.

Why is that a reasonable limit? I mean, to you? I, too, think this a reasonable limit, but I have my reasons, and those reasons reconcile fairly smoothly with my larger political outlook. You, on the other hand, are presenting a very conflicted argument; for instance, it denounces as bullshit the very outcomes it promotes.

Are you willfully promoting bullshit, then? I mean, as you see it?

The problem with child porn and snuff films is that people are harmed in their creation. They are, essentially, evidence of a crime. Porno, IMO, so long as everyone is of age and consenting, is fine.

I agree that the harm is a problem. But why is it a problem? Again, to you; I'm interested in your logic here.

Frankly, I don't know whether to call bullshit on your post. To the one, you've been shoveling a lot of it lately. To the other, the conflicts within your argument are hard to reconcile; the leading candidate, of course, being arbitrary opposition without understanding just what you were stepping into.

Is free speech a privilege for the economically empowered? Again, just so we're clear here, I want your sincere answer to that question.

Looking back on the Gilded Age, historians Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager wrote: “The nation was fabulously rich but its wealth was gravitating rapidly into the hands of a small portion of the population, and the power of wealth threatened to undermine the political integrity of the Republic.” Justice Felix Frankfurter quoted that remark in a 1957 decision, and recalled that in the late 19thCentury, there had been a “popular feeling that aggregated capital unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption.”

For generations, that image of the Gilded Age has shadowed the American business corporation, with popular rhetoric routinely treating corporate money, when used in politics, as corrupt and corrupting. Now, more than a century later, the Supreme Court is confronting the question — as much a cultural as a constitutional inquiry – of whether that perception is out of date. It is pondering whether corporations ought to enjoy full constitutional equality in the financing of modern campaigns for the Presidency and for Congress. It is doing so in a case that started out a lot more modestly than that, the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

(Denniston, "Corporations")​

___________________

Notes:

Denniston, Lyle. "Analysis: Two precedents in jeopardy". SCOTUSblog. September 9, 2009. SCOTUSblog.com. September 21, 2009. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-two-precedents-in-jeopardy/

——————. "Argument preview: Corporations in politics". SCOTUSblog. September 4, 2009. SCOTUSblog.com. September 21, 2009. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-preview-corporations-in-politics/

Jerome, Sara. "Citizens United Predicted To Win In High Court". Under the Influence. September 10, 2009. UnderTheInfluence.NationalJournal.com. September 21, 2009. http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/citizens-united-predicted-to-w.php

Totenberg, Nina. "High Court Weighs Rules On Campaign Finance". Morning Edition. September 9, 2009. NPR.org. September 21, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112642564

Supreme Court of the United States. "Oral Arguments". Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. September 9, 2009. SupremeCourtUS.gov. September 21, 2009. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205[Reargued].pdf

 

[Pit]

The entire idea of free speech is a delicate balencing act between freedom and common sense. The government can't block any sites from the public view, but censor some sites in public schools on order to keep children from pornography.
Sometimes you have to just limp your way though, make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and hope you don't make too many stupid, drunk decisions.
I think there was a Calvin and Hobbes comic about it somewhere...

 

[leopold]

I didn't actually give a definition of Free Speech and I don't agree with yours. It seems to contain a handy loophole: 'The truth' is highly subjective.

can you give an example of subjective truth?

 

[Red Devil]

Yes, shut up!

Here in the UK it no longer exists, really. Our British heritage was once proud of its ability to say anything to anyone and defend your right to say it. Now, if you say the wrong thing in the wrong place, there can be a secret council spy tapping you on the shoulder. Political Correctness designed by unelected left wing marxists, has replaced most government departments with how to manuals, and childrens books have been massively rewritten to reflect this marxist viewpoint.

My grandson was watching Thomas the Tank Engine the other day, it was winter and snowing, and the engines had a hard job delivering items for something called a 'winter festival' !!!! I am sure this is CHRISTMAS in a christian country?

Very clever and brilliantly funny comics were driven off air to make way for 'so called alternative comedy' which reflected these political viewpoints. There is no such thing now as proper comedy.

News reports are edited accordingly, the BBC has to employ X number of shirtlifters and 'ethnics'. When my local BBC station does its regional programme and they interview people in the streets, they are mostly ethnic people of immigrant origins who are asked. We, the indigenous population are no longer welcome in our own country and I did not say all this because there will be a knock on the door at dawn!!

 

[Orleander]

The essence of Free Speech is the right to question everything and not be stifled in doing so. If we say that opinions may be freely expressed only if they meet a certain set of criteria, then that is not Free Speech....

I thought I did, but I guess I don't. My children are free to say whatever they want, but I am free to punish them for it. So I guess they are stifled.

 

[Doreen]

I thought I did, but I guess I don't. My children are free to say whatever they want, but I am free to punish them for it. So I guess they are stifled.

What would be some of the offenses?

And do you believe in free speech for adults?

 

[Orleander]

Grounding from activities and toys. Loss of a bedroom door.

My husband doesn't have free speech without repercussions. If he ever called me a cunt, there would be hell to pay.

 

[Doreen]

Grounding from activities and toys. Loss of a bedroom door.

those are punishments, I meant speech you punished.

My husband doesn't have free speech without repercussions. If he ever called me a cunt, there would be hell to pay.

It depends on what that hell is whether you are violating free speech freedoms. I mean, you certainly are free to not have sex with anyone, for example. And if their use of free speech turned you off sexually (permanently) that is part of your freedom to react that way.

If you would get out the shotgun and blow his head off, well, that would be restricting his free speech. But then your freedoms would soon be restricted also.

 

[Orleander]

those are punishments, I meant speech you punished.....

I punish swear words, insults, derogatory language.....a lot of the same thing I guess.

 

[Doreen]

I punish swear words, insults, derogatory language.....a lot of the same thing I guess.

Well, here's the good thing. While, yes, restricting speech, you are not restricted their expression of opinion, which to me is the main thing with freedom of speech. 'We' wanted to be able to criticize the government (or the church or whatever). The idea was mainly to protect dissent and allow for the free movement of ideas and allow people to persuade others. This could all still be a go in your house.

 

[Omega133]

My opinion. I don't beleive free speech necassarily means free speach anymore. And I don't think it really ever did. There are certain things you can't say.

 

[Doreen]

Which presumably you won't be able to mention here.

 

[madanthonywayne]

One major provision of the McCain-Feingold law banned the broadcast of independent political advertisements about candidates within 30 days of an election if the ads were financed by corporate or union funds. The Supreme Court upheld this provision six years ago, but since then, conservative groups have repeatedly brought new challenges, including a relatively minor challenge that was heard by the court in March.

The argument went badly for campaign finance reform advocates when a government lawyer was asked whether Congress could also pass a law banning the publication of a corporate-funded campaign book just before an election. Yes, said the lawyer, adding that no such law exists. At the prospect of book-banning, Justice Samuel Alito blurted "that's pretty incredible," and other justices openly gaped.

In June, the justices ordered the case re-argued, only this time, they said they wanted the lawyers to focus on whether the Constitution permits any ban on corporate spending in candidate elections. In short, the court said it is considering whether to reverse decades of its own decisions.​

This is a crucial part of your very informative post. The medium really seems to make a difference here. Apparently, the Supreme Court which didn't seem to have a problem with banning television ads or movies, balked at the even hypothetical idea of banning books. When the US Federal Government gets into the business of banning books, it's pretty hard to reconcile that with:

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.​

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet we have the Federal Election Campaign Act which contains 242 pages of restrictions on political speech, FEC regulations which add an additional 588 pages of restrictions, and 1278 pages in the federal register.

Olson maintains that corporations are individuals, in a constitutional sense, and should be able to express their views. Money, he says, is speech.

I have to agree. We're not an 18th century village, we are a modern multi-media nation with literally hundreds of millions of citizens. It's very difficult to reach those citizens without money.

The question always is: Who does the First Amendment apply to? Do only individuals have the right of free speech? Or does this right extend to corporations and unions as well?

Considering the text which states "no law", I'd go with the broader interpretation. I do understand your reservations, but it's not like corporate money isn't finding its way into campaigns already. Let's put it in the open. That's one law I'd fully support, all donors must be reported on the internet. Let the people decide if a particular candidate is in the pocket of some corporation or other.

In the end, what you—like Citizens United and their advocates—are arguing for is the submerging of political campaigns in the detritus resulting from an orgy of privilege. Corporations have money, and demand rights, but aren't held to the same standards of accountability. And, as you correctly noted, the Santa Clara precedent establishing corporate personhood is suspect. As an equal protection issue, corporations are privileged people under the law.

I'm not arguing for full personhood for corporations. I'm just talking about speech.

Complete with the fake "grass-roots" movement? Okay, okay. More specifically, why complain about the bullshit? "That happens already," you say, and then go on to complain about it. Yet such an outcome is exactly what you're advocating.

I'm not advocating the outcome, but the process. Just as I don't like to see Nazi's marching in my street (or ACORN, for that matter); I'd fully support their right to do so. Just as I tolerate the occasional Democrat being elected as the price of democracy; I tolerate the occasional bullshit law for the same reason.

Suppose we overrule these two cases. Would that leave the country in a situation where corporations and trade unions can spend as much as they want in the last 30 days on television ads, et cetera, of this kind, but political parties couldn't, because political parties can only spend hard money on this kind of expenditure? And therefore, the group that is charged with the responsibility of building a platform that will appeal to a majority of Americans is limited, but the groups that have particular interests, like corporations or trade unions, can spend as much as they want?

(Supreme Court of the United States of America)​

Strangely—or, perhaps, predictably—enough, Olson runs from the question. Breyer asks the question three times (asks, clarifies, then reiterates), and Olson never answers, choosing instead to evade and reshape the question. Indeed, Justice Kennedy stepped into that dispute—

Well, with reference to any incongruities that might flow from our adopting your position, are you aware of any case in this Court which
says that we must refrain from addressing an unconstitutional aspect of the statute because the statute is flawed in some other respects as well?​

Kennedy gave the correct answer. Let everyone spend as much money as they want whenever they want. Just require full disclosure of all donors.

In other words, you're arguing—perhaps as a result of misunderstanding—that corporations should be entitled to do something that you and your organized resource pool can't.

I certainly don't believe that corporations should have special priviledges with respect to speech. We should all be able to spend money however we see fit to get our message out.

Why is that a reasonable limit? I mean, to you? I, too, think this a reasonable limit, but I have my reasons, and those reasons reconcile fairly smoothly with my larger political outlook. You, on the other hand, are presenting a very conflicted argument; for instance, it denounces as bullshit the very outcomes it promotes.

It's reasonable because, in that case, one is deliberately lying in a situation in which lying can cause immediate physical danger (even death) to everyone present. No public or even private good is served by protecting such speech.

Are you willfully promoting bullshit, then? I mean, as you see it?

No, I'm tolerating bullshit because I see it as a package deal. You've got to take the good with the bad. Especially in politics.

I agree that the harm is a problem. But why is it a problem? Again, to you; I'm interested in your logic here.

Because killing people and molesting children is wrong. The harm inflicted in the process of creating snuff films and child porn far outweighs the speech rights of the "film maker".

Is free speech a privilege for the economically empowered? Again, just so we're clear here, I want your sincere answer to that question.

Of course not. It is a priviledge that all should enjoy. The internet, youtube, twitter, etc are making that ideal more of a reality than ever. As I mentioned earlier, consider the case of ACORN being taken down by two twenty somethings with a budget of about $1200.

The major campaign finance laws were passed in 1972 and later. Would you say that politics is cleaner since then? Would you say that the quality of candidates has improved since then? Fuck, I'd say they're worse than ever. Imposing all these limitations on campaign finance makes it so fucking hard to raise money that the only interesting candidates we seem to get are millionairs who can fund their own campaigns (like Ross Perot).

What is wrong with someone like Steve Forbes (who has run for the Republican nomination many times but is such a nerd he'll never get it) writing a check for a million dollars to finance some telegenic friend of his and let him run for office?

One thing you and I agree on is that the current situation sucks. Every election presents us with the choice between a douchbag and a shit sandwich. Let's open things up a bit and maybe we'll get something a little better. Come on! Vote for change!

 

[Asguard]

so you belive that the goverment and health departments should have no right to regulate advertising by companies?

Wether it be junk food or advertising to entice kids to smoke\drink you think it should be open slather?

 

[madanthonywayne]

so you belive that the goverment and health departments should have no right to regulate advertising by companies?

Wether it be junk food or advertising to entice kids to smoke\drink you think it should be open slather?

Political speech should be the most protected. Beyond that, the main issue should be whether or not the claims one is making are true. But I also would have no problem with banning ads promoting criminal activity such as promoting drinking among under age children.