Speedom of Freech
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
- Now Bob and I get the idea to create a PAC that says "Bob and I believe X! You should too!" Except, according to you, that speech should be illegal...
At what point did I ever say that?
You used different words but how is that not literally what you are saying?
-
@boomzilla Because it's literally not what I was saying.
As I have said before, over and over and over again, don't put words in my mouth. You annoy me and confuse yourself.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
- Now Bob and I get the idea to create a PAC that says "Bob and I believe X! You should too!" Except, according to you, that speech should be illegal...
At what point did I ever say that?
Most recently, here:
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
they shouldn't be allowed to speak louder simply because they have more money.
By combining voices and resources, we can speak louder and we have more money; we shouldn't be allowed to do that.
-
@anotherusername The point I've been making since the beginning is that it should not be regarded as a human right that is protected by the First Amendment, and thus outside the purview of government regulation. There's a yuuuuuge difference between that and "should be illegal."
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla Because it's literally not what I was saying.
As I have said before, over and over and over again, don't put words in my mouth. You annoy me and confuse yourself.
No one is putting words in your mouth. Perhaps you need to find a different way to express your thoughts if everyone is misunderstanding you so badly.
I'll ask again in the vain hope that you will answer.
What if they publish a book and give it away instead of buying TV commercials?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla Because it's literally not what I was saying.
As I have said before, over and over and over again, don't put words in my mouth. You annoy me and confuse yourself.
Really?
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Yes, exactly. They don't get to invent an additional right of treating the group and its pooled resources as a fictitious new human being with all the human rights of a real human being.
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
People have the same right to speak, as individuals, regardless of any group they join. A group is not a person, though, and therefore has no human rights, including the right to free speech. Why is this difficult to understand? Why do you keep overcomplicating it?
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
The same rules do apply to everyone, individually. It's when you stop acting as individuals that things change.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername The point I've been making since the beginning is that it should not be regarded as a human right that is protected by the First Amendment, and thus outside the purview of government regulation. There's a yuuuuuge difference between that and "should be illegal."
Why shouldn't free speech be a human right?
-
@masonwheeler oh...
- "I believe X. You should too!" is protected speech under the first amendment
- "Bob and I believe X. You should too!" is not protected speech under the first amendment
You're saying that there's a "yuuuuuge difference" between merely stating that the government can make some speech illegal, vs. the government actually making that speech illegal. But... the first amendment exists as a testimony to the fact that there is not a huge difference between the government merely claiming to have the legal authority to ban your speech vs. the government actually banning it. The difference is so small, in fact, that we needed a constitutional amendment to establish once and for all that the government cannot claim the legal authority to ban your speech.
-
@Dragoon said in Speedom of Freech:
Really?
Yes, really. In each of those cases, I made the point that it should not be regarded as falling under the purview of First Amendment protection, because we're not dealing with individual humans with human rights anymore. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a major leap of logic from there to "should be banned."
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
It's a major leap of logic from there to "should be banned."
It's a major leap of logic from "the government can ban speech that it disagrees with" to "the government should ban speech that it disagrees with"?
It might be a major leap of logic, but if they can do it, it's a very short stroke of the pen to actually do it. That's why we have the first amendment: to establish that they can't.
-
@masonwheeler Considering the court case itself was, "this was banned" to "we can't ban it" I don't think it is that major of a leap.
-
@anotherusername ...and we have well-defined exceptions to it for speech that inherently causes harm, such as slander/libel, obscenity, and the ever-famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Why should political corruption, which causes harm to our entire society, not be on that list?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Dragoon said in Speedom of Freech:
Really?
Yes, really. In each of those cases, I made the point that it should not be regarded as falling under the purview of First Amendment protection, because we're not dealing with individual humans with human rights anymore. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a major leap of logic from there to "should be banned."
"Should be able to be banned."
You still haven't squared the circle about why three people can't do what one can.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
and we have well-defined exceptions
Since when? Seriously, read the case law, it is murky at best. "Shouting fire" falls under inciting a riot and that is what you are actually charged with. The words themselves are actually irrelevant in this case.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername ...and we have well-defined exceptions to it for speech that inherently causes harm, such as slander/libel, obscenity, and the ever-famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Why should political corruption, which causes harm to our entire society, not be on that list?
What political corruption? The only political corruption in this discussion is the desire to silence political speech.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Polygeekery Yes.
(Do me the courtesy of presenting an actual line of reasoning, with facts to back it up, and I will extend the same courtesy to you.)
Do me the courtesy of starting with something worth rebutting and I will do you that courtesy.
-
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
@masonwheeler your whole entire line of argument appears to be
- I believe X. I have the right to say "I believe X. You should too!"
- Bob believes X. Bob has the right to say "I believe X. You should too!"
- Now Bob and I get the idea to create a PAC that says "Bob and I believe X! You should too!" Except, according to you, that speech should be illegal... because it's not me speaking, or Bob speaking, but rather it's the group speaking, and once people start pooling their resources into groups, their speech gets too loud and must be silenced.
...except since marriage is 2 people, it's only illegal if we get Sam to join our group.
Fucking polygamists
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
- Now Bob and I get the idea to create a PAC that says "Bob and I believe X! You should too!" Except, according to you, that speech should be illegal...
At what point did I ever say that?
It is the jist of your entire argument.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername The point I've been making since the beginning is that it should not be regarded as a human right that is protected by the First Amendment, and thus outside the purview of government regulation. There's a yuuuuuge difference between that and "should be illegal."
So speech is not protected by the First Amendment?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Dragoon said in Speedom of Freech:
Really?
Yes, really. In each of those cases, I made the point that it should not be regarded as falling under the purview of First Amendment protection, because we're not dealing with individual humans with human rights anymore. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a major leap of logic from there to "should be banned."
So one person can peaceably assemble, but if a group of them want to have a barbecue they can go get fucked?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername ...and we have well-defined exceptions to it for speech that inherently causes harm, such as slander/libel, obscenity, and the ever-famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Why should political corruption, which causes harm to our entire society, not be on that list?
You're
aren't you?
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
What political corruption? The only political corruption in this discussion is the desire to silence political speech.
In other words, you have no clue whatsoever as to the broader context of this entire discussion.
Why am I not surprised?Campaign-finance restrictions, such as restrictions on political advertising, are entirely about corruption. If you've somehow managed to miss this, no wonder you couldn't make sense of the rest of it!
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
What political corruption? The only political corruption in this discussion is the desire to silence political speech.
In other words, you have no clue whatsoever as to the broader context of this entire discussion.
Why am I not surprised?Campaign-finance restrictions, such as restrictions on political advertising, are entirely about corruption. If you've somehow managed to miss this, no wonder you couldn't make sense of the rest of it!
Self-evident
logic!!
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
What political corruption? The only political corruption in this discussion is the desire to silence political speech.
In other words, you have no clue whatsoever as to the broader context of this entire discussion.
Why am I not surprised?Look: I see political speech as the pulse of free speech. You see it Doesn't corruption.
Campaign-finance restrictions, such as restrictions on political advertising, are entirely about corruption. If you've somehow managed to miss this, no wonder you couldn't make sense of the rest of it!
Which other rights should we suspend on the name of political corruption? How fascist can you go?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Campaign-finance restrictions, such as restrictions on political advertising, are entirely about corruption.
Please point to our existing (or former) campaign finance laws that ever had a restriction on political advertising.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Look: I see political speech as the pulse of free speech. You see it Doesn't corruption.
I think you accidentally a few words there. But either way, instead of stating what I think, why not ask what I think? You're less likely to end up wrong that way.
I see political discussion and political debate as "the pulse" here. That's something that breaks down when you're able to drown out alternate opinions.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Which other rights should we suspend on the name of political corruption? How fascist can you go?
Vacuum trains would be the only government sanctioned form of transportation.
-
@masonwheeler What evidence is there that alternate opinions are being drowned out? If anything, there's more space for alternate opinions now than there have EVER been.
Oh, and you still haven't actually given any evidence for any of your claims. Just ipse dixit. Maybe that's why you're not being persuasive?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
That's something that breaks down when you're able to drown out alternate opinions.
This statement is directly in contrast to your position though.
I, as an individual can be drowned out by <Billionaire>.
I, as the voice of a PAC can not be drowned out by <Billionaire>.
So, by preventing a group from speaking you are allowing the rich to drown out others.
-
@Dragoon In theory, yes. In practice, <Billionaire> has his own PAC which can drown out PACs with no billionaire support, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.
-
@masonwheeler In practice they can't drown them out. There is to much availability anymore. To many avenues to the consumer.
-
@Dragoon Further, for retention reasons broadcasters (I know that NBC does, I assume others do as well) have limits on how many slots you can purchase in a time slot.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Dragoon In theory, yes. In practice, <Billionaire> has his own PAC which can drown out PACs with no billionaire support, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.
What if they use their money to manufacture signs? Is that akin to genocide?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
What political corruption? The only political corruption in this discussion is the desire to silence political speech.
In other words, you have no clue whatsoever as to the broader context of this entire discussion.
Why am I not surprised?Campaign-finance restrictions, such as restrictions on political advertising, are entirely about corruption. If you've somehow managed to miss this, no wonder you couldn't make sense of the rest of it!
I couldn't finish, as I was hustled out of swimming lessons, but you're actually not wrong here. I'll explain...
Campaign finance laws, passed by politicians, that always give an advantage to incumbents. It's kind of beautiful, actually, if you're into that sort of thing.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Look: I see political speech as the pulse of free speech. You see it Doesn't corruption.
I think you accidentally a few words there. But either way, instead of stating what I think, why not ask what I think? You're less likely to end up wrong that way.
I see political discussion and political debate as "the pulse" here. That's something that breaks down when you're able to drown out alternate opinions.
And because this offends you, your solution is to stack free speech. And every time you think you're denying that you reconfirm it.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Campaign finance laws, passed by politicians, that always give an advantage to incumbents.
You keep making that assertion, with nothing to back it up. Why should I believe it?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
and we have well-defined exceptions to it for speech that inherently causes harm, such as slander/libel, obscenity, and the ever-famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Why should political corruption, which causes harm to our entire society, not be on that list?
It already is... "slander/libel, obscenity, and shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". If your so-called "political corruption" speech doesn't fit into one of those categories, then I think you'll have a hard sell on convincing me that it should be banned.
edit: oh, and add fraud to the list. It's not speech per se, but speech can be used to commit fraud.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
you think that speech is somehow worse for a lot of people supporting it?
No, exactly the opposite: I think that worse speech supported by a very few well-financed people drowns out better speech that lots of people support.
Fun fact: conservative advertising received ~70% as much donations from corporations and LLCs as liberal advertising in the 2016 election. Better speech that lots of people supported was not drowned out due to financing, at least not by any of the groups affected by the Citizens United ruling. I think our biggest problem is the same it's been for years: we need to stop making stupid people famous.
Also, I half agree with @boomzilla here. PACs are inherently groups of individuals who donated their money for politics. That money is still protected speech. What I don't agree with about Citizens United is lumping corporations (i.e. groups of employees making money for shareholders/owners so they can collect their paychecks and keep living) and 501(c) non-profits (i.e. organizations which are not legally required to disclose their donors) in with PACs and saying they're all equally entitled to freedom of speech rights. For-profit corporations are, as their name suggests, for profit, not political advertising. If the shareholders, owners, or employees legitimately want to donate their own money to a political entity, that is all well and good, but allowing a decision-maker at a corporation to directly donate corporate money for political speech is wrong for several reasons.
- This makes it unacceptably easy to mask exactly who is doing the donating, making this essentially another form of dark money.
- Unless it's done with the prior consent of all shareholders/owners, it really isn't even that person's
moneyspeech beingdonatedsaid. - Employees are forced to either look for a new job or be associated with this political viewpoint, both of which are unacceptable.
And allowing 501(c) non-profits to use their own money for political advertising is literally dark money. It's ridiculous that people can use this court ruling to mask multi-million-dollar donations and expenditures. We've had laws requiring the disclosure of political donations for almost a century for a reason - corruption. Dark money directly opposes the anti-corruption goals of those laws.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
Fun fact: conservative advertising received ~70% as much donations from corporations and LLCs as liberal advertising in the 2016 election. Better speech that lots of people supported was not drowned out due to financing, at least not by any of the groups affected by the Citizens United ruling.
Considering that the liberal and conservative platforms were both absolutely terrible in the 2016 election, my point stands.
I think our biggest problem is the same it's been for years: we need to stop making stupid people famous.
True, that's a big part of it. But how do they get famous? (Hint: it has a lot to do with money and advertising...)
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
True, that's a big part of it. But how do they get famous? (Hint: it has a lot to do with money and advertising...)
Donald Trump didn't pay for a substantial amount of the airtime he received.
Donald trump rode $5 billion in free media to the white house - TheStreet
Donald Trump didn't spend nearly as much on advertising as typical presidential candidates, and he didn't have to -- he relied on billions of dollars in free earned media instead.
Fun fact #2: this is approximately 400% more than what was spent by all corporations, LLC's, and 501(c)'s on all conservative advertising in the 2016 election.
-
@Fox ...are you claiming that Donald Trump wasn't famous before the 2016 election season began?
Or are you simply posting something that's entirely irrelevant to what I said?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Fox ...are you claiming that Donald Trump wasn't famous before the 2016 election season began?
Or are you simply posting something that's entirely irrelevant to what I said?
I'm claiming he wasn't famous as a politician before the 2016 election season began, and that he was widely regarded as an absurdity in politics and an easy elimination when he announced his candidacy.
-
@Fox Yeah. That lasted exactly as long as it took him to utter the words "Make America Great Again."
Anyone who could hear that, in the current political climate, and not immediately think "wow, he's going to ride those four words all the way to the White House" was simply not paying attention.
Between that and Hillary's "basket of deplorables," it was inevitable.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
you think that speech is somehow worse for a lot of people supporting it?
No, exactly the opposite: I think that worse speech supported by a very few well-financed people drowns out better speech that lots of people support.
Fun fact: conservative advertising received ~70% as much donations from corporations and LLCs as liberal advertising in the 2016 election. Better speech that lots of people supported was not drowned out due to financing, at least not by any of the groups affected by the Citizens United ruling. I think our biggest problem is the same it's been for years: we need to stop making stupid people famous.
Also, I half agree with @boomzilla here. PACs are inherently groups of individuals who donated their money for politics. That money is still protected speech. What I don't agree with about Citizens United is lumping corporations (i.e. groups of employees making money for shareholders/owners so they can collect their paychecks and keep living) and 501(c) non-profits (i.e. organizations which are not legally required to disclose their donors) in with PACs and saying they're all equally entitled to freedom of speech rights. For-profit corporations are, as their name suggests, for profit, not political advertising. If the shareholders, owners, or employees legitimately want to donate their own money to a political entity, that is all well and good, but allowing a decision-maker at a corporation to directly donate corporate money for political speech is wrong for several reasons.
- This makes it unacceptably easy to mask exactly who is doing the donating, making this essentially another form of dark money.
- Unless it's done with the prior consent of all shareholders/owners, it really isn't even that person's
moneyspeech beingdonatedsaid. - Employees are forced to either look for a new job or be associated with this political viewpoint, both of which are unacceptable.
And allowing 501(c) non-profits to use their own money for political advertising is literally dark money. It's ridiculous that people can use this court ruling to mask multi-million-dollar donations and expenditures. We've had laws requiring the disclosure of political donations for almost a century for a reason - corruption. Dark money directly opposes the anti-corruption goals of those laws.
Are you feeling OK? That was a reasonable post with little to no mouth-frothing. I worry for you. Large changes in behavior can be indicative of trauma.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@Fox Yeah. That lasted exactly as long as it took him to utter the words "Make America Great Again."
Anyone who could hear that, in the current political climate, and not immediately think "wow, he's going to ride those four words all the way to the White House" was simply not paying attention.If he hadn't been given so much goddamn free air time, he wouldn't have been able to reach as many people as thoroughly with his campaigning. Those four words are enough to sway idiots, but if he hadn't been given so much time to bullshit details about how he was going to #MAGA, he wouldn't have been able to sway the mildly more reasonable idiots who gave him enough votes to win.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
he wouldn't have been able to sway the mildly more reasonable idiots who gave him enough votes to win.
He didn't. Hillary and her "basket of deplorables" was what swayed them. They didn't vote for Trump so much as against Clinton.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Campaign finance laws, passed by politicians, that always give an advantage to incumbents.
You keep making that assertion, with nothing to back it up. Why should I believe it?
You believe all sorts of crazy things without evidence, why not believe something obvious and well known?
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Considering that the liberal and conservative platforms were both absolutely terrible in the 2016 election, my point stands.
That you think the government should be censoring speech based on content? And before you whine about people putting words in your mouth, you are the one saying that your point relates to the content of the speech.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
I look at the First Amendment and I see protection for the people and the press. Nowhere do I see protection for a PAC, which is what this case was about. On that basis, how do you think the SC can possibly justify giving PACs First Amendment Rights?
A PAC is an organization of people. At what point do they stop being people?
At what point did the web stop being people?
There needs to be consistency. If the First Amendment doesn't cover a web full of people, why should it cover a PAC full of people? Neither one is listed in the Amendment.
Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. -Justice Scalia
So from an originalist perspective, Citizens United was incorrectly decided. Right? Yet, IIRC, Scalia voted with the majority.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
And while we're on the topic, and borrowing from your statement, how do you feel about: "people who have organized themselves into a union and pooled their resources to use those pooled resources to speak out"? I ask because courts have tried to prevent unions from speaking out.
In general I tend to disagree with what they're saying. I disagree that they should be able to force members to pay them. I think that they should be able to speak just like anyone else.
I invest in a company, they don't ask me if they can spend my dividend on a lobbyist. Should they be able to forcibly confiscate my dividend for that purpose? Why not pay the money to me; I should be able to speak for myself.
You can try to make a case that there is more force against a union member than against an investor but I have doubts--no one is making the member work in that industry.
Is your concern for the rights of the union member based solely on the nature of its speech?
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
I look at the First Amendment and I see protection for the people and the press. Nowhere do I see protection for a PAC, which is what this case was about. On that basis, how do you think the SC can possibly justify giving PACs First Amendment Rights?
A PAC is an organization of people. At what point do they stop being people?
At what point did the web stop being people?
There needs to be consistency. If the First Amendment doesn't cover a web full of people, why should it cover a PAC full of people? Neither one is listed in the Amendment.
Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. -Justice Scalia
So from an originalist perspective, Citizens United was incorrectly decided. Right? Yet, IIRC, Scalia voted with the majority.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
And while we're on the topic, and borrowing from your statement, how do you feel about: "people who have organized themselves into a union and pooled their resources to use those pooled resources to speak out"? I ask because courts have tried to prevent unions from speaking out.
In general I tend to disagree with what they're saying. I disagree that they should be able to force members to pay them. I think that they should be able to speak just like anyone else.
I invest in a company, they don't ask me if they can spend my dividend on a lobbyist. Should they be able to forcibly confiscate my dividend for that purpose? Why not pay the money to me; I should be able to speak for myself.
You can try to make a case that there is more force against a union member than against an investor but I have doubts--no one is making the member work in that industry.
Is your concern for the rights of the union member based solely on the nature of its speech?
You've lost your fucking mind. Invest your money elsewhere. No dividends are being confiscated.
