Is it time to re-think free speech?

Flash said:
Did you ever vote for somebody without wanting something back. After all, your vote and not money put him in office.

If money bought votes then all members of Congress would be voting the same way based on who gave them the most money.

I know it sounds good and fits our cynical side to believe that, but political science and economics have found no causal relationship in 50 years of studies.
Click to expand...

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ge-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#
 
BidenPresident said:
"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ge-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#
Click to expand...


Which says nothing about legislators being bribed by campaign contributions.

This obviously means most governmental policies--civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, food stamps, child tax credit, Earned income tax credit, SNAP, TANF, educational loans and grants, veteran's benefits, etc. are passed because they are supported by economic elites and organized groups representing business interests.
 
BidenPresident said:
Why do you lie all the time? Lack of self esteem? It is fucking pathetic.

"According to a landmark study published in 2014 by the Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern professor Benjamin Page, the preferences of the typical American have no influence at all on legislation emerging from Congress.

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups and average citizens. Their conclusion: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Lawmakers mainly listen to the policy demands of big business and wealthy individuals – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns and promote their views."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ical-financing-donations-sinema-voting-rights
Click to expand...

Not a word about bribery or campaign contributions.
 
BidenPresident said:
you're nuts
Click to expand...

Not much of a response. You accuse me of lying for citing the scholarly work of others. I realize it is much more difficult to read scholarly research than simply repeat the simplistic "money bribes legislators" mantra that goes back to the beginning of the republic.

Did you ever decide how your Congressman was bribed for voting a certain way? Unless we can actually identify a large number of votes based on bribes this claim doesn't hold water. It is like claiming "all politicians are crooks" or "the world is not fair." Oft repeated claptrap.
 
Flash said:
Not much of a response. You accuse me of lying for citing the scholarly work of others. I realize it is much more difficult to read scholarly research than simply repeat the simplistic "money bribes legislators" mantra that goes back to the beginning of the republic.

Did you ever decide how your Congressman was bribed for voting a certain way? Unless we can actually identify a large number of votes based on bribes this claim doesn't hold water. It is like claiming "all politicians are crooks" or "the world is not fair." Oft repeated claptrap.
Click to expand...

You are a sophist. I could come back with a different name and argue your position and you'd say the opposite.
 
Grokmaster said:
Nonsense. The ideas you like are despised by others.

Like moron socialists ruining the world's greatest economy...which you and yours are doing.

We WELCOME DEBATE; it is the left, as you prove, who always seek to SILENCE DISSENT, instead ot defend their ideas...which they cannot...ever.

Who decides who is mature and educated? And why does a piece of paper from a leftists institution matter? You don't think a farmer is smarter than the legion of "English majors"?

DICTATOR MUCH?

Nonsense. He has forgotten more than you and yours will ever know.

The left knows a lot of nothing...but I defend your right to express it to my death.

The speech you disagree with is the most in need of protection.

This is America, comrade.
Click to expand...

:palm: Clever.

And the rest of your post is false, too.
 
How much online radicalization needs to happen before we really consider the question posed by the OP?

Is free speech such a sacred value that we want to protect all of it, at all costs - even when it doesn't serve us and even endangers us?

To me, it's easy to see where this is headed. Unless we figure out a better way to regulate what happens on the internet - while still respecting the basic principle of free speech - the increasing threats to the order of our country will lead to real authoritarianism, and a much more restricted view of speech in general.
 
BartenderElite said:
It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.
Click to expand...

You're not at all familiar with Samuel Adams are you?
 
BartenderElite said:
It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.
Click to expand...

All speech isn't allowed, dummy.

There are six examples of free speech that are not allowed.

Get a clue.
 
anatta said:
oh great another one who thinks censorship is the answer for ignorance..
It's not. repressing ideas just drives them underground.
The answer for ignorance is more free , persuasive speech
Click to expand...

He is saying that ignorance, fake news, lies and such are hurting America.
 
AProudLefty said:
Glad you admit that Trump is fascist.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about Trump.

I am arguing against any attempt by anybody to restrict free speech more than current law allows.

We don't need any entity deciding what "hurts" us as a society. The left will want to restrict any conservative speech and the right will limit liberal speech as harmful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top