Is it time to re-think free speech?

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...

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.

 
BidenPresident said:
No, a third grader knows the difference between money and speech.
Click to expand...

So does the Supreme Court. They know money is often necessary to get your message out.

If you join the SPCA and they show ads of suffering animals which leads to more members and their money is used to rescue animals your money led to that speech (ads) which helped with the cause. Your money alone could not have accomplished that task but millions of Americans joining together could.
 
Flash said:
So does the Supreme Court. They know money is often necessary to get your message out.

If you join the SPCA and they show ads of suffering animals which leads to more members and their money is used to rescue animals your money led to that speech (ads) which helped with the cause. Your money alone could not have accomplished that task but millions of Americans joining together could.
Click to expand...

Bribery. Like saying a human being is three fifths of a person. Bad decision by the Court.
 
Flash said:
So does the Supreme Court. They know money is often necessary to get your message out.

If you join the SPCA and they show ads of suffering animals which leads to more members and their money is used to rescue animals your money led to that speech (ads) which helped with the cause. Your money alone could not have accomplished that task but millions of Americans joining together could.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about the decision. It was about direct money to a politician's campaign.
 
Flash said:
So does the Supreme Court. They know money is often necessary to get your message out.

If you join the SPCA and they show ads of suffering animals which leads to more members and their money is used to rescue animals your money led to that speech (ads) which helped with the cause. Your money alone could not have accomplished that task but millions of Americans joining together could.
Click to expand...

From Robert Reich's column today:

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.”

It’s probably far worse now. Gilens and Page’s data came from the period 1981 to 2002: before the supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in the Citizens United case, before Super Pacs, before “dark money” and before the Wall Street bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ical-financing-donations-sinema-voting-rights
 
BidenPresident said:
From Robert Reich's column today:

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.”

It’s probably far worse now. Gilens and Page’s data came from the period 1981 to 2002: before the supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in the Citizens United case, before Super Pacs, before “dark money” and before the Wall Street bailout.

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

Individual citizens do nothing (except vote) to try to influence policy. Their views get represented by mass based interest groups which is why it is important to be able to try to influence the public through independent expenditures.

Do you oppose environmental groups being able to put up billboards or have TV spots to influence public opinion about environmental issues? How is that bribery?
 
Flash said:
Individual citizens do nothing (except vote) to try to influence policy. Their views get represented by mass based interest groups which is why it is important to be able to try to influence the public through independent expenditures.

Do you oppose environmental groups being able to put up billboards or have TV spots to influence public opinion about environmental issues? How is that bribery?
Click to expand...

You do not know what Citizens United was about.
 
WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes


.....the last three describe what we're seeing from the right wing daily


https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o...ech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
 
reagansghost said:
WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes


.....the last three describe what we're seeing from the right wing daily


https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o...ech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Click to expand...

Advocating the violent overthrow of government is a felony.
 
Flash said:
Citizen based groups often try to influence policy through independent expenditures. That is what Citizens United was about.
Click to expand...

No.

Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after Citizens United. From 2010 to 2018, super PACs spent approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for example, the top 100 donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
 
Flash said:
Citizen based groups often try to influence policy through independent expenditures. That is what Citizens United was about.
Click to expand...

Citizens United allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending. This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $300 million in the 2012 election cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms. In the top 10 most competitive 2014 Senate races, more than 71 percent of the outside spending on the winning candidates was dark money.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
 
BidenPresident said:
No.

Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after Citizens United. From 2010 to 2018, super PACs spent approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for example, the top 100 donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
Click to expand...

As it applied to independent spending.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

Super Pacs cannot contribute to candidates but can spend for advertising and political communication.

Limiting spending protects incumbents because unknown candidates cannot spend enough to gain name identification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top