Is it time to re-think free speech?

Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

The S.C. decision was based on a fraud, that all donations would be open and public. They were not.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the justices were either more stupid about government than third graders, or openly corrupt.
 
BidenPresident said:
The S.C. decision was based on a fraud, that all donations would be open and public. They were not.
Click to expand...

How many people check to see the source of the funding? If I see a billboard that says "Vote for Biden" it has the same effect regardless of who paid for it.

We have a secret ballot so my voting choice is private. Why should I have to reveal who I contributed money to? It could affect my job, business, friends....People used to have to register if they were members of the NAACP or Communist Party until the courts struck that down.
 
Flash said:
How many people check to see the source of the funding? If I see a billboard that says "Vote for Biden" it has the same effect regardless of who paid for it.

We have a secret ballot so my voting choice is private. Why should I have to reveal who I contributed money to? It could affect my job, business, friends....People used to have to register if they were members of the NAACP or Communist Party until the courts struck that down.
Click to expand...

your billboard thing is too weird and silly to bother with
 
BidenPresident said:
So the justices were either more stupid about government than third graders, or openly corrupt.
Click to expand...

Justices were supporting the 1st Amendment freedoms. What constitutional power gives the government the power to determine how much I can contribute to a candidate? (I think the current limit is about $2700).
 
Flash said:
How many people check to see the source of the funding? If I see a billboard that says "Vote for Biden" it has the same effect regardless of who paid for it.

We have a secret ballot so my voting choice is private. Why should I have to reveal who I contributed money to? It could affect my job, business, friends....People used to have to register if they were members of the NAACP or Communist Party until the courts struck that down.
Click to expand...

"Supreme Court’s major ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The ruling removed reasonable campaign contribution limits and has allowed a small group of individuals and corporations to spend enormous sums of money on campaigns without disclosing their identities. As a result, this “dark” money has been able to drown out the will of the people on key issues.
https://www.majorityleader.gov/cont...rats-call-senate-take-house-passed-government

Again, absolutely nothing about free speech.
 
BidenPresident said:
"Supreme Court’s major ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The ruling removed reasonable campaign contribution limits and has allowed a small group of individuals and corporations to spend enormous sums of money on campaigns without disclosing their identities. As a result, this “dark” money has been able to drown out the will of the people on key issues.
https://www.majorityleader.gov/cont...rats-call-senate-take-house-passed-government

Again, absolutely nothing about free speech.
Click to expand...

In the opinion of an incumbent Democrat. We know incumbents want to limit spending--they are the main beneficiaries.

We have public funding of presidential elections that limits how much candidates can spend and prohibits outside contributions--how has that worked out?
 
Flash said:
In the opinion of an incumbent Democrat. We know incumbents want to limit spending--they are the main beneficiaries.

We have public funding of presidential elections that limits how much candidates can spend and prohibits outside contributions--how has that worked out?
Click to expand...

Bribery is not free speech. You're free to believe otherwise.
 
BidenPresident said:
You are either pretending to be naive in order to be annoying or are genuinely naive.
Click to expand...

I think I am informed enough not to believe the simplistic money bribes congressman conspiracy. Numerous studies have debunked this relationship.

What vote did your congressman make because he was bribed? Who bribed him? Do you know who your Rep or Sen voted on any issue? You should be able to come up with examples since bribery is so common.

People vote and contribute to officials because we liked the way they vote, not to bribe them on future votes.

[h=1]Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidates Who Value the Same Things That They Do? [/h]

Stephen G. Bronars
John R. Lott, Jr.



University of TexasUniversity of Chicago
 
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...

Discard of the Constitution. You don't get to speak for the dead. Omniscience fallacy.
 
BidenPresident said:
Free speech is one of those principles everyone believes in but nobody can define. A rather meaningless term.
Click to expand...

Words mean things, dude.

1st Amendment said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congress (and in turn the federal government) has NO authority to limit speech in any way. They have NO authority to limit the press in any way. They have NO authority to establish a state religion, nor to ban any religion. They have NO authority to ban or limit peaceful assemblies (peaceful protests) against the government.

This is plain. You need to learn English.

Censorship doesn't work, dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top