I'm about as far left as they come but I agree that money is indeed speech. If I want to print out anti-Trump posters that cost $1 apiece how is it not a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to forbid me to spend the money? Or forbid Michael Moore's production company from spending money to promote one of his films?
As per Justice Steven's dissent in Citizens United the argument isn't that money isn't speech but that the 1st Amendment rights need to be balanced against the competing need for fair elections.
As a Canadian, I am SO glad for campaign spending limits. The last things I want is a democracy based on an inane billion-dollar advertising war. It's better for free speech not to have Billionaires silencing you with a bullhorn in your face.
I read a lot of writing from David Solway and Jordan Peterson; I'm sure you're aware they are Canadians. I'm aware about the decrepit conditions in Canada's government, primarily because they point out the dissolution of freedom in your country. So how's the restriction of advertising working out for you?
If you read Jordan Peterson, you're not learning about Canada, you're learning about his benzo-binge fantasy of Canada. Believe me, Canada has it's problems. Not enough advertisers telling us what to think isn't one them. I'd not even going to pretend to care what freedoms an ignorant foreigner thinks my country lacks, because I've already had to hear enough Fox News style conspiracy theories about my country.
I agree with you, but we indeed do have tech-bro billionaires and Fortune 500 companies buying elections, which is all that I ever cared about. What I should have said was "the richest shouldn't be able to buy Congress or the presidency." When I read a bunch of versions of publicly-funded election ideas back in the 1980s, when I was a kid, I thought something like this must happen. It never did, and the problems are sooooo much worse now.
So: if you want to attack me as being against the 1st Amendment, go right ahead. But I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we can be free speech "purists" and maybe our political process will just sort of magically sort itself out in some other way.
As the bard wrote "Money doesn't talk, it swears". I have no interest in being a free speech absolutist and totally agree that our 1st Amendment rights need to be balanced against the need to maintain a government that's not for sale to the highest bidder.
I certainly don't expect anything rational from you, especially since my comment was to a Canadian. But, as you're a self-proclaimed leftist I expect nothing less.
I'm currently reading Jonathan Turley's "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage." It's a reflection on free speech in the US following its history from before the revolution. I'm only a third of the way through, so I've only gotten to the early 1800s and can't comment on his conclusions. But having read that much, I'd recommend you read it, or listen to it. There's a history of people and politicians who've tried limiting speech, and it's never worked out well. We're currently in "An Age of Rage," so it might provide some perspective.
So you think child pornography should be legal? How about threatening someone? What if I showed up outside your house at 3am with a loudspeaker? Or do you understand that 1st Amendment rights aren't absolute and that there are reasonable limitations?
So you're the King of non sequitur? Please try to pay attention and actually read my comment (and Turley's book) before making inane comments. And, finally, who determines what "reasonable" is? I suppose you should be in charge of that.
Let us not forget chief SCOTUS Roberts and "money IS speech."
I'm about as far left as they come but I agree that money is indeed speech. If I want to print out anti-Trump posters that cost $1 apiece how is it not a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to forbid me to spend the money? Or forbid Michael Moore's production company from spending money to promote one of his films?
As per Justice Steven's dissent in Citizens United the argument isn't that money isn't speech but that the 1st Amendment rights need to be balanced against the competing need for fair elections.
As a Canadian, I am SO glad for campaign spending limits. The last things I want is a democracy based on an inane billion-dollar advertising war. It's better for free speech not to have Billionaires silencing you with a bullhorn in your face.
I read a lot of writing from David Solway and Jordan Peterson; I'm sure you're aware they are Canadians. I'm aware about the decrepit conditions in Canada's government, primarily because they point out the dissolution of freedom in your country. So how's the restriction of advertising working out for you?
If you read Jordan Peterson, you're not learning about Canada, you're learning about his benzo-binge fantasy of Canada. Believe me, Canada has it's problems. Not enough advertisers telling us what to think isn't one them. I'd not even going to pretend to care what freedoms an ignorant foreigner thinks my country lacks, because I've already had to hear enough Fox News style conspiracy theories about my country.
I'm all for campaign spending limits or finding some way of maintaining election integrity. My issue is entirely with the argument not the goal.
I agree with you, but we indeed do have tech-bro billionaires and Fortune 500 companies buying elections, which is all that I ever cared about. What I should have said was "the richest shouldn't be able to buy Congress or the presidency." When I read a bunch of versions of publicly-funded election ideas back in the 1980s, when I was a kid, I thought something like this must happen. It never did, and the problems are sooooo much worse now.
So: if you want to attack me as being against the 1st Amendment, go right ahead. But I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we can be free speech "purists" and maybe our political process will just sort of magically sort itself out in some other way.
As the bard wrote "Money doesn't talk, it swears". I have no interest in being a free speech absolutist and totally agree that our 1st Amendment rights need to be balanced against the need to maintain a government that's not for sale to the highest bidder.
You've made similar comments above; please see my response to Robert Johnson on this thread.
You're quoting Jordan Peterson and expect to be taken seriously? LOL
I certainly don't expect anything rational from you, especially since my comment was to a Canadian. But, as you're a self-proclaimed leftist I expect nothing less.
I'm currently reading Jonathan Turley's "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage." It's a reflection on free speech in the US following its history from before the revolution. I'm only a third of the way through, so I've only gotten to the early 1800s and can't comment on his conclusions. But having read that much, I'd recommend you read it, or listen to it. There's a history of people and politicians who've tried limiting speech, and it's never worked out well. We're currently in "An Age of Rage," so it might provide some perspective.
So you think child pornography should be legal? How about threatening someone? What if I showed up outside your house at 3am with a loudspeaker? Or do you understand that 1st Amendment rights aren't absolute and that there are reasonable limitations?
So you're the King of non sequitur? Please try to pay attention and actually read my comment (and Turley's book) before making inane comments. And, finally, who determines what "reasonable" is? I suppose you should be in charge of that.
Whoooosh. Right over your head.