3 ms·
I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. The ab
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling.
The abuse of the legal system is, from my perspective, extremely tied to the fiscal means of the involved parties. I say this having been called to potentially be on a jury involving a claim of breach of confidentiality over a Rothko painting, asking for more than $30 million (eventually the jury verdict was a pyrrhic victory of $500,000 - likely the cost of the suit in the first place).
I guess what I'm saying is that for small-time folks, even judgments in small-claims court are tenuous in enforcement, because...well...there's not enough money involved for authorities and other entities to follow through. To me that's a distortion of the purpose of the legal system, and one where money certainly plays a role. Rather, economic inequality may result in justice inequality (a study of this would be very helpful).
- hga 11y agoI'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. I'm not certain why, either, seeing as how Citizens United was about core political speech, Federal government censorship of a video about a candidate for federal office, which if the First Amendment, specifically: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press Means anything, it means such speech cannot be abridged.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoI guess I mean in practical outcomes - that money equates to speech, therefore freedom of money in politics has done the exact opposite of campaign finance reform.
- Frondo 11y agoNo freedom is or has ever been absolute, certainly not 1st amendment freedoms (e.g. fraud).
- hga 11y agoThe only speech I'm talking about, the only speech which was the subject of Citizens United, is core political speech. In that context, in the traditional US context, there's no "fraud", AKA criminal libel. Although I don't agree with the extremes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which removed useful feedback in the system in the civil law arena, current case law makes protection of core political speech all but "absolute".
- 6stringmerc 11y agoTo paraphrase the late great Hunter S. Thompson: "There was a rumor going around the circle of journalists, and while I was the one who started the rumor, its existence meant I could report it as a fact."