3 ms·

So elections are more important than free speech? Darn, I disagree. It's the first amendment for good reason. I want to like someone who will really do somet

So elections are more important than free speech? Darn, I disagree. It's the first amendment for good reason. I want to like someone who will really do something about this but I think this solution is a rabbit hole. Free speech is the most basic protection individuals have for asserting their rights. Elections follow. As much as I'd love to see political corruption reduced, I think those things are already in the proper order of importance in the constitution. Maybe we can try out his amendment for a few years, but it would be nice to have some further open and public discussion about what might happen with that new amendment in place. What happens, for example, if a foreign company starts supporting a US political candidate? Would a US company be allowed to invest in said foreign company, or buy their products? Would we start censoring the internet for unlawful political advertisements?

s73v3r 11y ago
Money isn't speech. You can say whatever you want. You're just not entitled to a platform in which to do it.
- tptacek 11y ago
  When you start telling people that they can't build their own platforms, you're getting to a place where "you can say whatever you want" becomes a pretty empty principle.
- studentrob 11y ago
  You've already said this 2-3x elsewhere in this thread and people gave you thoughtful replies there. I agree mostly with the counter arguments you received. Do you not see how difficult it is to identify what money is being spent in support of political campaigns and what money is not? Or, do you trust people who are corrupting politics to properly label how they are spending money as either a) on politics or b) not on politics? If not, who will figure it out and how? What if a foreign company starts advertising online? Do we censor that? Do we forbid US companies from investing in them which is a form of indirect support? The whole reason I posted the above was to raise awareness that simply ending citizens united is not a whole solution unto itself. It may just drive the money underground and make it harder to track. We need a real public, open discussion about this, giving proper thought to everyone's ideas, or we'll never move forward

s73v3r 11y ago

Money isn't speech. You can say whatever you want. You're just not entitled to a platform in which to do it.

tptacek 11y ago
When you start telling people that they can't build their own platforms, you're getting to a place where "you can say whatever you want" becomes a pretty empty principle.
studentrob 11y ago
You've already said this 2-3x elsewhere in this thread and people gave you thoughtful replies there. I agree mostly with the counter arguments you received. Do you not see how difficult it is to identify what money is being spent in support of political campaigns and what money is not? Or, do you trust people who are corrupting politics to properly label how they are spending money as either a) on politics or b) not on politics? If not, who will figure it out and how? What if a foreign company starts advertising online? Do we censor that? Do we forbid US companies from investing in them which is a form of indirect support? The whole reason I posted the above was to raise awareness that simply ending citizens united is not a whole solution unto itself. It may just drive the money underground and make it harder to track. We need a real public, open discussion about this, giving proper thought to everyone's ideas, or we'll never move forward