5 ms·
Your proposal would run smack up against the First Amendment. Both right and left will will reject any sort of speech control out of hand here in the USA.
by danbmil99 11y ago
Your proposal would run smack up against the First Amendment. Both right and left will will reject any sort of speech control out of hand here in the USA.
- nl 11y agoMaybe. But if you can explain how overturning Citizen's United wouldn't run into that problem while this idea I'd find that helpful. OTOH, Libel in the US is already a thing. I'm saying extending those laws to make "the American people" a group that has standing, and falsehoods something that has harm. There is some existing precedent for that under libel.
- hackerboos 11y agoThe problem with CU isn't the 1st Amendment, it's corporate personhood and the press. It's easy to argue that corporations and unions don't deserve free speech as their directors, employees and members are all entitled to free speech individually. However the press is different. Nobody, rightly so, wants to limit the press to say and print whatever they like (so long as it's not slander/libel) and today's press is made up of corporations. How do we keep a free press and silence other corporations?
- nl 11y agoOh yeah, the corporate personhood thing. I forgot that. But I only forgot about it because I simply don't see how that matters in an real way. Even if corporate personhood went away then (actual, real human) people would be paid to speak for a corporation, and then you hit the the 1st Amendment rights issues again.
- hackerboos 11y ago>Even if corporate personhood went away then (actual, real human) people would be paid to speak for a corporation There are proper campaign finance laws which regulate the above. Nothing is currently regulating SuperPACs at the moment, even American divisions of foreign corporations can accept money.