3 ms·

"For your claim to be true money must in some way be related to the ability to exercise free speech." In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability

"For your claim to be true money must in some way be related to the ability to exercise free speech." In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability to freely use your money is necessary for most rights. Unless everyone can will themselves TV and radio time and wish pamphlets and websites into existence, restriction of spending for political speech is a questionable proposition at best. "Consequently, an absolute interpretation of the 1st ammendment means taxation is a violation of free speech." Yes, it would, though the neutrality of most taxation can be used to argue it as a benign one. However, you're merely raising that as a strawman, as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations. "Perhaps democracy is more important as well?" Political speech has long been the type of speech jurists have been least willing to restrict because it is essential to democracy. You might as well say, "Perhaps the right to live is more important than the right to oxygen."

amalcon 17y ago
In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability to freely use your money is necessary for most rights. Unless everyone can will themselves TV and radio time and wish pamphlets and websites into existence, restriction of spending for political speech is a questionable proposition at best. Though, to be fair, everyone will likely be able to do these things (or their equivalents) in the distant-but-not-too-distant future.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  At that point, they will use different justifications to try to restrict political speech.
- joubert 17y ago
  And how will they be able to do these things? Using technology established with government funds perhaps?
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    I assume he means "nanotech makes everything happens with a poof of magic smoke."
  - amalcon 17y ago
    TV and radio time? Those things are going to the internet rapidly. This makes the amount of bandwidth used dependent on the number of listeners (i.e. not a pure broadcast medium), which means that there are by definition enough resources to go around. There's only a social difference between "buying airtime" and "putting a video on YouTube." Pamphlets won't go away until everyone has a smartphone, which could take a while, but once it happens, that's it for the medium. It gets replaced by the "website." And you pretty much can will a website into existence. FrontPage is decidedly unpopular here, but I know people who have built adequate websites to their purposes just using FrontPage. We just need the free alternatives to catch up.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      And then you still have money to spend - unless you're going with purely free and out-of-the-box solutions, someone's going to have to spend time designing the website. At the very least, someone will have to spend time writing what will be on that website. Even if nobody pays you a dime to do those things, you've just done something that can be priced under "in-kind" campaign finance regulations.
      - amalcon 17y ago
        You have to spend time thinking of what to say, whenever you want to say it. Fortunately, everyone has the same amount of time (well, per unit time anyway). A corporation is somewhat handicapped in this regard, in that it doesn't actually have any time: it can only buy it from others. This does not strike me as a problem.
tsally 17y ago
...as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations. I apologize for what must be a failure in my writing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to convey. In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue. You'll note though that as of this writing an absolutist interpretation is still the highest voted comment for this article.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  " In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue." Avoiding the actual argument while trying to cast the side you disagree with as ridiculous and extreme is the essence of the strawman fallacy.
  - tsally 17y ago
    You misunderstand. There is no side I disagree with. The only thing I disagree with is using strict constructionist interpretations, whether such interpretations argue for or against campaign finance reform. Similarly, I am opposed to literal interpretations of religious documents, independent of how I feel about the morals behind them. I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up. You may look to the religious right in the United States for examples of the effectiveness of debates that do not reject absolute interpretation.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "There is no side I disagree with" So your misrepresentation of a pro-free-speech stance as "absolutist" and likening it to religious fundamentalism is disinterested trolling?
      - tsally 17y ago
        You can be pro-free speech and against an absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment. Similarly you can be deeply religious and still object to a literal interpretation of your sacred documents. I do not believe I misrepresented jsyedidia's position and if I have I invite him to correct me. I most certainly am not trolling. You would know that if you read past the first sentence of the comment you replied to. Clearly you did not. I will quote myself again here in the hope that you read it this time: "I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up.". I believe our exchange is past the point of being constructive, as you appear to be ignoring significant parts of my comments. I think I'll stop replying to this thread here, although I will certainly read your reply if you post one.

amalcon 17y ago

In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability to freely use your money is necessary for most rights. Unless everyone can will themselves TV and radio time and wish pamphlets and websites into existence, restriction of spending for political speech is a questionable proposition at best. Though, to be fair, everyone will likely be able to do these things (or their equivalents) in the distant-but-not-too-distant future.

Semiapies 17y ago
At that point, they will use different justifications to try to restrict political speech.
joubert 17y ago
And how will they be able to do these things? Using technology established with government funds perhaps?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  I assume he means "nanotech makes everything happens with a poof of magic smoke."
- amalcon 17y ago
  TV and radio time? Those things are going to the internet rapidly. This makes the amount of bandwidth used dependent on the number of listeners (i.e. not a pure broadcast medium), which means that there are by definition enough resources to go around. There's only a social difference between "buying airtime" and "putting a video on YouTube." Pamphlets won't go away until everyone has a smartphone, which could take a while, but once it happens, that's it for the medium. It gets replaced by the "website." And you pretty much can will a website into existence. FrontPage is decidedly unpopular here, but I know people who have built adequate websites to their purposes just using FrontPage. We just need the free alternatives to catch up.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    And then you still have money to spend - unless you're going with purely free and out-of-the-box solutions, someone's going to have to spend time designing the website. At the very least, someone will have to spend time writing what will be on that website. Even if nobody pays you a dime to do those things, you've just done something that can be priced under "in-kind" campaign finance regulations.
    - amalcon 17y ago
      You have to spend time thinking of what to say, whenever you want to say it. Fortunately, everyone has the same amount of time (well, per unit time anyway). A corporation is somewhat handicapped in this regard, in that it doesn't actually have any time: it can only buy it from others. This does not strike me as a problem.

tsally 17y ago

...as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations. I apologize for what must be a failure in my writing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to convey. In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue. You'll note though that as of this writing an absolutist interpretation is still the highest voted comment for this article.

Semiapies 17y ago
" In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue." Avoiding the actual argument while trying to cast the side you disagree with as ridiculous and extreme is the essence of the strawman fallacy.
- tsally 17y ago
  You misunderstand. There is no side I disagree with. The only thing I disagree with is using strict constructionist interpretations, whether such interpretations argue for or against campaign finance reform. Similarly, I am opposed to literal interpretations of religious documents, independent of how I feel about the morals behind them. I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up. You may look to the religious right in the United States for examples of the effectiveness of debates that do not reject absolute interpretation.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "There is no side I disagree with" So your misrepresentation of a pro-free-speech stance as "absolutist" and likening it to religious fundamentalism is disinterested trolling?
    - tsally 17y ago
      You can be pro-free speech and against an absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment. Similarly you can be deeply religious and still object to a literal interpretation of your sacred documents. I do not believe I misrepresented jsyedidia's position and if I have I invite him to correct me. I most certainly am not trolling. You would know that if you read past the first sentence of the comment you replied to. Clearly you did not. I will quote myself again here in the hope that you read it this time: "I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up.". I believe our exchange is past the point of being constructive, as you appear to be ignoring significant parts of my comments. I think I'll stop replying to this thread here, although I will certainly read your reply if you post one.