3 ms·

a lot different from saying "you can't have corporate immunity without corporate free speech" I'm not actually saying that, despite your misunderstanding. Bey

• mlinsey 17y ago
  Well, I think that's far and away the most obvious interpretation of your second paragraph, but it's ambiguous enough that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you're saying that's not what you meant. Your last sentence surprised me, though. Clean-slate thought experiments are useful to figure out whether you're doing something because it's the best way to do it, or just because of legacy. That goes for both code and law. In particular, some of the other critics of the Citizens United decision, including ones who are a little more serious and a little less playful than the OP, are talking about a long-term campaign for a constitutional amendment to address this issue (I'm in particular talking about Larry Lessig and Change Congress, but there are others). Such efforts might be political longshots, but how do you engage in discussions with them if you don't want to consider all the ways the law could be radically different, or could have evolved entirely differently?
  • Semiapies 17y ago
    "Your last sentence surprised me, though." Human political freedom in the US is something I'm interested in, and I'm not actually interested in wandering off the topic. I would hope someone engaging me in discussion on the issue wouldn't try to pull off into other directions - that would be disengaging.