4 ms·
What if the world's most convincing liar goes around convincing everyone that climate change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life
by solipsism 11y ago
What if the world's most convincing liar goes around convincing everyone that climate change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life? Does that mean free speech is wrong?
I don't think political spending should be considered an exercise of 1st amendment rights, but this argument doesn't make any sense.
- gremlinsinc 11y agoDemocracy is about equal opportunity though, and equal voice -- putting money behind speech is like government controlling the media --it's simply wrong, and it's what Hitler did. Technically I think the news should still have fair-play laws where they were required to give equal time to someone with an opposing view everytime they did an op-ed. I think the news should be more open and accessible--I think when it comes to president ads shouldn't even be allowed, it should ALL be based on debates and nothing else. Because politics shouldn't be manipulated by people with more money than another person..--but that's in an ideal world.
- Jarwain 11y agoOne convincing liar can be countered by one person with hard data and equally good at persuasion who follows him around. One super-rich person requires another equally-as-rich person or enough poorer people to band together against said super-rich person. Said super-rich person also, at least in the case of the Koch Brothers, also has a vested interest in the topic at hand, whereas the equally-as-rich person or even the poorer people might not be as interested.