4 ms·

I have no difficulty opposing Citizens United and supporting Apple's position. There is a big difference between money and code, and more similarities between

I have no difficulty opposing Citizens United and supporting Apple's position. There is a big difference between money and code, and more similarities between code and text or speech. People cannot generate money as freely or easily as they can generate text, speech, or code. Money is in limited supply, whereas speech / text / code are unlimited.

sbuttgereit 11y ago
There are at least two problems with your position. 1) Production != Distribution. The distribution of speech / code / text is not in unlimited supply. Sure, I can go set up a soap box in front of city hall and have my say to anyone within earshot; but even then I'll have an advantage over the poor sucker that can't afford a soap box. Distribution of speech takes resources, which ultimately means money or time. This isn't new; in the late 18th century you'd need access to a printing press and delivery people to reach a sufficient number of people. Today you need additionally need broadcasting and computers. None of it free. And while the right to speech does not include the right to be heard, it does imply at the very least that you should be able to improve your chances of being heard. 2) We have the right to associate with other people and act cooperatively in common cause. We may pool our money to put our views on the same playing field as someone with greater resources, we can create an efficient division of labor to achieve our ends, and ultimately elect to leave should we find our views departing from the direction of the group. Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? Why is it right to apply force to give preference to one kind of association of people over another? Apple is correct in pursuing Constitutional rights, because at the end of the day it is the rights of individual shareholders acting in association and common cause. It is the rights of a person to not have their property put to use against their own interests: whether those are financial interests or interest in the functioning of society. Your only proper tool against them is to also make speech, including associating with other like minded individuals if you need to; it is not proper pr moral to coercively silence those associations you disfavor.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? They don't. Individuals can continue to donate to campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, should be limited in their ability to fund election campaigns, directly or indirectly. Their money is large and tends to be wielded by a small number of people. This subverts the original intention of our democratic republic. That said, this thread is about Apple, not political spending.
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    Your statement makes no sense. Individuals have the right of association. They lose that right as soon as the vehicle of association is a corporation under your view... unless your saying that association and speech rights are mutually exclusive. Unions, for example wield much capital with a small number of people involved, are you suggesting that they, too should be limited? Major political parties are associations of people with significant financial resources once combined with few people making the real decisions. Should they be limited? Should non-profit organizations be able to take part in speech under the First Amendment? This thread is about a company, Apple, invoking Constitutional rights. My comments are questioning how a relatively progressive leaning community will embrace a company having rights under Constitutional doctrine while also holding that companies should be denied access to rights under that same doctrine depending on progressive political preferences. This is inconsistent and inconsistent with the concept of "rights". I'm point out the contradiction, which is pertinent to the thread, and suggesting you choose: does the right to association exist? does the right of speech exist? are these rights mutually exclusive? Or do you really just want what you want and the definitions are fluid depending on how convenient they are to your viewpoint? As for the original intention of our democratic republic... I'd be interest to know where you get your sense of original intention and enough to know that using force to prevent certain associations of individuals from free expression. I'll bet you'll find about as many different opinions about original intent as there were founders establishing that original intent. In essence such a statement is merely happy political rhetoric, devoid of real meaning, which is the stock and trade of most politicians.

sbuttgereit 11y ago

There are at least two problems with your position. 1) Production != Distribution. The distribution of speech / code / text is not in unlimited supply. Sure, I can go set up a soap box in front of city hall and have my say to anyone within earshot; but even then I'll have an advantage over the poor sucker that can't afford a soap box. Distribution of speech takes resources, which ultimately means money or time. This isn't new; in the late 18th century you'd need access to a printing press and delivery people to reach a sufficient number of people. Today you need additionally need broadcasting and computers. None of it free. And while the right to speech does not include the right to be heard, it does imply at the very least that you should be able to improve your chances of being heard. 2) We have the right to associate with other people and act cooperatively in common cause. We may pool our money to put our views on the same playing field as someone with greater resources, we can create an efficient division of labor to achieve our ends, and ultimately elect to leave should we find our views departing from the direction of the group. Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? Why is it right to apply force to give preference to one kind of association of people over another? Apple is correct in pursuing Constitutional rights, because at the end of the day it is the rights of individual shareholders acting in association and common cause. It is the rights of a person to not have their property put to use against their own interests: whether those are financial interests or interest in the functioning of society. Your only proper tool against them is to also make speech, including associating with other like minded individuals if you need to; it is not proper pr moral to coercively silence those associations you disfavor.

studentrob 11y ago
> Why should people lose their individual rights simply because they cooperate? They don't. Individuals can continue to donate to campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, should be limited in their ability to fund election campaigns, directly or indirectly. Their money is large and tends to be wielded by a small number of people. This subverts the original intention of our democratic republic. That said, this thread is about Apple, not political spending.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Your statement makes no sense. Individuals have the right of association. They lose that right as soon as the vehicle of association is a corporation under your view... unless your saying that association and speech rights are mutually exclusive. Unions, for example wield much capital with a small number of people involved, are you suggesting that they, too should be limited? Major political parties are associations of people with significant financial resources once combined with few people making the real decisions. Should they be limited? Should non-profit organizations be able to take part in speech under the First Amendment? This thread is about a company, Apple, invoking Constitutional rights. My comments are questioning how a relatively progressive leaning community will embrace a company having rights under Constitutional doctrine while also holding that companies should be denied access to rights under that same doctrine depending on progressive political preferences. This is inconsistent and inconsistent with the concept of "rights". I'm point out the contradiction, which is pertinent to the thread, and suggesting you choose: does the right to association exist? does the right of speech exist? are these rights mutually exclusive? Or do you really just want what you want and the definitions are fluid depending on how convenient they are to your viewpoint? As for the original intention of our democratic republic... I'd be interest to know where you get your sense of original intention and enough to know that using force to prevent certain associations of individuals from free expression. I'll bet you'll find about as many different opinions about original intent as there were founders establishing that original intent. In essence such a statement is merely happy political rhetoric, devoid of real meaning, which is the stock and trade of most politicians.