3 ms·

> If I have to choose between freedom of speech and stopping the undue influence of money in politics I think I'd have to choose the former. Unfortunately it's

• lisper 10y ago
  Sure. Let me rephrase a little more precisely: if I have to choose between my freedom of speech being abridged by the government or by the private sector, I'll take the latter, at least as long as the government maintains its legal monopoly on the use of physical coercion. If we get to the point where corporations are able to field private militias (not as inconceivable as it once was) I may have to reconsider.
• hirundo 10y ago
  > If you allow undue influence of money you loose in effect your freedom of speech Only when that influence buys off the government to suppress speech by force. Which is what Clinton is proposing from the get go, not just a possible repercussion.
• xrange 10y ago
  >e.g. privacy, which is not even guaranteed in USA You might be interested in the text of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." ...and the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...