3 ms·
Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations). You can sue whoever (or whatever cor
by jahewson 10y ago
Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations).
You can sue whoever (or whatever corporation) you like. There's no such thing as a "free speech" defence against a private lawsuit.
- bitwize 10y agoTell that to Zoe Quinn, who got her restraining order forbidding Eron Gjoni from speaking about her publicly overturned -- on free speech grounds. (I think the Massachusetts court made the wrong decision in that case.)
- jahewson 10y agoNo, a restraining order is not a private matter, it's the government restricting an individual's speech. Exactly the sort of thing to which "free speech" applies. No supprises here.
- ubernostrum 10y agoThe concern, though, is that if you grant a corporation unlimited speech powers, does it really have "freedom"? Does it make sense to talk about a "right" to do something you're legally forced to do?
- jahewson 10y agoI don't think that's a concern at all. Free speech is not a problem. The problem is that the Supreme Court has decided that "money is speech", and so corporate spending cannot be regulated. That's what needs fixing.
- bitwize 10y agoThe Supreme Court did not strike down the campaign-finance portions of McCain-Feingold, only those provisions forbidding corporations and unions from disseminating certain types of media messages before an election. So money is no more speech post-Citizens United than it was before; i.e., inasmuch as it costs money to produce television, film, or video.