3 ms·

> I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than th

> I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment. There is a difference. It's a microcosm of the difference between a god-king and an elected president.

slg 9y ago
That analogy doesn't fit because the money doesn't give someone direct power but instead allows them to tip the scales in their favor. It is the same as Citizens United. The money allows influencing other people's votes but the money isn't directly choosing the president. I am also not speaking about a moral difference, I am speaking about a legal difference. How can you allow someone to spend $X on something with the logic that money equals speech but not allow someone to spend $X multiplied by a million on the same thing?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Sure. Citizens United is also terrible.
  - slg 9y ago
    I agree, but that is a clear result of the 1st Amendment. And you get lots of people angry if you start to question whether the 1st Amendment is a great idea.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      No, it isn't. It's a result of a surprising and non-obvious legal doctrine established in a case regarding the 14th Amendment. Citizens United itself was a 5-4 decision, so it's fair to say that CU was also a far-from-clear result.
      - slg 9y ago
        I am not sure what you are really arguing here. The 14th Amendment portion of Citizens United is not the part of the case that has relevancy to this discussion. Overturning that portion would still allow Thiel's actions since he was acting as an individual. It would have a greater chance of effecting the EFF's action in that regard.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        > The 14th Amendment portion of Citizens United is not the part of the case that has relevancy to this discussion The Citizens United decision rests on Corporate Personhood. Corporate Personhood was established in a case testing the limits of the 14th amendment.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        “Corporate personhood" is the whole point of the corporate form, and predates the US.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        As does "freedom of speech", I guess. But both of those things mean something more specific in the context of US constitutional law, of course. It's that more specific meaning to which I'm referring. Sorry for the lack of precision. Anyways, my only point was that Citizens United was not exactly a clear or obvious application of the First Amendment, and offering up the integral role of cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment as examples. I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread.
        olfactory 9y ago
        > I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread. I enjoyed reading the back and forth, fwiw.

slg 9y ago

That analogy doesn't fit because the money doesn't give someone direct power but instead allows them to tip the scales in their favor. It is the same as Citizens United. The money allows influencing other people's votes but the money isn't directly choosing the president. I am also not speaking about a moral difference, I am speaking about a legal difference. How can you allow someone to spend $X on something with the logic that money equals speech but not allow someone to spend $X multiplied by a million on the same thing?

throwawayjava 9y ago
Sure. Citizens United is also terrible.
- slg 9y ago
  I agree, but that is a clear result of the 1st Amendment. And you get lots of people angry if you start to question whether the 1st Amendment is a great idea.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    No, it isn't. It's a result of a surprising and non-obvious legal doctrine established in a case regarding the 14th Amendment. Citizens United itself was a 5-4 decision, so it's fair to say that CU was also a far-from-clear result.
    - slg 9y ago
      I am not sure what you are really arguing here. The 14th Amendment portion of Citizens United is not the part of the case that has relevancy to this discussion. Overturning that portion would still allow Thiel's actions since he was acting as an individual. It would have a greater chance of effecting the EFF's action in that regard.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > The 14th Amendment portion of Citizens United is not the part of the case that has relevancy to this discussion The Citizens United decision rests on Corporate Personhood. Corporate Personhood was established in a case testing the limits of the 14th amendment.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        “Corporate personhood" is the whole point of the corporate form, and predates the US.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        As does "freedom of speech", I guess. But both of those things mean something more specific in the context of US constitutional law, of course. It's that more specific meaning to which I'm referring. Sorry for the lack of precision. Anyways, my only point was that Citizens United was not exactly a clear or obvious application of the First Amendment, and offering up the integral role of cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment as examples. I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread.
        olfactory 9y ago
        > I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread. I enjoyed reading the back and forth, fwiw.