9 ms·
Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.
by mobilefriendly 8y ago
Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.
- throwaway2048 8y agoi see nothing noble about enabling anonymous fronts for billionares to push stuff like fake grassroots movements.
- sien 8y agoHow about forcing lists of donors to, say, a labor activist being used to create 'no hire' lists? What about anyone funding a tenancy advocacy organisation being added to a 'do not rent to this person' list? What about people funding pro-choice organisations being added to 'unchristian lists' so christian employers check if their beliefs coincide. The potential abuses of forcing disclosure for all donations are considerable.
- freedomben 8y agoI very much agree, and this is not even a "hypothetical." This kind of stuff happens all the time. A high profile one that people here might remember is Brendan Eich and the Prop 8 stuff.
- adamsea 8y agoI do not know the law around this but it seems reasonable to distinguish between a ten dollar individual donation and a ten million dollar individual donation. Doing so would address much (perhaps all?) of the legitimate concerns you raise.
- confounded 8y agoBut relatedly, money being treated as speech is antithetical to a functioning republic democracy.
- marcoperaza 8y agoSo how do you get your message out without spending money? Do you only consider it freedom of speech if no one has a chance of hearing you? Spending money is how people with novel ideas expose it to more people and can hope to compete against established ideas that don’t need to be marketed.
- awakeasleep 8y agoStopping the treatment of money as speech doesn't ban money, it just means it has to be spent transparently.
- marcoperaza 8y agoActually that’s exactly what it would do. Citizens United was about the government banning a film because it was illegal campaign spending.
- newfoundglory 8y agoNo, banning money would make campaign spending illegal for any reason.
- marcoperaza 8y agoSo you’re fine with the government telling you it’s illegal to distribute a movie?
- newfoundglory 8y agoWhat do my feelings have to do with what the current law says?
- marcoperaza 8y agoPresumably, you’re telling me what you think the law ought to be. As far as the law is currently concerned, spending is protected as speech.
- sverige 8y agoOh, the irony of defending Google and Facebook's right to protect anonymity!
- tripzilch 8y ago> Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy. How about you worry about the low-hanging fruit first: the 50/50 problem. You might as well NOT have a democracy if the outcome of elections is artificially/politically restricted to be as close to 50/50 as possible. You know the saying, "democracy is not perfect but it's still better than all the alternatives"? 50/50 is a failure mode of democracy. All of the ways that democracy is better than the alternatives fall apart unless you fix this first: It's the largest possible minority that is unhappy with the outcome (50%). And it's the easiest to corrupt and manipulate behind the scenes: Any corrupt influence can easily tip the scales one way or another, creating a huge incentive for having this alternate battle field that doesn't have much to do with the will of the people at all. You can have your anonymous speech once you get your democracy back on track. Talk about throwing the horse before the bus. You can't dispose of a round baby when you have a square kitchen sink.