9 ms·

And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to prot

And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to protect is political speech. Yes, there are downsides to unfettered speech, but freedom means having to let other people do things I don't like, and in exchange, I can do things they don't like. If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.

grandmczeb 8y ago
> If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose. This is an excellent point.
- Pyxl101 8y ago
  Furthermore, it is not well-defined which speech is "political" speech, and which is not. What cause is it possible to advocate for that is not political in some way? If the business of politics and government is passing and implementing laws, then nearly any issue is or can be political in nature. If I advocate for regulating or not regulating the Internet, software, app stores, data privacy (a la GDPR), or basically anything else, then that can be construed as political.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    If we're already in the business of protecting speech, then why does it matter whether a given speech is political enough to warrant protection?
- squiggleblaz 8y ago
  Actually it isn't. (a) The money has an outsized power to argue for an increase in available powers as I said upthread since I couldn't reply here. (b) Democracies seem to work better and more stably when votes make a difference. If there's a full house of people wanting to shift in a certain direction the democratic principle is that the shift in that direction should happen. Otherwise democracy becomes a sham and its institutions shed trust. This creates precisely the atmosphere for antidemocratic or unliberal people to gain power. If you can vote for someone who supports your views but they can't implement them while they're operating in the system, why not vote for someone who supports your views and is willing to ignore the system to get it. And what will all checks and balances do in that environment! If you like liberal government (in the traditional sense not the partisan sense), the most effective way to get it is to encourage liberal preferences in the electorate.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves. Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.
    - squiggleblaz 8y ago
      It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal government.
      - bmelton 8y ago
        > it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc. State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally. I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.
        ethbro 8y ago
        How would you see greater recourse and more opportunity for remedy at the state level?
ethbro 8y ago
> If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose. I may be missing something obvious, but how do you suggest this could be done?
- bmelton 8y ago
  There are a lot of ways. For one, an adversarial congress is a feature, not a bug. We've seen already that as congress has become more polarized, lobbyist dollars have moved from federal to state in droves. Limit the scope and power of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Most modern interpretations are based on Wickard v. Fillburn's "Well, if everybody did it, it might affect interstate commerce" interpretation, which I find flawed, and which gives the federal government outsized power over the states. It is through ICC power, for example, that the federal government was putting state-legal dispensary workers in federal prison, for example. States need to reclaim their 10th amendment rights. We've seen an uptick in that recently, with many states adopting gay marriage in defiance of DOMA, or allowing marijuana usage in defiance of federal law, or more recently with Vermont (or maybe CT?) allowing prescription drugs to be purchased from out of country. Disallow regulatory bodies from having effective power to make laws. Laws should be made by Congress, and so long as agencies are beholden to the executive, and they can make rules that have law-making power, congress has abrogated its duty, and gives far too much power to <insert president's name here>. Past that, you achieve electoral results the same way you achieve any political end -- voting in the people who espouse your aims, voting out those who don't. You know who to vote for by maintaining your political savvy, from reading both sides of news articles, by holding both sides accountable, even when you happen to like them, and by being eternally vigilant to the laws, the law makers, and exploring the intended and unintended side effects of "good" laws.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Devolving power to the states doesn't solve the problem, because state governments are also democratically elected. The central tenet is "If money can be used to buy votes, then how do you have a democracy?" Nothing you've said above seems to address that, nor anything I can think of, in a world with an absolute right to spend money to promote ones own or preferred speech.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
When they made that decision, multiple members of the court assumed there were proper disclosure regulations in place. There weren't. "If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose." And where do you think that power is going to go? It's not going to disapear into the ether.

grandmczeb 8y ago

> If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose. This is an excellent point.

Pyxl101 8y ago
Furthermore, it is not well-defined which speech is "political" speech, and which is not. What cause is it possible to advocate for that is not political in some way? If the business of politics and government is passing and implementing laws, then nearly any issue is or can be political in nature. If I advocate for regulating or not regulating the Internet, software, app stores, data privacy (a la GDPR), or basically anything else, then that can be construed as political.
- bmelton 8y ago
  If we're already in the business of protecting speech, then why does it matter whether a given speech is political enough to warrant protection?
squiggleblaz 8y ago
Actually it isn't. (a) The money has an outsized power to argue for an increase in available powers as I said upthread since I couldn't reply here. (b) Democracies seem to work better and more stably when votes make a difference. If there's a full house of people wanting to shift in a certain direction the democratic principle is that the shift in that direction should happen. Otherwise democracy becomes a sham and its institutions shed trust. This creates precisely the atmosphere for antidemocratic or unliberal people to gain power. If you can vote for someone who supports your views but they can't implement them while they're operating in the system, why not vote for someone who supports your views and is willing to ignore the system to get it. And what will all checks and balances do in that environment! If you like liberal government (in the traditional sense not the partisan sense), the most effective way to get it is to encourage liberal preferences in the electorate.
- bmelton 8y ago
  Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves. Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.
  - squiggleblaz 8y ago
    It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal government.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      > it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc. State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally. I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        How would you see greater recourse and more opportunity for remedy at the state level?

ethbro 8y ago

bmelton 8y ago
There are a lot of ways. For one, an adversarial congress is a feature, not a bug. We've seen already that as congress has become more polarized, lobbyist dollars have moved from federal to state in droves. Limit the scope and power of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Most modern interpretations are based on Wickard v. Fillburn's "Well, if everybody did it, it might affect interstate commerce" interpretation, which I find flawed, and which gives the federal government outsized power over the states. It is through ICC power, for example, that the federal government was putting state-legal dispensary workers in federal prison, for example. States need to reclaim their 10th amendment rights. We've seen an uptick in that recently, with many states adopting gay marriage in defiance of DOMA, or allowing marijuana usage in defiance of federal law, or more recently with Vermont (or maybe CT?) allowing prescription drugs to be purchased from out of country. Disallow regulatory bodies from having effective power to make laws. Laws should be made by Congress, and so long as agencies are beholden to the executive, and they can make rules that have law-making power, congress has abrogated its duty, and gives far too much power to <insert president's name here>. Past that, you achieve electoral results the same way you achieve any political end -- voting in the people who espouse your aims, voting out those who don't. You know who to vote for by maintaining your political savvy, from reading both sides of news articles, by holding both sides accountable, even when you happen to like them, and by being eternally vigilant to the laws, the law makers, and exploring the intended and unintended side effects of "good" laws.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Devolving power to the states doesn't solve the problem, because state governments are also democratically elected. The central tenet is "If money can be used to buy votes, then how do you have a democracy?" Nothing you've said above seems to address that, nor anything I can think of, in a world with an absolute right to spend money to promote ones own or preferred speech.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

When they made that decision, multiple members of the court assumed there were proper disclosure regulations in place. There weren't. "If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose." And where do you think that power is going to go? It's not going to disapear into the ether.