4 ms·

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

by na85 8y ago

mathgeek 8y ago
For better or worse, it legally is in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) for what we're talking about. To say that it's controversial would be an understatement.
elsewhen 8y ago
> Money isn't speech. there are several supreme court cases that have ruled differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
matthewowen 8y ago
This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value. This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  One could just as easily the aim is to protect political graffiti. Especially given the actions of the founders during the revolution. The choice of protecting money is a strategic one, not one of judicial sobriety. And as we expect from that kind of ruling, it falls exactly along the political lines of the appointing president. It is an extrapolation to suppose the founders intended allowing every avenue of distribution regardless of outcome. It's just as (un)clear the founders would be appalled at the current tight feedback from campaign finance which in many cases is indistinguishable from bribery.
- akiselev 8y ago
  And yet we regulate swear words and nude imagery on broadcast television because the airwaves are a limited public resource. First ammendment absolutism in the face of rapidly changing technology is way more tiresome.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    >And yet we regulate swear words and nude imagery on broadcast television Maybe the reasonable answer is that you shouldn't, especially in the face of rapidly changing technology, which nowadays gives us huge choice of what to look at. The example of outdated censorship doesn't make a valid argument for more restrictions.
  - internet555 8y ago
    “Tv is ran by money; how am I supposed to be?” - Lil B
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gcb0 8y ago
money isn't speech but the courts that ultimately decide this in the USA are directly appointed by someone who got elected using money instead of speech.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  There are many elections in the US, including the last Presidential one, where the winner spent nowhere near as much as the loser. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia... Clinton spent nearly double what Trump did.

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

by na85 8y ago

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

mathgeek 8y ago

For better or worse, it legally is in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) for what we're talking about. To say that it's controversial would be an understatement.

elsewhen 8y ago

> Money isn't speech. there are several supreme court cases that have ruled differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

matthewowen 8y ago

This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value. This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.

TomMckenny 8y ago
One could just as easily the aim is to protect political graffiti. Especially given the actions of the founders during the revolution. The choice of protecting money is a strategic one, not one of judicial sobriety. And as we expect from that kind of ruling, it falls exactly along the political lines of the appointing president. It is an extrapolation to suppose the founders intended allowing every avenue of distribution regardless of outcome. It's just as (un)clear the founders would be appalled at the current tight feedback from campaign finance which in many cases is indistinguishable from bribery.
akiselev 8y ago
And yet we regulate swear words and nude imagery on broadcast television because the airwaves are a limited public resource. First ammendment absolutism in the face of rapidly changing technology is way more tiresome.
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  >And yet we regulate swear words and nude imagery on broadcast television Maybe the reasonable answer is that you shouldn't, especially in the face of rapidly changing technology, which nowadays gives us huge choice of what to look at. The example of outdated censorship doesn't make a valid argument for more restrictions.
- internet555 8y ago
  “Tv is ran by money; how am I supposed to be?” - Lil B
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gcb0 8y ago

money isn't speech but the courts that ultimately decide this in the USA are directly appointed by someone who got elected using money instead of speech.

skookumchuck 8y ago
There are many elections in the US, including the last Presidential one, where the winner spent nowhere near as much as the loser. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia... Clinton spent nearly double what Trump did.