6 ms·

The problem is that you can't have that and also have the first Amendment. Of all speech to be protected, the most important speech is political speech. But as

by MR4D 7y ago

The problem is that you can't have that and also have the first Amendment. Of all speech to be protected, the most important speech is political speech. But aside from that, what happens if my spouse runs and ad naming my opponent? Or my neighbor does? Or CNN does - perhaps in an ad for a personal interview to be televised in prime time ? There is no practical way to stop this. There will always be ways around it. But first, that Amendment thing... If you lock down political speech, you no longer have a democracy (yes, I know we are a republic). Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. And I guarantee that whichever party is in power at the moment will use that to try to stay in power. And it's dominoes falling after that.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alexpetralia 7y ago
Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money.
- harryh 7y ago
  Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment. What you have said is akin to saying that if the government banned the publishing of certain books that wouldn't be an impairment on the written word because people would still be free to write whatever they wanted down in their own personal notebooks.
  - Seenso 7y ago
    >> Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money. > Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment. Not necessarily; it all depends on perspective. Campaign finance restrictions would (relatively) enhance the ability of a not-so-wealthy person to broadcast their speech, because their message wouldn't be so drowned out by the broadcasts of the wealthy.
    - harryh 7y ago
      The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The amendment says that the government has to stay out of the way.
      - Seenso 7y ago
        > The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The First Amendment isn't the sum total of American law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are constitutional powers meant to provide effective democratic elections. The tension here is between those two interests. I think it's worth considering the idea that a too-absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment (in regards to spending) may interfere with the nation's ability to provide effective democratic elections. Both are important priorities. Also, it's not like the Constitution is perfect, timeless document. If it doesn't do enough to ensure effective democratic elections in light of its other provisions, then changes should be considered to fix that oversight.
shkkmo 7y ago
> Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. And I guarantee that whichever party is in power at the moment will use that to try to stay in power. The BCRA (McCain–Feingold) was a fairly balanced piece of legislation with reasonable and practical limits that was passed in a bipartisan manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act I see no reason why limiting corporate financing of electioneering means we are on a slippery slope to a loss of individual political speech.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The Citizens United case showed the slippery slope we were on. Michael Moore was allowed to release a movie about how a particular presidential candidate was bad just before the 2004 election. But when Citizens United tried to do the same thing in 2008, the FEC said it was a campaign ad and stopped them. If the law had been allowed to stand that way, we would have ended up in a world where popular media figures have special speech privileges you or I don't get.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I don't think your facts are correct. Farenheit 9/11 was released 4 months prior to the 2004 election and is thus outside the 60 day window and not prohibited by Mcain-Feingold. I would have wholeheartedly supported that movie being blocked as electioneering inside the 60 day window. Edit: Specifically, Citizens United was prohibited for paying to show or advertise within 30 days of the democratic primaries. > The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Seenso 7y ago
> If you lock down political speech, you no longer have a democracy (yes, I know we are a republic). Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. Political speech is already locked down in many ways by the government. For instance: neither you nor I can go to a polling station and harangue the people waiting to vote. We're also not permitted to force our way into schools or private homes to do the same. If we violate those rules, some people in blue uniforms will come and haul us away. No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak, as that right to do that is balanced against other rights and considerations. What's so different about the right to spend? Why can't that right be balanced against other rights and considerations, too?
- pc86 7y ago
  Interfering with someone voting and breaking and entering are not speech.
  - Seenso 7y ago
    > breaking and entering are not speech. That's kinda my point. You're not allowed to trespass in order to exercise free speech rights, because private property rights are balanced against free speech rights. The to quote the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... > Interfering with someone voting [is] not speech. That's true, but you could still harangue voters waiting in line at the polls without interfering with any aspect of the voting procedures. Yet that exercise of free speech still isn't permitted, because its balanced against needs for running elections.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > We're also not permitted to force our way into schools or private homes to do the same Actually, you are allowed to protest on public property within earshot of private homes. You cannot enter a private home because someone else's property and liberty trump your right to free speech on their property. In so far as their property includes the sidewalk (typically). You have every right to speak there. You can even protest there if you want. > No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak, Yes, you do have every right to go out on public property and literally speak. That is literally the right you have that many have died for and the ACLU and other orgs have fought for. Try it right now! Have fun. There is literally no restriction as long as you are not physically harassing or verbally abusing someone, and you are not physically preventing anyone from passing you.
HappySweeney 7y ago
In Canada, we ban all political advertising within the official election period for anyone other than the politicians themselves, and only individuals are allowed to make donations limited to $1600. It keeps things sane. Our elections are measured in single-digit weeks rather than double-digit months, though.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Canada (or any westminster system) has no absolute guarantee of free speech. Parliamentary democracy is based on the principle of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. The political system is incomparable. Parliament is not even anywhere near the same thing as Congress (or vice versa). The Congress of the United States and the Congress of the individual states are completely subject to a higher law. There is nothing similar in Canadian politics. Even the Canadian constitution is another Act of Parliament, no special consideration required. That is to say, the Canadian Constitution (as expressed in the Constitution act of 1982) is such because parliament says it is so. On the other hand, the Constitution of the United States of America exists because it says it does, and Congress is subject to it and cannot change it on its own. In order to amend the Canadian constitution, Parliament must amend it. On the other hand, Congress can become subject to changes in the constitution even without its consent, as was seen in the passage of the most recent amendment. In the 1980s a university student decided to change the constitution against Congress's wishes and was able to do so, by getting the states to change the laws to which Congress is subject. Try doing that in Canada.
  - sjy 7y ago
    This hasn’t been true since 1982. If anything, the guarantee of free speech in the Canadian constitution is procedurally stronger than that in the United States, since it can only be removed with the support of both houses of Parliament and a supermajority of provinces.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Free speech in Canada - like most other fundamental rights - is gutted by the "notwithstanding clause" in the Charter.
dd36 7y ago
We are a representative democracy and a republic. And in some ways a direct democracy. The “we’re a republic” “point” is usually made by the least informed among us.

by MR4D 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

alexpetralia 7y ago

Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money.

harryh 7y ago
Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment. What you have said is akin to saying that if the government banned the publishing of certain books that wouldn't be an impairment on the written word because people would still be free to write whatever they wanted down in their own personal notebooks.
- Seenso 7y ago
  >> Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money. > Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment. Not necessarily; it all depends on perspective. Campaign finance restrictions would (relatively) enhance the ability of a not-so-wealthy person to broadcast their speech, because their message wouldn't be so drowned out by the broadcasts of the wealthy.
  - harryh 7y ago
    The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The amendment says that the government has to stay out of the way.
    - Seenso 7y ago
      > The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The First Amendment isn't the sum total of American law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are constitutional powers meant to provide effective democratic elections. The tension here is between those two interests. I think it's worth considering the idea that a too-absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment (in regards to spending) may interfere with the nation's ability to provide effective democratic elections. Both are important priorities. Also, it's not like the Constitution is perfect, timeless document. If it doesn't do enough to ensure effective democratic elections in light of its other provisions, then changes should be considered to fix that oversight.

shkkmo 7y ago

> Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. And I guarantee that whichever party is in power at the moment will use that to try to stay in power. The BCRA (McCain–Feingold) was a fairly balanced piece of legislation with reasonable and practical limits that was passed in a bipartisan manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act I see no reason why limiting corporate financing of electioneering means we are on a slippery slope to a loss of individual political speech.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The Citizens United case showed the slippery slope we were on. Michael Moore was allowed to release a movie about how a particular presidential candidate was bad just before the 2004 election. But when Citizens United tried to do the same thing in 2008, the FEC said it was a campaign ad and stopped them. If the law had been allowed to stand that way, we would have ended up in a world where popular media figures have special speech privileges you or I don't get.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I don't think your facts are correct. Farenheit 9/11 was released 4 months prior to the 2004 election and is thus outside the 60 day window and not prohibited by Mcain-Feingold. I would have wholeheartedly supported that movie being blocked as electioneering inside the 60 day window. Edit: Specifically, Citizens United was prohibited for paying to show or advertise within 30 days of the democratic primaries. > The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Seenso 7y ago

> If you lock down political speech, you no longer have a democracy (yes, I know we are a republic). Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. Political speech is already locked down in many ways by the government. For instance: neither you nor I can go to a polling station and harangue the people waiting to vote. We're also not permitted to force our way into schools or private homes to do the same. If we violate those rules, some people in blue uniforms will come and haul us away. No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak, as that right to do that is balanced against other rights and considerations. What's so different about the right to spend? Why can't that right be balanced against other rights and considerations, too?

pc86 7y ago
Interfering with someone voting and breaking and entering are not speech.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > breaking and entering are not speech. That's kinda my point. You're not allowed to trespass in order to exercise free speech rights, because private property rights are balanced against free speech rights. The to quote the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... > Interfering with someone voting [is] not speech. That's true, but you could still harangue voters waiting in line at the polls without interfering with any aspect of the voting procedures. Yet that exercise of free speech still isn't permitted, because its balanced against needs for running elections.
tathougies 7y ago
> We're also not permitted to force our way into schools or private homes to do the same Actually, you are allowed to protest on public property within earshot of private homes. You cannot enter a private home because someone else's property and liberty trump your right to free speech on their property. In so far as their property includes the sidewalk (typically). You have every right to speak there. You can even protest there if you want. > No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak, Yes, you do have every right to go out on public property and literally speak. That is literally the right you have that many have died for and the ACLU and other orgs have fought for. Try it right now! Have fun. There is literally no restriction as long as you are not physically harassing or verbally abusing someone, and you are not physically preventing anyone from passing you.

HappySweeney 7y ago

In Canada, we ban all political advertising within the official election period for anyone other than the politicians themselves, and only individuals are allowed to make donations limited to $1600. It keeps things sane. Our elections are measured in single-digit weeks rather than double-digit months, though.

tathougies 7y ago
Canada (or any westminster system) has no absolute guarantee of free speech. Parliamentary democracy is based on the principle of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. The political system is incomparable. Parliament is not even anywhere near the same thing as Congress (or vice versa). The Congress of the United States and the Congress of the individual states are completely subject to a higher law. There is nothing similar in Canadian politics. Even the Canadian constitution is another Act of Parliament, no special consideration required. That is to say, the Canadian Constitution (as expressed in the Constitution act of 1982) is such because parliament says it is so. On the other hand, the Constitution of the United States of America exists because it says it does, and Congress is subject to it and cannot change it on its own. In order to amend the Canadian constitution, Parliament must amend it. On the other hand, Congress can become subject to changes in the constitution even without its consent, as was seen in the passage of the most recent amendment. In the 1980s a university student decided to change the constitution against Congress's wishes and was able to do so, by getting the states to change the laws to which Congress is subject. Try doing that in Canada.
- sjy 7y ago
  This hasn’t been true since 1982. If anything, the guarantee of free speech in the Canadian constitution is procedurally stronger than that in the United States, since it can only be removed with the support of both houses of Parliament and a supermajority of provinces.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Free speech in Canada - like most other fundamental rights - is gutted by the "notwithstanding clause" in the Charter.

dd36 7y ago

We are a representative democracy and a republic. And in some ways a direct democracy. The “we’re a republic” “point” is usually made by the least informed among us.