4 ms·

> 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 n

by 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.
- Seenso 7y ago
  >> 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. No, you don't. Most states have laws that prevent you from doing that at a polling place on election day: For example: https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-01/state-laws-polling-place-electioneering-Jan2020.pdf https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-01/sta... > During the hours the polls are open, a person who is in the polling place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place may not attempt to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    These all have distance limitations meant to allow people to access the facility. Outside of those places on public property, you have every right. This is like saying laws meant to keep stairways clear are restricting your free speech. You are absolutely allowed to protest near an election center within reasonable limits. To point out how ridiculous these selections of laws are as a proof that free speech is being abridged, I'll point out that Alabama restricts protests to be at least 30 feet away from the site. If 30 feet means you can't get your message across in a public enough forum, I'm not sure what to say. Also, a lot of those laws are subject to pending legislation.
    - sjy 7y ago
      Sounds like you are in complete agreement with the original claim that “no one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak.”
manfredo 7y ago
Quite the opposite: political speech is one of the most protected forms of speech. Your example for polling stations is a very narrow case where the integrity of the election takes priority. Your second case is effectively just pointing out that trespassing laws exist. > 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? You're right: spending is not treated very much differently than speech. Can a state pass a law that says people are limited to 30 political posts on social media per week? Can the government enforce a rule saying "people are limited to 30 hours of political activity per month"? Campaign spending - that is, money that is being given directly to candidates - is already limited. Citizens United did not change this. What is unlimited is spending on activism unrelated to any particular campaign. Say you and some of your friends are worried about climate change, and put together some money to run ads or billboards not promoting any politician in particular but encouraging more work on preventing climate change. Can the government swoop in and say, "sorry you've reached your spending limit for climate activism"? The courts decided no. Putting caps on this sort of activity is an infringement on people's right to free speech.
orangecat 7y ago
What's so different about the right to spend? There's very little you can do without spending, whether directly or indirectly. How would pro-choice advocates like it if abortion was explicitly legal, but it was illegal to spend money to obtain or provide abortion procedures?

by Seenso 7y ago

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.

Seenso 7y ago
>> 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. No, you don't. Most states have laws that prevent you from doing that at a polling place on election day: For example: https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-01/state-laws-polling-place-electioneering-Jan2020.pdf https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-01/sta... > During the hours the polls are open, a person who is in the polling place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place may not attempt to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question.
- tathougies 7y ago
  These all have distance limitations meant to allow people to access the facility. Outside of those places on public property, you have every right. This is like saying laws meant to keep stairways clear are restricting your free speech. You are absolutely allowed to protest near an election center within reasonable limits. To point out how ridiculous these selections of laws are as a proof that free speech is being abridged, I'll point out that Alabama restricts protests to be at least 30 feet away from the site. If 30 feet means you can't get your message across in a public enough forum, I'm not sure what to say. Also, a lot of those laws are subject to pending legislation.
  - sjy 7y ago
    Sounds like you are in complete agreement with the original claim that “no one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak.”

manfredo 7y ago

Quite the opposite: political speech is one of the most protected forms of speech. Your example for polling stations is a very narrow case where the integrity of the election takes priority. Your second case is effectively just pointing out that trespassing laws exist. > 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? You're right: spending is not treated very much differently than speech. Can a state pass a law that says people are limited to 30 political posts on social media per week? Can the government enforce a rule saying "people are limited to 30 hours of political activity per month"? Campaign spending - that is, money that is being given directly to candidates - is already limited. Citizens United did not change this. What is unlimited is spending on activism unrelated to any particular campaign. Say you and some of your friends are worried about climate change, and put together some money to run ads or billboards not promoting any politician in particular but encouraging more work on preventing climate change. Can the government swoop in and say, "sorry you've reached your spending limit for climate activism"? The courts decided no. Putting caps on this sort of activity is an infringement on people's right to free speech.

orangecat 7y ago

What's so different about the right to spend? There's very little you can do without spending, whether directly or indirectly. How would pro-choice advocates like it if abortion was explicitly legal, but it was illegal to spend money to obtain or provide abortion procedures?