5 ms·
Whether or not money is speech, most of the time speech needs money. Banning spending money on newspaper is banning the newspaper. Banning spending money on a
by rhino369 6y ago
Whether or not money is speech, most of the time speech needs money.
Banning spending money on newspaper is banning the newspaper. Banning spending money on advertisement is banning the advertisement.
Under the dissenting view in Citizens United, Congress could ban the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc. from talking about politics. That's just absurd. Congress could have banned the Federalist Papers!
I've always tried to find a middle ground that prevented for profit corporations from spending money. But like 99% of our media is for profit corporations. It doesn't make sense to ban Amazon from political speech, unless they buy the Washington Post, in which case they can do whatever the fuck they want.
- jonstewart 6y agoI find your reply unconvincing and disjointed. Among many other potential avenues for debate, the lowest hanging fruit seems to be noting that you’ve seemingly forgotten about freedom of the press with all your examples.
- Lazare 6y ago> the lowest hanging fruit seems to be noting that you’ve seemingly forgotten about freedom of the press with all your examples. That's a deep, deep non sequitur. Citzens United was about whether the government can stop corporations such as the NYT from talking about politics. The majority held that they cannot; freedom of the press (in the form of the fist amendment) protects them. The minority held that the freedom of the press does not protect them. The person you are replying to noted, correctly, that under this view the NYT could be stopped from discussing politics, and your reply is, essentially, "that can't be right, the first amendment would protect them!" I agree, of course, as did, thankfully, Justice Kennedy and four of the other justices. The dissenting justices, however, seem to have forgotten about freedom of the press...