6 ms·

>The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy What could you possibly mean by this? Can yo

>The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy What could you possibly mean by this? Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?

peteretep 6y ago
You are free to full throatedly criticise the government in any Western democracy while unlimited political dark money and pharmaceutical advertising so pervasive it literally stops testing against placebos working is largely banned.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on the part about advertising and testing?
  - peteretep 6y ago
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-grows-in-u-s-thwarting-development-of-painkillers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-gr...
slg 6y ago
First we need to remember that this isn't a binary question of freedom versus no freedom. It is a question of where to place the line on a spectrum. Or perhaps more specifically where does the line exist between your rights and my rights. Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it? Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.
- koolba 6y ago
  > Does your right to spend a $1B on political advertising drown out my political speech? On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published. If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.
  - slg 6y ago
    Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech.
    - koolba 6y ago
      > Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message. > That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. > I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech. If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way? Not the OP but here in Germany the guiding principle of all lawmaking and action of the state is human dignity, as laid out in the first article of the basic law. Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. and freedom of expression while enjoying numerous protections reaches its limitations when that dignity is under attack (article 5): (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.

peteretep 6y ago

You are free to full throatedly criticise the government in any Western democracy while unlimited political dark money and pharmaceutical advertising so pervasive it literally stops testing against placebos working is largely banned.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Can you elaborate on the part about advertising and testing?
- peteretep 6y ago
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-grows-in-u-s-thwarting-development-of-painkillers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-gr...

slg 6y ago

First we need to remember that this isn't a binary question of freedom versus no freedom. It is a question of where to place the line on a spectrum. Or perhaps more specifically where does the line exist between your rights and my rights. Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it? Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.

koolba 6y ago
> Does your right to spend a $1B on political advertising drown out my political speech? On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published. If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.
- slg 6y ago
  Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech.
  - koolba 6y ago
    > Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message. > That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. > I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech. If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way? Not the OP but here in Germany the guiding principle of all lawmaking and action of the state is human dignity, as laid out in the first article of the basic law. Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. and freedom of expression while enjoying numerous protections reaches its limitations when that dignity is under attack (article 5): (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.