4 ms·

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 perhap

by 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.
    - slg 6y ago
      >The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system. >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. So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public. >It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. >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. You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?
      - koolba 6y ago
        > "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome. Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources. > You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it? Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?
amadeuspagel 6y ago
> 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 criticize my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? No. Even if the criticism is harsh, even hateful. I find this a particularly curious example, because there's a long history of criticism of religion, from Nietzsche to Dawkins, much of it harsh, even hateful. I'm not aware of any countries that ban these writers, though apparently Dawkins got cancelled for also applying his criticism to islam. And what if your religion itself entails beliefs that makes other people, such as women or homosexuals, fear for their rights? Then they are not allowed to hate on your religion, because that makes you fear for your freedom of religion?
- slg 6y ago
  We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech. It is legal in the US to say that all Muslims are terrorists that deserve to be shot with bullets dipped in pig's blood. How would you feel hearing that if you were a Muslim? Would you feel that you could safely and openly practice your religion?
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    > We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech. You say this as if these are clearly defined categories. Take the charlie hebdo cartoons: Criticism, blasphemy or hate speech? At any rate, your argument applies even to criticism. Criticism can lead people to infringe on your freedom of religion.
    - slg 6y ago
      What is the line between criticism and slander? Why can we draw that line when dealing with individuals but it is impossible to define categories when dealing with groups of people?
      - 6y ago

by slg 6y ago

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.
  - slg 6y ago
    >The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system. >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. So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public. >It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. >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. You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?
    - koolba 6y ago
      > "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome. Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources. > You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it? Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?

amadeuspagel 6y ago

> 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 criticize my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? No. Even if the criticism is harsh, even hateful. I find this a particularly curious example, because there's a long history of criticism of religion, from Nietzsche to Dawkins, much of it harsh, even hateful. I'm not aware of any countries that ban these writers, though apparently Dawkins got cancelled for also applying his criticism to islam. And what if your religion itself entails beliefs that makes other people, such as women or homosexuals, fear for their rights? Then they are not allowed to hate on your religion, because that makes you fear for your freedom of religion?

slg 6y ago
We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech. It is legal in the US to say that all Muslims are terrorists that deserve to be shot with bullets dipped in pig's blood. How would you feel hearing that if you were a Muslim? Would you feel that you could safely and openly practice your religion?
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech. You say this as if these are clearly defined categories. Take the charlie hebdo cartoons: Criticism, blasphemy or hate speech? At any rate, your argument applies even to criticism. Criticism can lead people to infringe on your freedom of religion.
  - slg 6y ago
    What is the line between criticism and slander? Why can we draw that line when dealing with individuals but it is impossible to define categories when dealing with groups of people?
    - 6y ago