3 ms·

Your argument only works under the assumption that money=speech, a belief that doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to speak in suppor

Your argument only works under the assumption that money=speech, a belief that doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to speak in support of, say, an active terrorist organization. I doubt it is legal in many places to donate money to support an active terrorist organization. If you believe that money=speech, the law is inconsistent in this matter. Assuming you want the law to be consistent, there are really only two ways to resolve the inconsistency: 1. Speaking in support of terrorist organizations should be illegal, or 2. Donating money to terrorist organizations should be legal. I disagree with both these statements, so to me, money /= speech.

jeofken 6y ago
That’s a fair point! The example should be voluntarily paying a writer to write what I deem truth worthy, vs the state threatening with violence if I refuse to pay for what they want me to pay for. In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them. I encourage Americans here to cherish not having to have that.
- ookdatnog 6y ago
  > In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them. I understand that that's frustrating for you, my objection with your post is merely your claim that this constitutes forced speech. It does not, unless you believe that money=speech. Some people hold that belief, but I suspect very few of them will be consistent about accepting the logical consequences of that belief (therefore they don't really hold the belief, they just reasoned backwards to justify a belief they _do_ hold). There's nothing in the belief that speech should be free and unforced that prohibits state-owned media (as long as other speech is not suppressed), or even outright state propaganda. That doesn't mean you can't be against these things, merely that being against these things doesn't automatically follow from believing in that free and unforced speech is a fundamental right. If you want to make the case that state-owned media are immoral (which, just to be clear, I don't currently believe), you need to refer to different rights. I've heard some people on the internet make the claim, for instance, that all taxes constitute theft, and that taxes are fundamentally immoral. I don't believe this at all, but that would give you a moral basis to renounce state media. But really, sometimes the state is just going to do something that you don't like, perhaps even hate with a passion, without violating a fundamental right. I know I'd be furious if the state broadcaster started propagandizing a religion, for instance, but as long as they don't infringe on my freedom to believe what I want, they're not violating any of my rights (I could, at most, argue that it's a slippery slope to violating my rights, which may be a convincing argument by itself).

jeofken 6y ago

That’s a fair point! The example should be voluntarily paying a writer to write what I deem truth worthy, vs the state threatening with violence if I refuse to pay for what they want me to pay for. In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them. I encourage Americans here to cherish not having to have that.

ookdatnog 6y ago
> In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them. I understand that that's frustrating for you, my objection with your post is merely your claim that this constitutes forced speech. It does not, unless you believe that money=speech. Some people hold that belief, but I suspect very few of them will be consistent about accepting the logical consequences of that belief (therefore they don't really hold the belief, they just reasoned backwards to justify a belief they _do_ hold). There's nothing in the belief that speech should be free and unforced that prohibits state-owned media (as long as other speech is not suppressed), or even outright state propaganda. That doesn't mean you can't be against these things, merely that being against these things doesn't automatically follow from believing in that free and unforced speech is a fundamental right. If you want to make the case that state-owned media are immoral (which, just to be clear, I don't currently believe), you need to refer to different rights. I've heard some people on the internet make the claim, for instance, that all taxes constitute theft, and that taxes are fundamentally immoral. I don't believe this at all, but that would give you a moral basis to renounce state media. But really, sometimes the state is just going to do something that you don't like, perhaps even hate with a passion, without violating a fundamental right. I know I'd be furious if the state broadcaster started propagandizing a religion, for instance, but as long as they don't infringe on my freedom to believe what I want, they're not violating any of my rights (I could, at most, argue that it's a slippery slope to violating my rights, which may be a convincing argument by itself).