3 ms·
I think a law preventing you from profiting from speech on the basis of the content would still be a constitutional issue. E.g., a law saying you can distribute
by dabbledash 6y ago
I think a law preventing you from profiting from speech on the basis of the content would still be a constitutional issue. E.g., a law saying you can distribute pornography
but can’t sell it for a profit would be unconstitutional.
“You don’t have a right to profit from speech” would be a convenient pretext to, for instance, shut down the New York Times.
- mpalmer 6y agoMakes sense. I was coming at it from a taxation perspective rather than the "we're shutting you down" angle. We tax plenty of things that have societal harm - cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Speech is definitely too slippery a concept though. But what about reach? Could we theoretically tax businesses based on the volume of people their content reaches, thus bringing in public revenue and/or disincentivizing: - virality for the sake of ad impressions - too-large (social) media networks I'm sure it'd be phenomenally difficult to measure, but easier to pin down than arbitrary speech.
- dabbledash 6y agoI don’t know enough to say confidently. Personally, I’d be suspicious of a rule like that. In the end, it has to be enforced by the executive and it sounds a lot like “all speech will be tolerated except speech that spreads widely enough to be a threat to existing power.”
- Dracophoenix 6y agoThat sounds suspiciously like an Internet tax. Congress already passed a law banning such taxes.