4 ms·

> do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement? Yes, we do, because the alternative, no matter how they may try

> do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement? Yes, we do, because the alternative, no matter how they may try to sugar-coat it, is the establishment choosing their opposition.

dghlsakjg 5y ago
The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech? I understand that in theory, but I also think that in practice, we have proven that money does not tend to flow evenly to just causes. As an extension of that, look what western governments have funded covertly, and what it has wrought, especially since the start of the 20th century. I really doubt that this will be limited to individuals donating to a populist cause (which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support). I don't see that being the majority of it. I suspect that intelligence agencies, and corporate interests will be far more likely to be the ones that use the unlimited untraceable money to destabilize social systems.
- mc32 5y ago
  Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve? Did you raise this issue during previous mass protest crowdfunding events or do you not like this protest in particular, but others can be okay?
  - dghlsakjg 5y ago
    > Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve? If they want to stay in compliance with US law, that is absolutely something that cloudsourcing platforms need to solve. Foreign political donations are very much restricted in the US. As for your second question, I think that ALL political causes need to have guardrails about who is funding them, and how they are allowed to disrupt critical infrastructure. Also your question is textbook bad faith what-aboutism
- mikem170 5y ago
  > The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech? The U.S. Supreme Court took that position, in their famous Citizens United ruling: "The court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns" [0] (I'm not the original poster) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - dghlsakjg 5y ago
    Notably, the supreme court has never allowed unlimited foreign money to be donated to political causes, which is VERY illegal in the states. So even the US government agrees that there are limits to money as free speech
    - mikem170 5y ago
      I don't disagree with your point that money corrupts politics. I was responding specifically to your questioning of why the equivalency of money and free speech came up.
- bko 5y ago
  I don't get the difference between money and speech. Free speech doesn't mean I can just mutter something to myself in my own home. Most things cost money. So if I want to pass out pamphlets to spread my message, that will cost money. So how can you say I have free speech if I'm restricted from spending money. Consider newspapers. They require money. If money doesn't equal speech, how can I print and distribute my newspaper without spending money? I don't see a system in which you can have free speech while restricting money related to speech > which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support Unpopular speech is precisely the speech that needs to be defended. If its popular and everyone agrees with it, what's the point?
  - dghlsakjg 5y ago
    This is about anonymous foreign money funding political movements. Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa. If that’s free speech, would you mind providing your address for free speech purposes?
    - bko 5y ago
      > Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa. I don't know what a "foreign political actor" means, but should a private individual be able to give money to anyone they want? Yes. Should the person receiving the money obey local laws? Yes. But this is more civil disobedience. Protesting is valid political speech. Do I want that to happen in my back yard? Of course not. But that's not particularly useful. Perhaps I don't want bars on my block where I live, but that doesn't mean I have the right to make bars illegal. That's just silly
- jl2718 5y ago
  You’re drawing equivalence between government action and non-government action, and applying that equivalence to a case where the non-government action is directly opposing the government action. Further, you’re using a denunciation of the actions of government as an argument against the rights of the people to protest against it. This debate would be a lot more productive and a lot less dangerous if you could stick to the actual disagreement at hand, which I think has something to do with vaccines, but I’m not sure anymore, rather than trying to build a case for rejection of all rights even marginally related to any form of opposition. And please understand that I have much less interest in the opposition rights than the unrelated collateral damage that any such restrictions would cause.

dghlsakjg 5y ago

The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech? I understand that in theory, but I also think that in practice, we have proven that money does not tend to flow evenly to just causes. As an extension of that, look what western governments have funded covertly, and what it has wrought, especially since the start of the 20th century. I really doubt that this will be limited to individuals donating to a populist cause (which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support). I don't see that being the majority of it. I suspect that intelligence agencies, and corporate interests will be far more likely to be the ones that use the unlimited untraceable money to destabilize social systems.

mc32 5y ago
Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve? Did you raise this issue during previous mass protest crowdfunding events or do you not like this protest in particular, but others can be okay?
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  > Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve? If they want to stay in compliance with US law, that is absolutely something that cloudsourcing platforms need to solve. Foreign political donations are very much restricted in the US. As for your second question, I think that ALL political causes need to have guardrails about who is funding them, and how they are allowed to disrupt critical infrastructure. Also your question is textbook bad faith what-aboutism
mikem170 5y ago
> The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech? The U.S. Supreme Court took that position, in their famous Citizens United ruling: "The court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns" [0] (I'm not the original poster) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  Notably, the supreme court has never allowed unlimited foreign money to be donated to political causes, which is VERY illegal in the states. So even the US government agrees that there are limits to money as free speech
  - mikem170 5y ago
    I don't disagree with your point that money corrupts politics. I was responding specifically to your questioning of why the equivalency of money and free speech came up.
bko 5y ago
I don't get the difference between money and speech. Free speech doesn't mean I can just mutter something to myself in my own home. Most things cost money. So if I want to pass out pamphlets to spread my message, that will cost money. So how can you say I have free speech if I'm restricted from spending money. Consider newspapers. They require money. If money doesn't equal speech, how can I print and distribute my newspaper without spending money? I don't see a system in which you can have free speech while restricting money related to speech > which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support Unpopular speech is precisely the speech that needs to be defended. If its popular and everyone agrees with it, what's the point?
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  This is about anonymous foreign money funding political movements. Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa. If that’s free speech, would you mind providing your address for free speech purposes?
  - bko 5y ago
    > Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa. I don't know what a "foreign political actor" means, but should a private individual be able to give money to anyone they want? Yes. Should the person receiving the money obey local laws? Yes. But this is more civil disobedience. Protesting is valid political speech. Do I want that to happen in my back yard? Of course not. But that's not particularly useful. Perhaps I don't want bars on my block where I live, but that doesn't mean I have the right to make bars illegal. That's just silly
jl2718 5y ago
You’re drawing equivalence between government action and non-government action, and applying that equivalence to a case where the non-government action is directly opposing the government action. Further, you’re using a denunciation of the actions of government as an argument against the rights of the people to protest against it. This debate would be a lot more productive and a lot less dangerous if you could stick to the actual disagreement at hand, which I think has something to do with vaccines, but I’m not sure anymore, rather than trying to build a case for rejection of all rights even marginally related to any form of opposition. And please understand that I have much less interest in the opposition rights than the unrelated collateral damage that any such restrictions would cause.