> It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, a

> It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech". This is simply not true and I'm curious if you have any examples to support this. > Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away. Again that is simply not true. In fact compared with the UK for instance it is _far_ harder to sue for libel or defamation in the US. > Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. Rich people have access to resources the poor don't. That's not new. > BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech. In general we are free speech absolutists. Honestly along with fast food, very entertaining movies and our love affair with guns it's quintessentially American.