3 ms·

> defending the so-called constitutional rights of said entities, of all things, to censor speech. This. I think the problem is that on the whole, most people

> defending the so-called constitutional rights of said entities, of all things, to censor speech. This. I think the problem is that on the whole, most people care more about outcomes than principles. And most people aren't very interested in constitutional issues. So most people find it quite easy to hold political positions that imply advocating two contradictory constitutional principles at the same time. I include myself, by the way; I'm not pretending that I'm cleverer than everyone else. But at least I'm interested. I come from a country with no (written) constitution, and I'm interested in constitutional principles. But I'm fearful of what might happen were we to adopt a constitution; basically I don't trust my fellow citizens to be able to think about these issues clearly. Constitution is essentially abstract law, and people find it hard to think in abstractions. So perhaps it's actually better to think about these issues in terms of outcomes, and rely on judicial precedent based on concrete cases, rather than to try to distill principles from pragmatic judicial goals. IANAL.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
But is anyone really thinking of concrete outcomes when they discuss cases like Citizens United? I've never seen anyone outside the most wonkish circles attempt to discuss the underlying facts of the case, where the FEC argued that it's illegal to release a documentary about a Presidential candidate during the entire primary season.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, I think that should remain illegal. The same is done in other countries globally.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    To be fair, the US campaigning season is effectively 50% of the time; 6 months of primaries, six months campaigning, for mid-terms and full-terms (I doubt that's the right term). And terms are 4 years; so campaigning is going on for two years in every four. And that's national. In the USA, banning a documentary because campaigning is going on would be a bit drastic.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Well, it would only apply to candidates campaigning in the current season. And they would still be able to make the documentary, they would just be subject to contribution limits.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    They weren't fully illegal at the time. Citizens United actually got the idea to do it from Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was theatrically released in the small window between primary and general election seasons but advertised and shown at Cannes during the primary. The FEC's policy was based on a standard of "bona fide commercial activity" - filmmakers were covered by the restriction if and only if the FEC didn't think they were trying hard enough to make money. Of course, like you said earlier, maybe they would have been fully illegal if the US didn't have a written constitution requiring lawmakers to think in terms of principles. It's a hard hypothetical to reason about.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

But is anyone really thinking of concrete outcomes when they discuss cases like Citizens United? I've never seen anyone outside the most wonkish circles attempt to discuss the underlying facts of the case, where the FEC argued that it's illegal to release a documentary about a Presidential candidate during the entire primary season.

whimsicalism 4y ago
Yes, I think that should remain illegal. The same is done in other countries globally.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  To be fair, the US campaigning season is effectively 50% of the time; 6 months of primaries, six months campaigning, for mid-terms and full-terms (I doubt that's the right term). And terms are 4 years; so campaigning is going on for two years in every four. And that's national. In the USA, banning a documentary because campaigning is going on would be a bit drastic.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Well, it would only apply to candidates campaigning in the current season. And they would still be able to make the documentary, they would just be subject to contribution limits.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  They weren't fully illegal at the time. Citizens United actually got the idea to do it from Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was theatrically released in the small window between primary and general election seasons but advertised and shown at Cannes during the primary. The FEC's policy was based on a standard of "bona fide commercial activity" - filmmakers were covered by the restriction if and only if the FEC didn't think they were trying hard enough to make money. Of course, like you said earlier, maybe they would have been fully illegal if the US didn't have a written constitution requiring lawmakers to think in terms of principles. It's a hard hypothetical to reason about.