5 ms·

If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to

If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is?

neeleshs 2y ago
I am not very knowledgeable about freedom of speech laws in the US, but is it limited to individuals, or is it very broad, including organizations, coalitions and partnerships of multiple people as well?
- brainwad 2y ago
  There's also in the same clause freedom of the press. So yes, it's explicit that you can band together with others to freely publish your joint speech.
- sofixa 2y ago
  In the US, the joke is that companies/organisations are people in terms of rights (to do damage), but not in terms of responsibilities. When Boeing or any of the oil giants or a megachurch/any other cult kill or defraud people, the organisation doesn't go to prison. There's a small fine, cost of doing business, nothing more.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  The Supreme Court once made a very weird decision granting freedom of free speech to corporations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC This is the moment when USA started morphing from a republic to oligarchy.
  - zeroCalories 2y ago
    Why is it weird? Does it not flow directly from a corporation being composed of people?
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      This assumption is trivialization of the problem. Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then. When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management, distorting the democratic process. Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power. This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic.
      - zeroCalories 2y ago
        > This assumption is trivialization of the problem. No, this is the main objection. You need to justify why, and how, you're going to restrict freedom of speech instead of avoiding the problem. > Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then. Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech. But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man. > When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management distorting the democratic process. So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than a celebrity, an activist group, or demographic behavior distorting the democratic process? Can you quantify and demonstrate the effect? > Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power. This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic. Sorry, I didn't realize we slipped into an alternate dimension where poor people could not vote. Just kidding, haha. Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.
sofixa 2y ago
For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon. In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people. Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights. And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  > Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech. The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning. > 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different? > An association of people isn't a human. This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced? > And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?
ttyprintk 2y ago
They can fully do that with a 501(c)(4). But corporations and labor unions must use a SuperPAC, and the donors to it are public info, unlike a 501.
nobody9999 2y ago
>If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is? Nothing per se. However if Bob and Joe are "running ads about how bad Issue X is," I'd like to know (or at least be able to find out) that it's Bob and Joe and not Steve and Larry who are financing such ads. While no one has mentioned it here yet, it seems to me that "dark money"[0] is a significant issue. [0] https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-whats-difference https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-...

neeleshs 2y ago

I am not very knowledgeable about freedom of speech laws in the US, but is it limited to individuals, or is it very broad, including organizations, coalitions and partnerships of multiple people as well?

brainwad 2y ago
There's also in the same clause freedom of the press. So yes, it's explicit that you can band together with others to freely publish your joint speech.
sofixa 2y ago
In the US, the joke is that companies/organisations are people in terms of rights (to do damage), but not in terms of responsibilities. When Boeing or any of the oil giants or a megachurch/any other cult kill or defraud people, the organisation doesn't go to prison. There's a small fine, cost of doing business, nothing more.
ivan_gammel 2y ago
The Supreme Court once made a very weird decision granting freedom of free speech to corporations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC This is the moment when USA started morphing from a republic to oligarchy.
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  Why is it weird? Does it not flow directly from a corporation being composed of people?
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    This assumption is trivialization of the problem. Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then. When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management, distorting the democratic process. Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power. This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic.
    - zeroCalories 2y ago
      > This assumption is trivialization of the problem. No, this is the main objection. You need to justify why, and how, you're going to restrict freedom of speech instead of avoiding the problem. > Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then. Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech. But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man. > When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management distorting the democratic process. So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than a celebrity, an activist group, or demographic behavior distorting the democratic process? Can you quantify and demonstrate the effect? > Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power. This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic. Sorry, I didn't realize we slipped into an alternate dimension where poor people could not vote. Just kidding, haha. Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.

sofixa 2y ago

For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon. In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people. Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights. And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.

zeroCalories 2y ago
> Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech. The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning. > 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different? > An association of people isn't a human. This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced? > And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?

ttyprintk 2y ago

They can fully do that with a 501(c)(4). But corporations and labor unions must use a SuperPAC, and the donors to it are public info, unlike a 501.

nobody9999 2y ago

>If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is? Nothing per se. However if Bob and Joe are "running ads about how bad Issue X is," I'd like to know (or at least be able to find out) that it's Bob and Joe and not Steve and Larry who are financing such ads. While no one has mentioned it here yet, it seems to me that "dark money"[0] is a significant issue. [0] https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-whats-difference https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-...