3 ms·

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.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    >You need to justify why, and how... I do not understand this part. I'm literally explaining why and how in the next sentences. >Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech. Proof? As far as I can see, this is incorrect: https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-... > Free speech can generally be constrained > But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man. No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph (and I needed to say it because on this forum some people actually argued that free speech is absolute in the past, so I cannot assume that you or anyone else agrees with that). >So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than... Every distortion is different and has some unique traits that need to be considered on case by case basis. Example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_21_6118/ip_21_6118_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume... >...where poor people could not vote People can vote even in totalitarian dictatorships. It is not the only process that defines democracy. They must have a candidate to vote in the first place. What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? How this candidate can secure a party nomination in presence of various special interests groups with money? The list of questions like that is very long. So no, it is not about "poor people who cannot vote". It is a much more complex issue. >Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular. You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I don't have/support any political projects related to USA. That country is not my problem, it's just an object of my curiosity.
    - zeroCalories 2y ago
      > Proof? As far as I can see, this is incorrect: https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political- https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-... Your link actually backs up my point. > No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph Fair. > Every distortion is different and has some unique traits that need to be considered on case by case basis. Example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume... This document is about funding transparency, and seems unrelated to what I said. Are you trolling me? > What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? Very good, actually. Donald Trump was a party outsider, and far different from establishment Republicans. Bernie Sanders was second place in the primaries, twice in a row, and does not identify with the party, he simply invites himself in during election season. They both received tons of funding from various sources, with small contributions making up a large chunk of their funding. Turns out if you're popular money will flow your way.

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.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  >You need to justify why, and how... I do not understand this part. I'm literally explaining why and how in the next sentences. >Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech. Proof? As far as I can see, this is incorrect: https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-... > Free speech can generally be constrained > But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man. No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph (and I needed to say it because on this forum some people actually argued that free speech is absolute in the past, so I cannot assume that you or anyone else agrees with that). >So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than... Every distortion is different and has some unique traits that need to be considered on case by case basis. Example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_21_6118/ip_21_6118_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume... >...where poor people could not vote People can vote even in totalitarian dictatorships. It is not the only process that defines democracy. They must have a candidate to vote in the first place. What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? How this candidate can secure a party nomination in presence of various special interests groups with money? The list of questions like that is very long. So no, it is not about "poor people who cannot vote". It is a much more complex issue. >Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular. You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I don't have/support any political projects related to USA. That country is not my problem, it's just an object of my curiosity.
  - zeroCalories 2y ago
    > Proof? As far as I can see, this is incorrect: https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political- https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-... Your link actually backs up my point. > No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph Fair. > Every distortion is different and has some unique traits that need to be considered on case by case basis. Example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume... This document is about funding transparency, and seems unrelated to what I said. Are you trolling me? > What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? Very good, actually. Donald Trump was a party outsider, and far different from establishment Republicans. Bernie Sanders was second place in the primaries, twice in a row, and does not identify with the party, he simply invites himself in during election season. They both received tons of funding from various sources, with small contributions making up a large chunk of their funding. Turns out if you're popular money will flow your way.