4 ms·

They need to squash the idea that corporations, foreign ones no less, have speech that's protected. If internet platforms do have speech then they should be li

They need to squash the idea that corporations, foreign ones no less, have speech that's protected. If internet platforms do have speech then they should be liable for it.

sixothree 2y ago
I have a hard time believing that this supreme court, congress, or presidency, will have any interest in taking away corporate speech rights.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Overturning Citizen's United would be sweet.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Section 230 as well
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The point of Citizens United was that American citizens don't lose their rights to speech if they organize together. What limits do you think are appropriate to individual speech when people get organized?
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    I reject the notion that money is protected speech. Individuals can spend unlimited amounts of time and words on a campaign.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Unlimited time and unlimited words seem to have little utility if you can't get them in front of others. You can write a book or pamphlet, but it is little use if you cant pay to publish it.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        I'm not saying that the limit should be $0. The Canadian limit of $2000 per voter seems reasonable to me. You can print a lot of pamphlets for $2000.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you think two people should be able to split a $4000 printing cost? Citizens United was a ruling about pooling resources, opposed to a ruling against financial limits. There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        > There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions. With loopholes big enough to drive a bus through.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        sure, but that has nothing to do with CU, which is my point.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It has everything to do with CU. They haven't fixed the loopholes because of CU. The association thing is a red herring. Pretty much every other country in the world has a reasonable solution to the problem. If the limit is $2000 you can spend $2000 on your own or an organization can spend $2000 on behalf of you, or some mix.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure, and citizens united doesn't prevent that. It says that your ability to send $2,000 doesn't go away when you are part of an organization. If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    Election finance laws that the state is the one that bankrolls the campaigns would go a long way to it.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Would it? Where would you place the limit on individual political speech?
hash872 2y ago
TikTok isn't 'foreign', it's a Delaware corporation. Its parent company is foreign. If you think having a foreign parent company is somehow a magic loophole in the 1st Amendment, do you think the US government can force say Politico to take down anything critical they write? After all, their parent company is in Germany
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Politico is liable for what they write
  - hash872 2y ago
    The current bar under the 1st Amendment is very high
SllX 2y ago
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Show me in the text where Congress has the power to make that distinction. I think there’s a good free trade argument to block a service from a country that blocks all other similar services from our country and the world generally, but I don’t see an a speech argument for doing so. If there’s a speech argument to be made, I think Facebook, YouTube, Twitter et al. should have blocked accounts from the PRC to prevent CCP officials from using it to spread their own propaganda in the West whilst not being able to freely and legally operate and do business in the PRC’s jurisdiction, but I don’t think Congress actually has the power to compel them to stop being gutless on this issue.

They need to squash the idea that corporations, foreign ones no less, have speech that's protected. If internet platforms do have speech then they should be liable for it.

sixothree 2y ago

I have a hard time believing that this supreme court, congress, or presidency, will have any interest in taking away corporate speech rights.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Overturning Citizen's United would be sweet.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Section 230 as well
s1artibartfast 2y ago
The point of Citizens United was that American citizens don't lose their rights to speech if they organize together. What limits do you think are appropriate to individual speech when people get organized?
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  I reject the notion that money is protected speech. Individuals can spend unlimited amounts of time and words on a campaign.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Unlimited time and unlimited words seem to have little utility if you can't get them in front of others. You can write a book or pamphlet, but it is little use if you cant pay to publish it.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      I'm not saying that the limit should be $0. The Canadian limit of $2000 per voter seems reasonable to me. You can print a lot of pamphlets for $2000.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you think two people should be able to split a $4000 printing cost? Citizens United was a ruling about pooling resources, opposed to a ruling against financial limits. There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        > There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions. With loopholes big enough to drive a bus through.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        sure, but that has nothing to do with CU, which is my point.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It has everything to do with CU. They haven't fixed the loopholes because of CU. The association thing is a red herring. Pretty much every other country in the world has a reasonable solution to the problem. If the limit is $2000 you can spend $2000 on your own or an organization can spend $2000 on behalf of you, or some mix.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure, and citizens united doesn't prevent that. It says that your ability to send $2,000 doesn't go away when you are part of an organization. If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation.
- braiamp 2y ago
  Election finance laws that the state is the one that bankrolls the campaigns would go a long way to it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Would it? Where would you place the limit on individual political speech?

hash872 2y ago

TikTok isn't 'foreign', it's a Delaware corporation. Its parent company is foreign. If you think having a foreign parent company is somehow a magic loophole in the 1st Amendment, do you think the US government can force say Politico to take down anything critical they write? After all, their parent company is in Germany

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Politico is liable for what they write
- hash872 2y ago
  The current bar under the 1st Amendment is very high

SllX 2y ago

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Show me in the text where Congress has the power to make that distinction. I think there’s a good free trade argument to block a service from a country that blocks all other similar services from our country and the world generally, but I don’t see an a speech argument for doing so. If there’s a speech argument to be made, I think Facebook, YouTube, Twitter et al. should have blocked accounts from the PRC to prevent CCP officials from using it to spread their own propaganda in the West whilst not being able to freely and legally operate and do business in the PRC’s jurisdiction, but I don’t think Congress actually has the power to compel them to stop being gutless on this issue.