6 ms·

> Americans have the right to hear This is the argument that gave us Citizens United.

segasaturn 2y ago
From what I've read of it, the Citizens United case was decided correctly. If you believe that how you spend money should be exempted from the First Amendment then it should be revised with that specific carve-out, but its definition of free speech was kept extremely broad for a reason.
- voakbasda 2y ago
  Exactly. The problem is not that corporations have free speech. Rather, it’s that we have effectively no bounds on their growth, allowing their voices to drown out the citizenry.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  A thought experiment: Would US independence have been achieved if the internet existed and the British crown had the ability to use that money to influence Americans? IMO it's at least contrary to the spirit of the constitution, which was about giving the People the power.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    If the internet existed at the time the power to censor it would have belonged to the British crown, much as they had the power to read/censor mail (one of the original motivations for the first amendment).
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Wealthy propagandists wielding mass media was in fact a key part of the American Revolution. The likes of Benjamin Franklin held no punches, and certainly would not have abided by sort of regulations overturned by Citizens United. Imagine telling the man that he's not allowed to publish a newspaper supporting his position because an election is imminent. He'd laugh in your face and do it anyway. His influence is a large part of the reason we have the First Amendment.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  The First Amendment is about free speech. Money is not speech, and should not require a specific carve-out. If you equate money to speech then elected officials become beholden to those with money, which kills democracy.
  - segasaturn 2y ago
    Is a boycott not an act of free expression? What about giving to charity? I'm sure the US Government would love to shut down all donations to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, but thanks to the First Amendment those activities are protected by the constitution.
    - breadwinner 2y ago
      None of those things are speech, and if they are legal it is not thanks to the first amendment. And as it turns out, donations are not necessarily legal either, see: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-money-find-way-to-tamil-tigers-idUSTRE59I1XN/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-mon...
  - tzs 2y ago
    Money is not speech. But if you use money to print newspapers, buy ads on radio or TV, put up signs, etc., those newspapers, ads, signs, etc., are speech. If you can ban people from spending money on those things you are de facto banning speech.
    - breadwinner 2y ago
      If you allow corporations to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads on radio or TV, newspapers etc. you are allowing them to drown out the voice of citizens, and at that point you are de facto banning speech of the citizens.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        The premise that Citizens United publishing a documentary about Hillary Clinton in some way "drowned out" anybody's speech, let alone "defacto banned speech of the citizens" is farcical. Nobody had ever even heard of that movie, if not for the legal battle over whether they had a right to publish it. Particularly in the modern era when the ability of individuals to make themselves heard is greater than anytime in the past. When this country was founded, only people wealthy enough to own printing presses could hope to reach large numbers od people. Today, the means to reach lots of people exists in your pocket and people are mostly just limited by their ability, or inability, to think of anything worth saying.
sroussey 2y ago
> Americans have the right to hear AKA: Americans have the right to hear deep pockets over regular citizens. TikTok is at least a bit egalitarian.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  That’s impressive levels of cognitive dissonance that must be at play behind that comment.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  They have the option to sell it and the product can continue existing as is
sneak 2y ago
It was valid then, and it’s valid now. The state has no business telling any human being, citizen or not, what they are allowed to read.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Yes big money likes that concept very much.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  Does that mean foreign countries (Russia, China etc.) can pour billions into political Facebook ads, and the only thing US citizens can do is to purchase ads to counter the foreign ads? I am sure Zuckerberg would love that!
  - sneak 2y ago
    Why should anyone’s right to publishing be dependent on their country of origin? The right to free expression is a human right, not an American one.
  - analognoise 2y ago
    Shareholders (whom many people believe have primacy in corporate decisions) are frequently international/foreign. If you can be laid off to appease foreign interests, what’s the difference in letting foreign interests buy unlimited ads? America has already decided (Citizens United) that unlimited money can be used by citizens to drown out the speech of their compatriots. The Supreme Court justices can take bribes, gifts and vacations paid for by billionaires, and you can be laid off to appease the foreign shareholders. Why not let them have infinite ad spend? We can just say that the marketplace of ideas is a literal marketplace. Foreign companies can buy land and use up all the ground water; parch the land dry. We’ll just tell people it’s a “free market” and they’ll eat it up. Hell, we allow tens of thousand of Americans to die every year to prop up insurance profits; kickbacks for private prisons. The next DLC will be “war for profit”! Why not stop pretending and just put a “For Sale” sign on everything? At least then we could stop pretending.

From what I've read of it, the Citizens United case was decided correctly. If you believe that how you spend money should be exempted from the First Amendment then it should be revised with that specific carve-out, but its definition of free speech was kept extremely broad for a reason.

voakbasda 2y ago
Exactly. The problem is not that corporations have free speech. Rather, it’s that we have effectively no bounds on their growth, allowing their voices to drown out the citizenry.
BeefWellington 2y ago
A thought experiment: Would US independence have been achieved if the internet existed and the British crown had the ability to use that money to influence Americans? IMO it's at least contrary to the spirit of the constitution, which was about giving the People the power.
- logicchains 2y ago
  If the internet existed at the time the power to censor it would have belonged to the British crown, much as they had the power to read/censor mail (one of the original motivations for the first amendment).
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Wealthy propagandists wielding mass media was in fact a key part of the American Revolution. The likes of Benjamin Franklin held no punches, and certainly would not have abided by sort of regulations overturned by Citizens United. Imagine telling the man that he's not allowed to publish a newspaper supporting his position because an election is imminent. He'd laugh in your face and do it anyway. His influence is a large part of the reason we have the First Amendment.
breadwinner 2y ago
The First Amendment is about free speech. Money is not speech, and should not require a specific carve-out. If you equate money to speech then elected officials become beholden to those with money, which kills democracy.
- segasaturn 2y ago
  Is a boycott not an act of free expression? What about giving to charity? I'm sure the US Government would love to shut down all donations to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, but thanks to the First Amendment those activities are protected by the constitution.
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    None of those things are speech, and if they are legal it is not thanks to the first amendment. And as it turns out, donations are not necessarily legal either, see: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-money-find-way-to-tamil-tigers-idUSTRE59I1XN/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-mon...
- tzs 2y ago
  Money is not speech. But if you use money to print newspapers, buy ads on radio or TV, put up signs, etc., those newspapers, ads, signs, etc., are speech. If you can ban people from spending money on those things you are de facto banning speech.
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    If you allow corporations to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads on radio or TV, newspapers etc. you are allowing them to drown out the voice of citizens, and at that point you are de facto banning speech of the citizens.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      The premise that Citizens United publishing a documentary about Hillary Clinton in some way "drowned out" anybody's speech, let alone "defacto banned speech of the citizens" is farcical. Nobody had ever even heard of that movie, if not for the legal battle over whether they had a right to publish it. Particularly in the modern era when the ability of individuals to make themselves heard is greater than anytime in the past. When this country was founded, only people wealthy enough to own printing presses could hope to reach large numbers od people. Today, the means to reach lots of people exists in your pocket and people are mostly just limited by their ability, or inability, to think of anything worth saying.

sroussey 2y ago

> Americans have the right to hear AKA: Americans have the right to hear deep pockets over regular citizens. TikTok is at least a bit egalitarian.

vlovich123 2y ago
That’s impressive levels of cognitive dissonance that must be at play behind that comment.
yieldcrv 2y ago
They have the option to sell it and the product can continue existing as is

sneak 2y ago

It was valid then, and it’s valid now. The state has no business telling any human being, citizen or not, what they are allowed to read.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Yes big money likes that concept very much.
breadwinner 2y ago
Does that mean foreign countries (Russia, China etc.) can pour billions into political Facebook ads, and the only thing US citizens can do is to purchase ads to counter the foreign ads? I am sure Zuckerberg would love that!
- sneak 2y ago
  Why should anyone’s right to publishing be dependent on their country of origin? The right to free expression is a human right, not an American one.
- analognoise 2y ago
  Shareholders (whom many people believe have primacy in corporate decisions) are frequently international/foreign. If you can be laid off to appease foreign interests, what’s the difference in letting foreign interests buy unlimited ads? America has already decided (Citizens United) that unlimited money can be used by citizens to drown out the speech of their compatriots. The Supreme Court justices can take bribes, gifts and vacations paid for by billionaires, and you can be laid off to appease the foreign shareholders. Why not let them have infinite ad spend? We can just say that the marketplace of ideas is a literal marketplace. Foreign companies can buy land and use up all the ground water; parch the land dry. We’ll just tell people it’s a “free market” and they’ll eat it up. Hell, we allow tens of thousand of Americans to die every year to prop up insurance profits; kickbacks for private prisons. The next DLC will be “war for profit”! Why not stop pretending and just put a “For Sale” sign on everything? At least then we could stop pretending.