3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoExactly. 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 agoA 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 agoIf 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 agoWealthy 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 agoThe 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 agoIs 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 agoNone 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 agoMoney 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 agoIf 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 agoThe 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.