4 ms·

I mean, yes. Shouting on a corner isn't in the same universe as broadcasting to the entire country/world or using billboards etc. People in the 1700s could not

I mean, yes. Shouting on a corner isn't in the same universe as broadcasting to the entire country/world or using billboards etc. People in the 1700s could not conceive of the way communication works these days.

vel0city 2y ago
People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media. Is just posting on social media protected political speech? Is then paying for a computer and internet connection to post political speech on social media a campaign contribution?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media They could easily conceive of the cost of printing pamphlets.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Revolution-era America was a middling society where the difference between the very rich and the very poor was much less than it is today. The richest colonists weren't as rich, but neither were the poorest colonists as poor, as those back in the homeland. Huge concentrations of wealth just weren't a problem they needed to deal with in those turbulent times. As financial inequality grows, if the use of money to amplify ones liberty is not curtailed, then the new aristocratic class will be able to drown out the liberty of the rest. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but power is. This is what the founders did not solve, and consciously left it as an exercise for their descendants. A republic if you can keep it, is what they gave us. They did not feel the need to foresee what would happen in 200 years. They expected us to make the changes necessary to keep it. They did not want us to hold them up as godlike figures from whose mouths came the One True Word. It is a constitution, not divine scripture - we have an amendment process to make the changes we need, but first we need to agree that such changes are necessary, particularly in the realms of lobbying and campaign finance. These are the greatest vectors for corruption in government.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
absolutelastone 2y ago
Wouldn't this concern of yours also apply to the press under any definition? I can't afford to distribute my little pamphlet as much as the Times does their newspaper. And the constitution specifically protects the press, so you need a constitutional amendment. Rather than trying to make an end run around the constitution with a distinction about "money" not being speech, despite the obvious goal of the law being to regulate political speech itself via targeted restrictions on money.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Newspapers shouldn't be able to say whatever they want.

vel0city 2y ago

People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media. Is just posting on social media protected political speech? Is then paying for a computer and internet connection to post political speech on social media a campaign contribution?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media They could easily conceive of the cost of printing pamphlets.
- philipov 2y ago
  Revolution-era America was a middling society where the difference between the very rich and the very poor was much less than it is today. The richest colonists weren't as rich, but neither were the poorest colonists as poor, as those back in the homeland. Huge concentrations of wealth just weren't a problem they needed to deal with in those turbulent times. As financial inequality grows, if the use of money to amplify ones liberty is not curtailed, then the new aristocratic class will be able to drown out the liberty of the rest. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but power is. This is what the founders did not solve, and consciously left it as an exercise for their descendants. A republic if you can keep it, is what they gave us. They did not feel the need to foresee what would happen in 200 years. They expected us to make the changes necessary to keep it. They did not want us to hold them up as godlike figures from whose mouths came the One True Word. It is a constitution, not divine scripture - we have an amendment process to make the changes we need, but first we need to agree that such changes are necessary, particularly in the realms of lobbying and campaign finance. These are the greatest vectors for corruption in government.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

absolutelastone 2y ago

Wouldn't this concern of yours also apply to the press under any definition? I can't afford to distribute my little pamphlet as much as the Times does their newspaper. And the constitution specifically protects the press, so you need a constitutional amendment. Rather than trying to make an end run around the constitution with a distinction about "money" not being speech, despite the obvious goal of the law being to regulate political speech itself via targeted restrictions on money.

bongodongobob 2y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Newspapers shouldn't be able to say whatever they want.