4 ms·

Yes, exactly: would people bring up a free-speech issue if someone wrote "gentrifiers go home" on the side of a new apartment development or an anti-Semitic mes

by strlen 13y ago

Yes, exactly: would people bring up a free-speech issue if someone wrote "gentrifiers go home" on the side of a new apartment development or an anti-Semitic message on the walls of JCC or offices of an Israeli company (to compare apples to apples, I am not going to say a synagogue)? I don't think a felony conviction or any kind of jail sentence is appropriate here due to no property damage being done and lack of intent to intimidate, but this is not a free speech issue. This is "prosecutors being douche bags" issue (still a very serious problem). I am not in any way saying that property rights should always trump free speech right: California, for example, extends free speech to private spaces open to the public ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro... ). I could even tangibly see a case if, e.g., wall of a privately owned building in a busy area has been set aside as a public chalkboard (for any kind of messages), but certain (otherwise protected) speech was excluded. Defacement of property that isn't yours and to which you've not been granted access, however, isn't exercise of free speech. I also find it ironic that most of the posters here disagree with ACLU on Citizens United: apparently showing a political film before an election is not free speech, but vandalism is...

redblacktree 13y ago
The problem with Citizens United isn't the showing of the film, it's the disproportionate voice that it gives to those with money. If you believe that having more money should give you a larger voice in the political process, then all is well in your world. I do not happen to believe that.
- tptacek 13y ago
  So then you disagree with the ACLU, which says "the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech." I think I do too, but I'm not sure.
  - strlen 13y ago
    The Citizens United decision was fairly narrow in scope: many kinds of campaign finance regulations are allowed to stand, except for restrictions on political speech by corporations and unions. However, I just find it silly that many HNers claim to be unequivocally for political speech, when they're clearly willing to restrict certain kinds of political speech. The latter is an understandable position: I have plenty of concerns about money in politics leading to electioneering, I just personally think the cure has potential to be worse the decease. I'm all in favor of campaign finance regulations that do not restrict free speech, but I'll acknowledge that they may be less effective comparatively[1]. In general, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are trade-offs between liberty, safety, and equality and state which trade-offs one is willing to make. Equivocation or wishful thinking just makes one look dishonest ("will you buy my 100,000 node commodity-hardware distributed database that has 0.00001 ms latency, read-committed transaction isolation, and 100% uptime?") [1] That said I doubt restrictions on speech will fix the problem of rent-seeking by moneyed interests -- it will continue through other channels; however, now these moneyed interests will have another tool at their disposal: politicians' ability to restrict political speech, e.g., MPAA lobbying congress to restrict the ability of ACLU/EFF to oppose parts of the DMCA.

by strlen 13y ago

redblacktree 13y ago

The problem with Citizens United isn't the showing of the film, it's the disproportionate voice that it gives to those with money. If you believe that having more money should give you a larger voice in the political process, then all is well in your world. I do not happen to believe that.

tptacek 13y ago
So then you disagree with the ACLU, which says "the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech." I think I do too, but I'm not sure.
- strlen 13y ago
  The Citizens United decision was fairly narrow in scope: many kinds of campaign finance regulations are allowed to stand, except for restrictions on political speech by corporations and unions. However, I just find it silly that many HNers claim to be unequivocally for political speech, when they're clearly willing to restrict certain kinds of political speech. The latter is an understandable position: I have plenty of concerns about money in politics leading to electioneering, I just personally think the cure has potential to be worse the decease. I'm all in favor of campaign finance regulations that do not restrict free speech, but I'll acknowledge that they may be less effective comparatively[1]. In general, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are trade-offs between liberty, safety, and equality and state which trade-offs one is willing to make. Equivocation or wishful thinking just makes one look dishonest ("will you buy my 100,000 node commodity-hardware distributed database that has 0.00001 ms latency, read-committed transaction isolation, and 100% uptime?") [1] That said I doubt restrictions on speech will fix the problem of rent-seeking by moneyed interests -- it will continue through other channels; however, now these moneyed interests will have another tool at their disposal: politicians' ability to restrict political speech, e.g., MPAA lobbying congress to restrict the ability of ACLU/EFF to oppose parts of the DMCA.