4 ms·

> a movie advocating for or against a candidate! And you've just gotten to the heart of why it's different from Brown. Money corrupts politics and threatens de

> a movie advocating for or against a candidate! And you've just gotten to the heart of why it's different from Brown. Money corrupts politics and threatens democracy. There is no such problem with violent video games. If you think it's "insane" that we make this distinction, all I can say is that I think you're insane for not making it.

jessaustin 12y ago
There was nothing about that movie that was related to "Money" per se. This wasn't the Koch brothers conspiring with George Soros. This was a couple of goofballs editing together some news footage and dubbing over some scary narration. That is, shit that happens on youtube every day. You know, speech. After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens?
- nknighthb 12y ago
  The case was all about money. CU wanted to pay to advertise and broadcast it on TV. How the movie was made is immaterial.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Remind us again, what's the problem with money and politics? Is the problem really that some people make money by commenting on politics? I guess you're thinking of like, Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Jon Stewart? Really? Please think more carefully. If money is like cooties, in that it ruins everything it touches, no matter what actual role it plays in the situation, then everything in this world is screwed up forever. But, that's not the case. The real problem with money in politics is the corruption of political, regulatory, administrative, and legislative decisions. When you fixate on stupid shit like some movie some dudes made, that idiocy is quite useful for those who benefit by that corruption.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens? Exactly. People vastly misunderstand Citizens United. Fox News is Rupert Murdoch buying airtime in bulk for his political speech. Unless you propose to shut it down along with every other privately owned media company, money is speech.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    If laws were made with the philosophy that they must perfectly solve all aspects of a problem, there would either be no laws, or there would be complete totalitarianism. Thankfully, people rarely subscribe to absolutist philosophies once you actually get them to think about a topic.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      So what practical solution are you proposing? Rupert Murdoch gets as much speech as he can afford to buy but some smaller entity can't buy more than some arbitrarily set small amount of airtime preceding an election?
- wildgift 12y ago
  The rules were limited to corporations, associations and unions. Individuals were not restricted in this type of speech. Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Yes, which was the heart of the CU decision: if individual are unlimited, and corporations, associations, and unions are collections of individuals, then how can those be limited? Put another way, the CU decision argued that individuals do not give up their right to free expressions just because they decided to pool their money in a particular way.
rayiner 12y ago
The irony of your statement is that Rockstar Games almost certainly has a ton more money than Citizens United, and is a for-profit corporation on top of all that. Citizens United is just an advocacy organization, no different than Sierra Club, etc. Who exactly is the "moneyed interest" here?
- nknighthb 12y ago
  I must have missed the part where Rockstar Games is engaged in electioneering at all, much less with Grand Theft Auto. Could you point me to some sources on that? As it stands, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    My point is that Rockstar Games is a wealthy for-profit corporation, while Citizens United is a political organization funded by individuals. The latter seems for more worthy of having free speech rights than the former.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      Your point, which I think is a fundamentally flawed and even dangerous view of speech rights, is not actually relevant to the philosophy you don't understand but claim is insane. The speech CU engaged in implicates practical problems violent video games do not. The question has never been one of worth. If it were, I'd have a long list of people I'd like locked up, starting with all politicians and lawyers.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        The speech CU engaged in implicates practical problems and therefore it's less deserving of protection?
        nknighthb 12y ago
        No, the interest in remedying those problems overcomes the protection to which all speech is entitled. Why do you find this surprising? It's the same way any speech restriction is upheld. (I'm very confused as to how you came to this conclusion, by the way, and would appreciate an explanation. That it's a matter of what "deserves" protection is exactly the idea the comment you replied to sought to dismiss, so somehow you've interpreted my statements exactly backwards.)

jessaustin 12y ago

There was nothing about that movie that was related to "Money" per se. This wasn't the Koch brothers conspiring with George Soros. This was a couple of goofballs editing together some news footage and dubbing over some scary narration. That is, shit that happens on youtube every day. You know, speech. After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens?

nknighthb 12y ago
The case was all about money. CU wanted to pay to advertise and broadcast it on TV. How the movie was made is immaterial.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Remind us again, what's the problem with money and politics? Is the problem really that some people make money by commenting on politics? I guess you're thinking of like, Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Jon Stewart? Really? Please think more carefully. If money is like cooties, in that it ruins everything it touches, no matter what actual role it plays in the situation, then everything in this world is screwed up forever. But, that's not the case. The real problem with money in politics is the corruption of political, regulatory, administrative, and legislative decisions. When you fixate on stupid shit like some movie some dudes made, that idiocy is quite useful for those who benefit by that corruption.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens? Exactly. People vastly misunderstand Citizens United. Fox News is Rupert Murdoch buying airtime in bulk for his political speech. Unless you propose to shut it down along with every other privately owned media company, money is speech.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  If laws were made with the philosophy that they must perfectly solve all aspects of a problem, there would either be no laws, or there would be complete totalitarianism. Thankfully, people rarely subscribe to absolutist philosophies once you actually get them to think about a topic.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    So what practical solution are you proposing? Rupert Murdoch gets as much speech as he can afford to buy but some smaller entity can't buy more than some arbitrarily set small amount of airtime preceding an election?
wildgift 12y ago
The rules were limited to corporations, associations and unions. Individuals were not restricted in this type of speech. Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Yes, which was the heart of the CU decision: if individual are unlimited, and corporations, associations, and unions are collections of individuals, then how can those be limited? Put another way, the CU decision argued that individuals do not give up their right to free expressions just because they decided to pool their money in a particular way.

rayiner 12y ago

The irony of your statement is that Rockstar Games almost certainly has a ton more money than Citizens United, and is a for-profit corporation on top of all that. Citizens United is just an advocacy organization, no different than Sierra Club, etc. Who exactly is the "moneyed interest" here?

nknighthb 12y ago
I must have missed the part where Rockstar Games is engaged in electioneering at all, much less with Grand Theft Auto. Could you point me to some sources on that? As it stands, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.
- rayiner 12y ago
  My point is that Rockstar Games is a wealthy for-profit corporation, while Citizens United is a political organization funded by individuals. The latter seems for more worthy of having free speech rights than the former.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Your point, which I think is a fundamentally flawed and even dangerous view of speech rights, is not actually relevant to the philosophy you don't understand but claim is insane. The speech CU engaged in implicates practical problems violent video games do not. The question has never been one of worth. If it were, I'd have a long list of people I'd like locked up, starting with all politicians and lawyers.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      The speech CU engaged in implicates practical problems and therefore it's less deserving of protection?
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        No, the interest in remedying those problems overcomes the protection to which all speech is entitled. Why do you find this surprising? It's the same way any speech restriction is upheld. (I'm very confused as to how you came to this conclusion, by the way, and would appreciate an explanation. That it's a matter of what "deserves" protection is exactly the idea the comment you replied to sought to dismiss, so somehow you've interpreted my statements exactly backwards.)