4 ms·

I'm okay with the Citizens United decision (first amendment should be protected above all else, I think we shouldn't cap political donations). I understand tha

I'm okay with the Citizens United decision (first amendment should be protected above all else, I think we shouldn't cap political donations). I understand that it's a position that puts me at odds with a lot of techy liberals. So starting a video on AI by referencing his own thoughts on Citizens United is off-topic and isn't persuasive.

spindritf 12y ago
I have never heard a good description of how you can practically cap spending on political speech. How can one operate an independent tv network or a large website under such constraints? Are there any actual proposals?
- chrismealy 12y ago
  Very high taxes on rich people.
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I have not seen any practical proposals either, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Define "advertisement" as "content displayed for money from an outside group" and regulate all advertisements that mention: offices of Federal or state government, the names of any current or potential holders of those offices and any specific law, regulation or election . That seems like a pretty clear category that encompasses all the troublesome content. You're free to make an "Abortion Bad" ad, or a "Gay Marriage Bad" ad, as long as those ads do not mention any offices / legislators or laws by name. You're free to create your own version of Huffington post and try to drive viewers to your content using ads for your website - but that's a horse of a different color. You could totally ban such ads outside of federal / state funding, or you could limit it, or whatever. It doesn't seem like a difficult line to draw.
  - spindritf 12y ago
    OK. What if the group owns a TV station, or a newspaper? Are they privileged now? They don't need to buy air time, or ad space. They can just air or print whatever they want. And the tv station can freely advertise itself, right? So anti-Hillary documentary gets blasted full volume on the eve of elections followed by a round-table discussion/bashing. Plus maybe a few articles next day in a friendly newspaper. Oh, and a great review of the documentary, of course. This essentially forces each party to build their own media empires, and precludes anyone else from holding office, at least at higher levels. Further polarization goes without mention. And it's not hypothetical. This is being openly discussed even without the added benefits. http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recruit-fellow-billionaire-to-a-nyt-co-takeover/ http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recrui... On the other end, it's not any easier. I can't buy adds for my bashinghillary.com but what if my users post links to it for free? What if I pay someone to man the twitter, facebook, etc? Is that paid advertising? What if they engage in online discussions while linking to the website?
    - aeturnum 12y ago
      I guess I don't understand the problems with the forms of expression you're suggesting. Yes, you can broadcast however much information you want. There are, as you noted, plenty of conservative or liberal media empires. People have been publishing very biased publications for years ("Common Sense" by Thomas Paine). People can decide what they want to watch. The problem is that, right now, people who want to watch...say, their nightly local news with a pretty centrist perspective are bombarded by advertising for one side or another. And yes, you can also advocate for your views in discussion forums. You can pay people to write letters to newspapers, make posts on forums, etc. All those things have also been going on for years, and aren't worrying to me for the same reasons I'm not worried about slanted media. Political media doesn't win when people can choose what to watch. Wonks watch it, but voters get bored fast. That's why the delivery method is advertising - the format for getting people to watch things they wouldn't otherwise. It's possible that all media is changed to have a political slant (i.e. sitcoms are re-written to favor republicans), but that strikes me as a different problem needing a different solution. Also, that sort of plan is totally legal right now, so that suggests it's lower return than the current strategies.
pnut 12y ago
Say I program a drone to constantly fly in front of you. Every time you open your mouth to speak, it blows an air horn away from you, noise-cancelled towards you. Your person has not been violated, but your ability to be heard has been obliterated. Have I interfered with your first amendment rights? That is what Citizens United means to me - asymmetrical free speech warfare. Additionally, is the "money == speech" relationship a transitive property? Why not?
- ef4 12y ago
  > Have I interfered with your first amendment rights? Not unless you're from the government. Otherwise you're probably just disturbing the peace or trespassing.
- spindritf 12y ago
  This is a silly example. It's harassment (at least). It's not protected, just like DDoSing a website is not protected speech. And money is necessary for speech. Where do you draw the line? Can I spend $10 on a domain? $100 on hosting? $2000 on design? $5000 split with a friend on video equipment? Take submissions from site's users? How much can they spend on materials and licensing? On the other end of the spectrum, how much can a tv network spend on political programming? Can they invite whomever they like or will the government set the guest list and how much air time they get? How much can a newspaper spend on investigating misconduct of a candidate they don't like? It's easy to cap donations to candidates' committees. Everything else is a mess.

spindritf 12y ago

I have never heard a good description of how you can practically cap spending on political speech. How can one operate an independent tv network or a large website under such constraints? Are there any actual proposals?

chrismealy 12y ago
Very high taxes on rich people.
aeturnum 12y ago
I have not seen any practical proposals either, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Define "advertisement" as "content displayed for money from an outside group" and regulate all advertisements that mention: offices of Federal or state government, the names of any current or potential holders of those offices and any specific law, regulation or election . That seems like a pretty clear category that encompasses all the troublesome content. You're free to make an "Abortion Bad" ad, or a "Gay Marriage Bad" ad, as long as those ads do not mention any offices / legislators or laws by name. You're free to create your own version of Huffington post and try to drive viewers to your content using ads for your website - but that's a horse of a different color. You could totally ban such ads outside of federal / state funding, or you could limit it, or whatever. It doesn't seem like a difficult line to draw.
- spindritf 12y ago
  OK. What if the group owns a TV station, or a newspaper? Are they privileged now? They don't need to buy air time, or ad space. They can just air or print whatever they want. And the tv station can freely advertise itself, right? So anti-Hillary documentary gets blasted full volume on the eve of elections followed by a round-table discussion/bashing. Plus maybe a few articles next day in a friendly newspaper. Oh, and a great review of the documentary, of course. This essentially forces each party to build their own media empires, and precludes anyone else from holding office, at least at higher levels. Further polarization goes without mention. And it's not hypothetical. This is being openly discussed even without the added benefits. http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recruit-fellow-billionaire-to-a-nyt-co-takeover/ http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recrui... On the other end, it's not any easier. I can't buy adds for my bashinghillary.com but what if my users post links to it for free? What if I pay someone to man the twitter, facebook, etc? Is that paid advertising? What if they engage in online discussions while linking to the website?
  - aeturnum 12y ago
    I guess I don't understand the problems with the forms of expression you're suggesting. Yes, you can broadcast however much information you want. There are, as you noted, plenty of conservative or liberal media empires. People have been publishing very biased publications for years ("Common Sense" by Thomas Paine). People can decide what they want to watch. The problem is that, right now, people who want to watch...say, their nightly local news with a pretty centrist perspective are bombarded by advertising for one side or another. And yes, you can also advocate for your views in discussion forums. You can pay people to write letters to newspapers, make posts on forums, etc. All those things have also been going on for years, and aren't worrying to me for the same reasons I'm not worried about slanted media. Political media doesn't win when people can choose what to watch. Wonks watch it, but voters get bored fast. That's why the delivery method is advertising - the format for getting people to watch things they wouldn't otherwise. It's possible that all media is changed to have a political slant (i.e. sitcoms are re-written to favor republicans), but that strikes me as a different problem needing a different solution. Also, that sort of plan is totally legal right now, so that suggests it's lower return than the current strategies.

pnut 12y ago

Say I program a drone to constantly fly in front of you. Every time you open your mouth to speak, it blows an air horn away from you, noise-cancelled towards you. Your person has not been violated, but your ability to be heard has been obliterated. Have I interfered with your first amendment rights? That is what Citizens United means to me - asymmetrical free speech warfare. Additionally, is the "money == speech" relationship a transitive property? Why not?

ef4 12y ago
> Have I interfered with your first amendment rights? Not unless you're from the government. Otherwise you're probably just disturbing the peace or trespassing.
spindritf 12y ago
This is a silly example. It's harassment (at least). It's not protected, just like DDoSing a website is not protected speech. And money is necessary for speech. Where do you draw the line? Can I spend $10 on a domain? $100 on hosting? $2000 on design? $5000 split with a friend on video equipment? Take submissions from site's users? How much can they spend on materials and licensing? On the other end of the spectrum, how much can a tv network spend on political programming? Can they invite whomever they like or will the government set the guest list and how much air time they get? How much can a newspaper spend on investigating misconduct of a candidate they don't like? It's easy to cap donations to candidates' committees. Everything else is a mess.