4 ms·

So to preserve democracy, we must sacrifice freedom of speech?

by jmccree 12y ago

oliyoung 12y ago
we're (Australia) doing okay with the democracy thing, no explicit freedom of speech. Plus, it depends if you define speech as "giving money to someone"
- unabridged 12y ago
  Even if you ban/regulate giving money to candidates, are you willing to ban the ability of citizens to buy ad time and say something political? Who defines what "political" is? Would you ban: An ad that promotes preserving a specific forest while there is a referendum about increasing environmental spending. An ad that says the schools are falling apart and understaffed while an education millage is being voted on. An ad that says you shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare while a candidate/party's platform is strongly tied to that policy.
  - Lewton 12y ago
    Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/medier/reklamer/political_advertising_tv/poladvertising.pdf http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokument...
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
The belief that money is 'speech' is a modern form of collective delusion - like the children's crusades back in the Dark Ages. Later generations will look at it and will go "how was that even possible?"
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  You have freedom of the press. You just can't spend money on ink or paper. If I didn't hear this so often in real life, I'd think it was a bad line in a cheesy dystopian movie.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deciplex 12y ago
    I actually don't have a problem with newspapers printing whatever the hell they want. However I do have a problem with it, when it's broadcast television or radio which is explicitly (and necessarily) a government-mandated monopoly, and to a lesser extent cable television which is in most cases an effective monopoly due to various stupid policies at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government. Assuming we eventually shitcan net-neutrality, I will have the same reservations there, as well. Basically, as long as there is no physical limit to the number of voices that can be heard (as with broadcast television), and the barriers to entry are reasonably low (unlike with cable television, and possibly internet in the near future), then absolute freedom of speech works very well. Otherwise, all you're left with is propaganda under cover of freedom of speech, and it fucking sucks.

So to preserve democracy, we must sacrifice freedom of speech?

by jmccree 12y ago

So to preserve democracy, we must sacrifice freedom of speech?

we're (Australia) doing okay with the democracy thing, no explicit freedom of speech. Plus, it depends if you define speech as "giving money to someone"

unabridged 12y ago
Even if you ban/regulate giving money to candidates, are you willing to ban the ability of citizens to buy ad time and say something political? Who defines what "political" is? Would you ban: An ad that promotes preserving a specific forest while there is a referendum about increasing environmental spending. An ad that says the schools are falling apart and understaffed while an education millage is being voted on. An ad that says you shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare while a candidate/party's platform is strongly tied to that policy.
- Lewton 12y ago
  Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/medier/reklamer/political_advertising_tv/poladvertising.pdf http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokument...

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

The belief that money is 'speech' is a modern form of collective delusion - like the children's crusades back in the Dark Ages. Later generations will look at it and will go "how was that even possible?"

yummyfajitas 12y ago
You have freedom of the press. You just can't spend money on ink or paper. If I didn't hear this so often in real life, I'd think it was a bad line in a cheesy dystopian movie.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deciplex 12y ago
  I actually don't have a problem with newspapers printing whatever the hell they want. However I do have a problem with it, when it's broadcast television or radio which is explicitly (and necessarily) a government-mandated monopoly, and to a lesser extent cable television which is in most cases an effective monopoly due to various stupid policies at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government. Assuming we eventually shitcan net-neutrality, I will have the same reservations there, as well. Basically, as long as there is no physical limit to the number of voices that can be heard (as with broadcast television), and the barriers to entry are reasonably low (unlike with cable television, and possibly internet in the near future), then absolute freedom of speech works very well. Otherwise, all you're left with is propaganda under cover of freedom of speech, and it fucking sucks.