|
Kalman posted:Hahaha what the gently caress no we didn't do it better in the past. It's imperfect these days but it's not "donors handing over bags of cash anonymously to pay off politicians for votes is a regularly occurring phenomenon". We did it in the past five years ago, before Citizens United. We are not talking the depths of history, we are talking very recent history.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:We did it in the past five years ago, before Citizens United. We are not talking the depths of history, we are talking very recent history. This, plus the indirect effects of increasing wealth inequality in general affecting who can afford to give what to whom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah, it's basically this. There's only very limited ways you can crack down on disproportionate influence constitutionally. Mostly you just have to prosecute blatant corruption and hope for the best. Stricter FEC regulations on campaign cash used for personal expenses might be possible (and considering the sheer number of scampaigns that went down this cycle, it might be advisable). Greater restrictions on politicians becoming lobbyists might also be reasonable, though with the rise of the 'news consultant' circuit, it's not really the problem it once was. There are few ways to do it constitutionally, if you accept that money is speech, a constitutional interpretation that many people don't agree with (such as me!). It is not the case that we need to treat money as speech, and it is not the case that it necessarily violates the first amendment to restrict spending to influence elections. It is no more offensive to the 1st Amendment that I cannot use money to magnify my speech by paying for dozens of ads than I cannot use a bullhorn to magnify my speech in a residential area at four in the morning. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and that they cannot say it by paying a television station to run their statement ad nauseum doesn't cause any problems to my idea of freedom of speech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:But most people like to own things, so lack of private ownership is incompatible with democracy. Hello and welcome to 1848 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Guys speaking fees are fine and will always be fine under this Constitution. I mean assuming the actual speech was given.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and that they cannot say it by paying a television station to run their statement ad nauseum doesn't cause any problems to my idea of freedom of speech. Citizens United wasn't even about density of advertisements though, it was specifically about whether you can be shut up altogether within 30-60 days of an election on certain mediums. That's not acceptable. Feel free to explain how limiting the number of ads doesn't create an artificial situation where you have to choose when to not run them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
evilweasel posted:There are few ways to do it constitutionally, if you accept that money is speech, a constitutional interpretation that many people don't agree with (such as me!). It is not the case that we need to treat money as speech, and it is not the case that it necessarily violates the first amendment to restrict spending to influence elections. It is no more offensive to the 1st Amendment that I cannot use money to magnify my speech by paying for dozens of ads than I cannot use a bullhorn to magnify my speech in a residential area at four in the morning. Freedom of speech inherently includes some amount of freedom to be allowed to use mechanisms like TV and newspapers to spread that message, and that's an incredibly longstanding principle. The idea that you have freedom of speech if you can stand on a street corner but can't publish it in a book was rejected mmmmmm pretty much from the beginning. There's a good reason for it, which is that the idea that freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to obtain ways to speak to a wider audience is loving insane.* Your concept of freedom of speech would make it constitutional to ban paying for the publication of ads that advocate against government policy, for example. And when a rich dude buys a personal newspaper (like I don't know the Vegas Review-Journal) how does your concept handle that? Are they allowed to publish whatever thinly veiled ads they want? Or are you suddenly asserting control over the press? Or is that a massive loophole which allows only a limited number of rich people in? Ultimately, that interpretation leads to a freedom of speech and press that could ban Paine's Common Sense if it wanted to, as long as he could still stand on a street corner yelling. *this doesn't mean that freedom of speech imposes an obligation to accept that payment, only that government action to constrain it is illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Citizens United wasn't even about density of advertisements though, it was specifically about whether you can be shut up altogether within 30-60 days of an election on certain mediums. That's not acceptable. Feel free to explain how limiting the number of ads doesn't create an artificial situation where you have to choose when to not run them. I disagree that not being able to run ads shortly before the election, provided that the restrictions are content-neutral (i.e., that it's not "no pro-abortion ads but anti-abortion ads are fine") is a problem with free speech. That's a content-neutral restriction that bothers me as little as the no bullhorns in residential areas at 4am. You're not banned from speaking, and you can speak your mind all you want. You just have to get attention through the merits of your argument rather than from the dollars you spent to support them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I don't get how you can say under this constitution financial support is not 1st amendment protected political expression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I don't get how you can say under this constitution financial support is not 1st amendment protected political expression. You keep saying this, but I don't think anyone actually cares. If the Constitution is getting in the way of good public policy, the Constitution should be changed, not the policy position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You keep saying this, but I don't think anyone actually cares. If the Constitution is getting in the way of good public policy, the Constitution should be changed, not the policy position. But the Supreme Court can't change the Constitution*. * sort of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You keep saying this, but I don't think anyone actually cares. If the Constitution is getting in the way of good public policy, the Constitution should be changed, not the policy position. I'm not really comfortable with weakening freedom of speech protections in order to impose restrictions on political speech thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Freedom of speech inherently includes some amount of freedom to be allowed to use mechanisms like TV and newspapers to spread that message, and that's an incredibly longstanding principle. The idea that you have freedom of speech if you can stand on a street corner but can't publish it in a book was rejected mmmmmm pretty much from the beginning. There's a good reason for it, which is that the idea that freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to obtain ways to speak to a wider audience is loving insane.* This is nonsense. Banning the publication of ads against government policy is an attempt to suppress a particular viewpoint. That is why it would be illegal to, say, ban anti-government speech and anti-government speech only on a bullhorn in a residential area at 4am, but allow other speech - but banning the bullhorn itself is fine. The idea that this amounts to banning books is insane, of course. As you said, freedom of speech includes some amount of freedom to use mechanisms to spread that message. But restrictions on mechanisms is also as old as the Constitution itself. It is not, and has never been, a blanket allowance to use whatever method you want as long as it's "to speak". Kalman posted:And when a rich dude buys a personal newspaper (like I don't know the Vegas Review-Journal) how does your concept handle that? Are they allowed to publish whatever thinly veiled ads they want? Or are you suddenly asserting control over the press? Or is that a massive loophole which allows only a limited number of rich people in? Certainly a problem. I don't know that it can be fixed, but the idea we must solve all corruption to solve any is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm not really comfortable with weakening freedom of speech protections in order to impose restrictions on political speech thanks. That's at least an arguable position. Just resorting to "Constitution says nuh-uh  " is a lazy argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That's at least an arguable position. Well I mean in the polisci thread but this is the scotus thread so it's I think relevant .
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and that they cannot say it by paying a television station to run their statement ad nauseum doesn't cause any problems to my idea of freedom of speech. I honestly don't understand how you could think the first amendment is supposed to be interpreted as "You can speak till you are blue in the face but the government can sure as gently caress stop you from buying a printing press if we don't like what you're saying". Time and place restrictions have no crossover whatsoever with what you're talking about. The justification for banning a bullhorn at 4am is because it's use disturbs the peace, the reason for banning political ads within a certain time-frame of an election is specifically to keep the content of their speech from reaching an audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I disagree that not being able to run ads shortly before the election, provided that the restrictions are content-neutral (i.e., that it's not "no pro-abortion ads but anti-abortion ads are fine") is a problem with free speech. That's a content-neutral restriction that bothers me as little as the no bullhorns in residential areas at 4am. You're not banned from speaking, and you can speak your mind all you want. You just have to get attention through the merits of your argument rather than from the dollars you spent to support them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Is this a scoping problem with the 1st? When it was written, the government could literally stop expressions of something by stopping all the couriers carrying a message. In the modern age without going full China and then some its pretty implausible for the government to actually stop speech. Consider the scenario where there is a minority but significant amount of the public which claims to have the inside story on what's going on inside/with the government. They actively spread misinformation but use no publicly owned venue but consistently spread misinformation about government activity or statements. They do so by the internet, Facebook, television ads and telephone campaigns. As a result of their actions a number of people are elected who then citing government malfeasance, defund infrastructure inspections. At what point does it become a public saftey issue? At what point is everyone's right to speech become a threat to civil society? No one seems to have any problem with the ban on flame throwers, despite the 2nd amendment. Why the double standard for the 1st?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is content neutral a term of art I'm failing to understand here? Inspecting the content of ads to determine if they are relevant to an upcoming election does not feel content neutral at all. It is but you're not failing to understand it, he is
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I don't get how you can say under this constitution financial support is not 1st amendment protected political expression. very easily, "money is not speech, ergo financial support is not automatically 1st amendment protected political expression." look, I did it, it's done, all it required was hitting some letters on a keyboard Jarmak posted:I honestly don't understand how you could think the first amendment is supposed to be interpreted as "You can speak till you are blue in the face but the government can sure as gently caress stop you from buying a printing press if we don't like what you're saying". because the bolded section is specifically not part of my argument; it applies to everyone, regardless of their political views. it is, therefore, a content-neutral restriction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:very easily, "money is not speech, ergo financial support is not automatically 1st amendment protected political expression." look, I did it, it's done, all it required was hitting some letters on a keyboard It absolutely is a part of your argument, and that's not remotely content neutral
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Expression is covered by the first and political Expressions such as financially supporting some cause is square within the what the scotus has long considered the most Protected expression. Phone posting sorry for the weird capitalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I disagree that not being able to run ads shortly before the election, provided that the restrictions are content-neutral (i.e., that it's not "no pro-abortion ads but anti-abortion ads are fine") is a problem with free speech. That's a content-neutral restriction that bothers me as little as the no bullhorns in residential areas at 4am. You're not banned from speaking, and you can speak your mind all you want. You just have to get attention through the merits of your argument rather than from the dollars you spent to support them. (unless you own the newspaper)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Do you think the 1 st amendment would allow the government to say "you cant financially support the Communist party"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Like really: there's no such thing as a view from nowhere and all coverage of an election is inherently political speech
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is content neutral a term of art I'm failing to understand here? Inspecting the content of ads to determine if they are relevant to an upcoming election does not feel content neutral at all. It might be clearer to call it viewpoint-neutral. The point is, the government isn't picking and choosing what political opinions may purchase ads on the TV. It's saying that, in certain time periods, there may not be any. There's no slippery slope to "but what if the government then bans dissent!" because that's the government trying to pick and choose what can be said. It doesn't ban political speech - anyone can talk until they're blue in the face, they can hold rallies, there's candidate ads, etc. Why, we had these laws and martial law did not occur. But repealing them did cause exactly the harm that was expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Airing debates is illegal campaign spending that impermissibly favors major party candidates
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
What's the difference between paying for advertising and owning a TV station?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you think the 1 st amendment would allow the government to say "you cant financially support the Communist party"? The 1st amendment can and does allow the restriction of who you can financially support (e.g. there are no 1st Amendment issues with the ban on financial support of terrorist organizations or other illegal organizations). There would be issues with singling out particular political parties for extra restrictions based on their speech. Saying you can donate to the D/R party but not the American Communist Party violates the 1st Amendment - but restrictions that are neutral between political parties would not (for example, "you may only donate $2,400 to any one political party").
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:very easily, "money is not speech, ergo financial support is not automatically 1st amendment protected political expression." look, I did it, it's done, all it required was hitting some letters on a keyboard Is buying a newspaper and having them print what you want protected political expression? What if your family bought the paper a hundred years ago? What if you never bought it and just happen to be the editor and favor a candidate? Should you be more influential because you can choose what your paper prints? What about if you have enough money to buy and print pamphlets? Are the pamphlets speech or not? What if you had already owned the printer and paper and ink for some other purpose but choose to turn it to political speech? Can the government restrict that? Your entire theory of the case is self-defeating because it makes elites MORE powerful, not less, or else has to devolve into literal governmental control of speech. quote:because the bolded section is specifically not part of my argument; it applies to everyone, regardless of their political views. it is, therefore, a content-neutral restriction. But it is explicitly applied only to political speech, meaning it is not at all content neutral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What's the difference between paying for advertising and owning a TV station? One is easier to regulate without creating legitimate 1st Amendment issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The 1st amendment can and does allow the restriction of who you can financially support (e.g. there are no 1st Amendment issues with the ban on financial support of terrorist organizations or other illegal organizations). Right exactly so we agree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
it is interesting that in 1901, a two-term republican president's primary domestic policy pointed towards breaking up trusts. Eight years later, when Teddy's protégé Taft becomes president, they have a falling out over breaking up US Steel, which Roosevelt considered One of the Good Ones. Four years after that, after an election divided by Roosevelt's third party candidacy, a democrat becomes elected that implements the FTC to enforce his new Clayton antitrust act. Was there something different about how politics were corrupt then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It might be clearer to call it viewpoint-neutral. The point is, the government isn't picking and choosing what political opinions may purchase ads on the TV. It's saying that, in certain time periods, there may not be any. There's no slippery slope to "but what if the government then bans dissent!" because that's the government trying to pick and choose what can be said. Except "viewpoint neutral" exceptions to the first amendment aren't a thing, what you're asking for is explicitly a content based restriction on political speech, which is pretty much the sacred cow of first amendment protections. You're not banning someone from using a bullhorn at 4am, that is a content neutral restriction, you're banning someone using a bullhorn at 4am to broadcast specific content you're attempting to block. evilweasel posted:It doesn't ban political speech - anyone can talk until they're blue in the face, they can hold rallies, there's candidate ads, etc. Why, we had these laws and martial law did not occur. But repealing them did cause exactly the harm that was expected. When has this ever held true? This is a nonsense argument that has never been treated with seriousness by anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:One is easier to regulate without creating legitimate 1st Amendment issues. To the extent that the 1st amendment means whatever the Supreme Court days it does, but I think that's a bit of a dodge when you're talking about what it should mean
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Is buying a newspaper and having them print what you want protected political expression? What if your family bought the paper a hundred years ago? There's two basic responses to this. The first is pretty simple: that we would prefer that people who own or control a major newspaper would have less influence than anyone else, but that as a practical matter we cannot enforce that rule without violating the 1st Amendment to an impermissible degree. It's a balancing of two competing principles: that people and not money votes; and that the government should not restrict speech. Where two principles are in conflict, the end result is going to be different when the circumstances are different. We can't enforce neutrality in media ownership and any attempt to do so would severely damage freedom of speech, while banning political advertising does not damage freedom of speech severely. Sure, it damages it to some degree; but we permit small restrictions on freedom of speech when other principles are more important. My inability to use a bullhorn when people are sleeping is a restriction on my freedom of speech. It's a permitted restriction on my freedom of speech, not that it is no restriction at all. The other real-world response is, TV stations and newspapers reach people only to the extent they convince people to pay attention to them. I don't know what's on Fox News generally and don't watch it precisely because it's a mouthpiece for the political views of its owner. If Fox, or my local newspaper, become a mouthpiece for some political views I'm not interested in hearing I tune it out and they lose influence. On the other hand, ads are placed in other media, where I'm consuming it because I like the TV show or I think the news reporting is good. The point of an ad is to put something in front of me I wouldn't otherwise read or view. So when we restrict ads, but not people who own media conglomerates, there are other mechanisms that exist that can naturally restrict the effectiveness of using the media platform as a mouthpiece. If the newspaper has garbage ideas people stop reading it. If the ads are garbage, well, they're still playing as long as the money is flowing. Both of these mean, at the end of the day, I have no compunction about restricting political advertising during elections but not restricting media ownership. While I think the world would be a better place without Rupert Murdoch owning TV stations, I think it would be worse if he was banned from owning them. But when it comes to political ads, I think the country is better off with them gone and with the government able to ban them - subject to the strict restriction it's not viewpoint based.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Sure, it damages it to some degree; but we permit small restrictions on freedom of speech when other principles are more important. My inability to use a bullhorn when people are sleeping is a restriction on my freedom of speech. It's a permitted restriction on my freedom of speech, not that it is no restriction at all. It's a reasonable content-neutral restriction based on time and place. What you're suggesting is content-based restrictions on political content. Your bullhorn example could not be further from applicable to this argument. What you're suggesting is closer to banning using a bullhorn to talk about your political views at 4am in the morning, but allowing using a bullhorn to advertise your business or just scream random star wars quotes you like. Which makes the bullhorn and the time completely irrelevant because the restriction is based on the content not the time and place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Ban all advertising of any kind, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's a reasonable content-neutral restriction based on time and place. I do not consider "all political speech, regardless of the political message conveyed" a content-based restriction because what I consider a content-based restriction is one based on the message being conveyed, which is the type of restriction I consider problematic. The restriction is narrowly tailored to cover only the class of speech - paid political advertising - causing the specific harm sought to be restricted. At the end of the day I'm mostly ignoring your posts because you're just repeating your view that restricting political speech as a class is always not allowed, which isn't an insane position to have but it's simply one that there's no discussion to be had about - it's an ideological difference, and the only real progress we can make is being clear that we appear to be using a different definition of "content-based". I don't agree with your premise and you're not really doing much besides just restating it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I do not consider "all political speech, regardless of the political message conveyed" a content-based restriction because what I consider a content-based restriction is one based on the message being conveyed, which is the type of restriction I consider problematic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:40
|
|