Free speech is made in a forest with nobody around to hear it... Is it really speech?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

We are all aware of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

This was obviously a controversial ruling however only now, during this contentious election, are we seeing the result of this ruling in the real world:

Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups. And, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 80 percent of all the money raised by these groups has come from just 100 individuals — the wealthiest people in America.

NPR

What is the point of free speech if a scant few individuals can ensure that their speech will always be the loudest, always be spoken more often? In fact, what is the point of speech if others have the freedom to drown out your speech.

To use an analogy, it is as if a few select billionaires have the world’s biggest megaphone in which to address a crowd at a park. Nothing is preventing anyone without a megaphone from speaking to the throng, but I think we can all agree that the person with the megaphone will have a much easier time shouting over anything and everything in the way.

As it stands now, with unlimited campaign contributions not only allowed but allowed without attribution, speech is no longer free but for sale to the highest semi-anonymous bidders. Because what is the point of free speech if nobody can listen to it? I don’t mean doesn’t want to listen to it, but literally, unable to have competing speech because they cannot afford it?

And sometimes the ones buying the speech probably shouldn’t be… Look at the Wisconsin Recall. One would think this is something for registered voters in Wisconsin to decide. To be sure, they’re the ones voting and they are his constituents. Yet, Walker has outspent his Democratic challenger 25-to-1. This is not because Wisconsinites who garnered 931,000 signatures to put him up for a recall election are suddenly regretting that, but because “two-thirds of Walker’s donations came from outside of Wisconsin, and $3.57 million came from individuals giving $10,000 or more” according to Huffington Post. So this means that some elections are being funded by people who really should have much more limited say in the matter, if at all.

There are already limitations to free speech. One cannot scream fire in a crowded theater. Defamation of character, including libel and slander, is also not protected speech. I even found a blogthat asserted (though I would welcome some corroboration) that “other examples of where free speech is limited in free societies falls into the category of where allowing an absolute right of free speech would deny others of rights which take precedence.”

Assuming the blog comment is correct, why are we allowing corporations and a few rich individuals to get their speech heard while others cannot? Even if it’s not correct, I cannot imaging the founding fathers would have thought that only the wealthiest would have a real voice in how a nation was governed.

We have established that there are legitimate reasons that free speech is not an unassailable right. There are exceptions. Why isn’t this one of them? I think it should be because speech means nothing if others can drown it out so it cannot reasonably be heard.

[Trinopus]

I would say that speech is never “drowned out,” only out-matched. The really loud guy doesn’t reduce the volume of my speech; it only makes it seem small by comparison.

The real sin is that we, as American voters, are so easily persuaded by advertising, and that campaign spending works. If we were really the rugged individualists, mavericks, and free-thinkers we imagine ourselves to be, advertising would not be effective.

Speech ain’t the problem; it’s all them people listening!

[Oakminster]

This is the same drivel being spewed in this worthless thread. Both proponents cloak their desire to stack the deck in favor of radical liberal agendas in terms of “fairness”. It’s amazingly simpleminded bullshit.

[drewtwo99]

Agreed with Trinopus. The problem isn’t that wealthy people can shout louder and get their ideas (and often lies) out to the public, it’s that we all eat it up, whether we realize it or not.

[BrainGlutton]

@Oakminster

This is the same drivel being spewed in this worthless thread. Both proponents cloak their desire to stack the deck in favor of radical liberal agendas in terms of “fairness”. It’s amazingly simpleminded bullshit.

Michael Lind (from whom I am getting the “separation of check and state” idea) is anything but simpleminded.

[2sense]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Assuming the blog comment is correct, why are we allowing corporations and a few rich individuals to get their speech heard while others cannot? Even if it’s not correct, I cannot imaging the founding fathers would have thought that only the wealthiest would have a real voice in how a nation was governed.

Hey I’m right there with you but this was amusing. That’s not far off from what they did think.

In any case, Oakminster has delivered his verdict and this is all a waste of time. Reasoned discourse or deep philosophical arguments? Don’t bother.
Threadshitting has already determined the outcome. :rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Even if it’s not correct, I cannot imaging the founding fathers would have thought that only the wealthiest would have a real voice in how a nation was governed.

“Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.”

– James Madison

“The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided.”

– Theodore Roosevelt

“Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate?”

– Barry Goldwater

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Oakminster

This is the same drivel being spewed in this worthless thread. Both proponents cloak their desire to stack the deck in favor of radical liberal agendas in terms of “fairness”. It’s amazingly simpleminded bullshit.

So are you saying that speech should be unlimited? That would make you quite the rebel… If so, how do you explain the limits on speech that we already have?

By the way, I would be equally upset about this if it were the Democrats with the advantage, just as I abhore gerrymandering from anyone who does it. If you are so quick to dismiss someone with a differing view to your own as merely partisan, possibly you’re the only one who is guilty here. You like that advantage, huh?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@2sense

Hey I’m right there with you but this was amusing. That’s not far off from what they did think.

You have citations that they felt that only the wealthy got a say? I realize during the nation’s inception that women and minorities were not considered people, however even a poor white male had a voice if he wanted to, didn’t he?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Trinopus

I would say that speech is never “drowned out,” only out-matched. The really loud guy doesn’t reduce the volume of my speech; it only makes it seem small by comparison.

That’s semantics though…

Speech ain’t the problem; it’s all them people listening!

That’s a chicken and egg thing… What came first people not listening or people unable to hear speech because the speakers didn’t pony up enough money for the louder megaphone?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Another question for Oakminster and anyone else who wishes to field it: Do you think it’s just that 100-odd people in this country have more say than the rest of the nation combined as to whose political message gets heard? Would you think it was just if those 100-odd people were backing positions that you were against?

I have no problem with wealthy people. I do wish they would pay more in taxes (and I am in the majority of Americans with that sentiment) but I am not jealous of the wealthy. In many cases, they earned that wealth. Or someone in their lineage did. Even if they did not, good for them for getting lucky. What I am suggesting is that while being rich can buy you a lot of things, democracy shouldn’t be one of them.

[Kobal2]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You have citations that they felt that only the wealthy got a say? I realize during the nation’s inception that women and minorities were not considered people, however even a poor white male had a voice if he wanted to, didn’t he?

Originally only landed property owners had a vote. It changed progressively during the 19th century. Same for the requirement to pay some taxes before you got to vote.

[Stratocaster]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

So are you saying that speech should be unlimited? That would make you quite the rebel… If so, how do you explain the limits on speech that we already have?

The limits that are accepted in free speech are generally on specific types of “harmful” speech, and they don’t focus on the type of speaker in the restriction. I said this in another thread

The first amendment makes no distinctions with regard to the type of speaker making the expression. As Scalia put it, “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.”

Here’s the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Scalia is right, whether any of us like it or not. The first amendment limits the government’s power as it relates to restricting free speech, and the government gets no free pass from that amendment if the expression or thought to be restricted originated with a particular person, persons, consortium, group, assemblage, or well, any constitution of people you could come up with. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Seems pretty straightforward … Where the CU law tripped was that it attempted to restrict political expression and only for certain groups. Political opinions are not a form of expression that has ever been restricted for that reason alone. It’s the very essence of what the first amendment looks to protect. And as can be read in the plain English of the first amendment, there is no distinction possible with regard to the type of speaker making the expression. CU was decided appropriately, if we don’t ignore the actual words of the amendment.

We cannot restrict free speech only for certain speakers, and we have never restricted political thought for that reason alone. There’s your answer. That would be a horrifying change in our rights.

[2sense]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You have citations that they felt that only the wealthy got a say? I realize during the nation’s inception that women and minorities were not considered people, however even a poor white male had a voice if he wanted to, didn’t he?

I apologize for the digression. I have no wish to hijack. If you are interested in the question I would be happy to discuss it in a new thread.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Oakminster

This is the same drivel being spewed in this worthless thread. Both proponents cloak their desire to stack the deck in favor of radical liberal agendas in terms of “fairness”. It’s amazingly simpleminded bullshit.

I like how you don’t address any of the OP’s points, instead post something sound bite level, no argument but full of hateful, mindless smears. No wonder you side with the GOP. Being a Liberal actually means you think about things sometimes.

[Marley23]

@Oakminster

This is the same drivel being spewed in this worthless thread. Both proponents cloak their desire to stack the deck in favor of radical liberal agendas in terms of “fairness”. It’s amazingly simpleminded bullshit.

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

I like how you don’t address any of the OP’s points, instead post something sound bite level, no argument but full of hateful, mindless smears. No wonder you side with the GOP. Being a Liberal actually means you think about things sometimes.

Both of you knock it off. Oakminster, your wording is more appropriate for the Pit than for GD, and The Tao’s Revenge, in this forum you’re not allowed to say someone doesn’t think about things.

[John_Mace]

I just want to point out 2 things: Firstly, the whole thing about 80% of the superPAC money so far going to the GOP skirts the fact that GOP had a very contentious primary and the Dems did not. So, let’s revisit this number again in September, when the real electioneering begins.

Secondly, the megaphone analogy is so flawed as to be laughable. We’re not a captive audience sitting in a stadium, and the internet allows anyone with a message that resonates and talent for communication to have a megaphone unimaginable only a few decades ago. No one is forced to listen to radio or television ads (especially the latter, since the advent of the DVR).

The assault on free speech emanating from certain lefties on this MB is, although not surprising, a bit confusing. I think of the left as being more in touch with the younger crowd, most of whom are migrating away from old-line media outlets. You guys are fighting a war rooted firmly in the previous century.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

And sometimes the ones buying the speech probably shouldn’t be… Look at the Wisconsin Recall. One would think this is something for registered voters in Wisconsin to decide. To be sure, they’re the ones voting and they are his constituents. Yet, Walker has outspent his Democratic challenger 25-to-1. This is not because Wisconsinites who garnered 931,000 signatures to put him up for a recall election are suddenly regretting that, but because “two-thirds of Walker’s donations came from outside of Wisconsin, and $3.57 million came from individuals giving $10,000 or more” according to Huffington Post. So this means that some elections are being funded by people who really should have much more limited say in the matter, if at all.

.

I don’t recall hearing this deep concern that Wisconsin’s affairs should be influenced by Wisconsinites alone when the unions were busing in protestors from out of state to clog Madison’s parks, wave signs, and vandalize things.

I know what happened!

The Left used the tactic to benefit themselves, but then realized it was wrong. So now they’re against outside influences in the state.

Is that it?

[Kobal2]

@John_Mace

I think of the left as being more in touch with the younger crowd, most of whom are migrating away from old-line media outlets. You guys are fighting a war rooted firmly in the previous century.

So ? Money buys opinion on the Internet too, be it by commissioning op-eds ; or putting up classy websites (fox nation, anyone ?) ; or buying dozens of “grassroots” supporters to promote pet issues, set up talking points and drown the voice of dissenters over and over on as many sites as possible.

If video game reporting & forum presence is crooked as hell, I don’t see why it would be any different when it comes to politics.

[John_Mace]

@Kobal2

So ? Money buys opinion on the Internet too, be it by commissioning op-eds ; or putting up classy websites (fox nation, anyone ?) ; or buying dozens of “grassroots” supporters to promote pet issues, set up talking points and drown the voice of dissenters over and over on as many sites as possible.

I guess you’re right. I mean, just look at this MB, and how the views of the left are "drowned out’ by these evil right wingers with their money and shit.

But at least now we have someone advocating censorship of the internet. I’m sure that will resonate with the anti-free speech crowd on the left here!