Corporations declared to be people? Huh?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Because you keep saying that speech cannot be limited, period. You've even done it again in this post.
It can and is limited in a number of ways, like in any country. Completely unlimited speech is unworkable.

Sigh.

Yes, there are narrow, logical, limited exceptions. No, they don't justify any exception you happen to dream up. When people make wild, sweeping proposals to ban speech, I remind them that you can't ban speech.

Well this is a point under dispute -- I say they simply don't, in the sense that they don't automatically have this or any other right.

That's what a right is - it's automatic. If not, it's not a right. You can't have a middle ground.

The first amendment requires a lot of interpretation, and lots of things fall outside of what is considered the spirit of the first amendment.

Not this.

But I would see a rule of "No private political adds within X days of the polls opening" in the same sphere as "Stand by your ad". It's a common sense practical rule that doesn't affect the political debate at all and gags absolutely no-one.

No, stand by your ad is a simple requirement that you disclose something. No ads is a massive, blatant ban on speech entirely. They are completely different.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Sigh.

Yes, there are narrow, logical, limited exceptions. No, they don't justify any exception you happen to dream up.

I am the one who should be sighing.
You keep using this straw man that "Because exceptions exist, any exception is valid". You just apologized for using this straw man, and yet it continues.

No-one has said that. The only reason anyone has mentioned exceptions is because you keep implying that freedom of speech is absolute and can never be limited.

That's what a right is - it's automatic. If not, it's not a right. You can't have a middle ground.

You're making no sense at all. Rights don't just apply to everything automatically.
I have the right to get married. If I start a business, my business does not have the right to get married.

No, stand by your ad is a simple requirement that you disclose something. No ads is a massive, blatant ban on speech entirely. They are completely different.

No, they are the same in the sense that in some pointless, technical way we could claim that they are both gagging someone and "banning" speech.

How is "stand by you ad" gagging? Well, if I were to film an ad that didn't feature an endorsement, I would be banned from showing it.

Of course, this is a silly technicality; Stand by your Ad doesn't actually affect political debate. Nor would limiting the period in which paid ads take place.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

No-one has said that. The only reason anyone has mentioned exceptions is because you keep implying that freedom of speech is absolute and can never be limited.

Okay. There are exceptions. So what? Those are irrelevant. My argument has never been that there can never be exceptions. I think that goes without saying. My argument is that this particular proposed exception is not allowed.

Please understand - maybe you haven't said that the small, narrow exceptions justify gigantic ones. Maybe you were just reacting to my imprecise, general statement that "you can't abridge free speech." But I have run into MANY people who say that the existence of small, narrow exceptions do justify big ones, so that's why I responded that way. If that's not what you're saying, fine.

When I say "you can't ban speech, period" it is usually in response to the claim that speech can routinely be banned for any reason. In other words, it's a reminder that the First Amendment exists. Some people don't seem to have even read it.

You're making no sense at all. Rights don't just apply to everything automatically.
I have the right to get married. If I start a business, my business does not have the right to get married.

This is another quibble in language.

Let's get back on track.

No, they are the same in the sense that in some pointless, technical way we could claim that they are both gagging someone and "banning" speech.

How is "stand by you ad" gagging? Well, if I were to film an ad that didn't feature an endorsement, I would be banned from showing it.

I didn't say that. I have no problem with stand by your ad. I'm saying it's not even remotely close to banning ads. You can't compare the two.

Of course, this is a silly technicality; Stand by your Ad doesn't actually affect political debate. Nor would limiting the period in which paid ads take place.

Limiting the period in which ads take place not only could clearly affect debate, it's also clearly unconstitutional, so it doesn't matter.

[qazwart]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Okay, then. So we're back to square one.

The First Amendment says otherwise though.

You can't limit speech. You can't declare that common sense overrules the First Amendment.

But, we limit speech all the time. For example, you can't libel someone. You can't blurt out military secrets, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless you first start the fire first.

And, let's not forget the restrictions on licentious language and pornography.

We do limit free speech in this country and it was one of the reasons why the authors of the Constitution did not include a Bill or Rights. They felt that rights and freedoms were commonsense ideas that didn't need to be enumerated. After all, if you enumerate one right, but not another, does that mean the second right is not guaranteed. Think of our right to privacy and how Original Constructionists insist it doesn't exist because the Constitution didn't specify it.

The Bill of Rights we cherish are amendments to the original Constitution that were a back room deal to get the Constitution approved by at least 9 states. The rights listed have commonsense limits, and these change over time. Mailing out anti-draft information in World War I would get you arrested, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Schenck v. US.

As society changes, so do our understanding of the limits of what is meant by Freedom or Speech. Over the last 200 years, more and more speech has been ruled as protected by the First Amendment. What would have gotten you sent to the hoosegow in 1790 is freely permitted today.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I have run into MANY people who say that the existence of small, narrow exceptions do justify big ones

And just in time, along comes someone doing just that:

Originally Posted by qazwart

But, we limit speech all the time. For example, you can't libel someone. You can't blurt out military secrets, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless you first start the fire first.

And, let's not forget the restrictions on licentious language and pornography.

Sigh.

Yes, there are exceptions. The existence of an exception doesn't justify another one though. So if you want to make an exception to free speech (after accepting the existence of freedom of speech), you need to justify it on it's own.

We do limit free speech in this country and it was one of the reasons why the authors of the Constitution did not include a Bill or Rights. They felt that rights and freedoms were commonsense ideas that didn't need to be enumerated. After all, if you enumerate one right, but not another, does that mean the second right is not guaranteed. Think of our right to privacy and how Original Constructionists insist it doesn't exist because the Constitution didn't specify it.

But now we have a bill of rights.

The rights listed have commonsense limits, and these change over time.

Bullshit.

Mailing out anti-draft information in World War I would get you arrested, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Schenck v. US.

Again, each exception must stand on it's own.

As society changes, so do our understanding of the limits of what is meant by Freedom or Speech.

Hey, great. We're talking about what we think it is now.

Over the last 200 years, more and more speech has been ruled as protected by the First Amendment. What would have gotten you sent to the hoosegow in 1790 is freely permitted today.

Yep. Thanks for noticing.

Now that I've read your post while responding to it (a big mistake sometimes but I can't help myself), I can't tell if you are just commenting or if you're coming out one way or the other on Citizens United.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Bullshit.

Guns in schools.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So if you want to make an exception to free speech (after accepting the existence of freedom of speech), you need to justify it on it's own.

The effect of advertising expenditure on voting patterns has already been pointed to. If it had no effect, it'd be worth limiting expenditure considering it'd be completely non-productive.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Limiting the period in which ads take place not only could clearly affect debate, it's also clearly unconstitutional, so it doesn't matter.

Which the relevant provision didn't even do. It just limited expenditure from corporations and individuals. It isn't "clearly unconstitutional" considering the closeness of split for the decision. Besides, if the debate is affected by people not seeing an ad, you must think they're slavering morons incapable of operating in polite society.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Guns in schools.

Do I really have to explain every little detail here?

Free speech is also limited in schools, for a good reason.

The effect of advertising expenditure on voting patterns has already been pointed to. If it had no effect, it'd be worth limiting expenditure considering it'd be completely non-productive.

So what? You can't limit speech. Sorry.

Which the relevant provision didn't even do. It just limited expenditure from corporations and individuals. It isn't "clearly unconstitutional" considering the closeness of split for the decision. Besides, if the debate is affected by people not seeing an ad, you must think they're slavering morons incapable of operating in polite society.

You've really run out of ideas, haven't you?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You can't limit speech. Sorry.

This is completely circular. You can't limit speech unless it's justified. It's not justified because you can't limit speech.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

This is completely circular. You can't limit speech unless it's justified. It's not justified because you can't limit speech.

I'm just saying that limiting speech is not an alternative for this "problem."

Look, you keep offering all these justifications for limiting speech as if the First Amendment doesn't even exist. You talk about it like it's just another option on the table. It's not. Limiting speech is simply not allowable except for very specific reasons that you haven't even begun to satisfy. You can't just say "we have this problem with speech -- let's just ban some of it! Fixed!" No.

You cannot ban political speech based on the fact that you don't like the speech, or its source. You cannot ban speech because you don't like how people respond to it, or how it convinces them to vote. You just plain can't do that. It's amazing to me that I have to tell you that. It's civics 101.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

we have this problem with speech -- let's just ban some of it!

Which wasn't the solution. The solution was to ban disbursements on electioneering communications (paying for speech in the public arena) by certain groups. This time, place and manner restriction on paying for speech had precedent in other cases and was supported by 4/9 justices.

[Mijin]

Most developed countries have some limitations on the quantity of political ads and when relative to the election cycle such ads can be broadcast. It doesn't appear to stifle the debate or ban any particular viewpoint.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Which wasn't the solution. The solution was to ban disbursements on electioneering communications (paying for speech in the public arena) by certain groups.

Which is the SAME THING.

Ask yourself WHY you want to ban those disbursements. You wouldn't care if that money was spent on anything else. It's the speech that it produces that you want to stop. You can't argue that you don't want to ban speech. You can attempt to argue that you're not banning speech because you're banning the spending of money, but that's bogus.

This time, place and manner restriction on paying for speech had precedent in other cases and was supported by 4/9 justices.

This is not a time place manner issue. You need to look up what that means. It does not justify banning speech from certain sources, or banning the spending of money on speech. Not even close.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Most developed countries have some limitations on the quantity of political ads and when relative to the election cycle such ads can be broadcast.

So you want to repeal the First Amendment?

It doesn't appear to stifle the debate or ban any particular viewpoint.

The law that Citizens United overturned did not impose a limit on spending or ads by any and all sources. It imposed it on a particular source.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you want to repeal the First Amendment?

Given that there are already many common-sense exceptions to freedom of speech, I don't see why that would be necessary.

But sure, if we ever did get to the point where the First Amendment was preventing us from implementing legislature that would improve political discourse (have more opinions heard and openly debated), and there was a consensus, why not, blow it away. It's not divine.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Given that there are already many common-sense exceptions to freedom of speech, I don't see why that would be necessary.

The restrictions in most other countries you cite would clearly violate the First Amendment here.

There are not "common sense" restrictions here. Common sense is not a legal term, because it's so incredibly vague. There are only a few very narrow restrictions on speech in this country, and none of them are based on the justifications used for those in other countries.

But sure, if we ever did get to the point where the First Amendment was preventing us from implementing legislature that would improve political discourse (have more opinions heard and openly debated), and there was a consensus, why not, blow it away. It's not divine.

You just don't get it, do you?

Giving the government the power to restrict speech, and justify it by saying it is trying to improve discourse, is simply not something we can or should entrust to it - even if you accept the notion that restricting speech can improve freedom of speech.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

There are only a few very narrow restrictions on speech in this country, and none of them are based on the justifications used for those in other countries.

Just because they don't share the same precedent doesn't mean they have different justifications. For instance, both the UK and US have laws against libel stemming from the same judicial history.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You wouldn't care if that money was spent on anything else.

Yes I would, I'd care if it were being spent to bribe voters or officials. Advertising in general is a giant scam perpetrated on the public, with political advertising being an especially effective example of such. If advertising were designed in order to promote the knowledge of the consumers or an informed electorate rather than exploit cognitive biases I wouldn't give two damns about it, that's true.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This is not a time place manner issue.

So, the corporations were prevented from speaking at any time in any place in any manner?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Just because they don't share the same precedent doesn't mean they have different justifications. For instance, both the UK and US have laws against libel stemming from the same judicial history.

But the US has the First Amendment.

Yes I would, I'd care if it were being spent to bribe voters or officials. Advertising in general is a giant scam perpetrated on the public, with political advertising being an especially effective example of such. If advertising were designed in order to promote the knowledge of the consumers or an informed electorate rather than exploit cognitive biases I wouldn't give two damns about it, that's true.

Could your arrogance be more obvious? You think everyone else is stupid and easily brainwashed by ads.

Ads are speech. You can't ban speech simply because you think people are too stupid to hear it. End of discussion.

So, the corporations were prevented from speaking at any time in any place in any manner?

You don't actually know what time place manner restrictions means, do you?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You don't actually know what time place manner restrictions means, do you?

I've already posted the four prong test.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You can't ban speech simply because you think people are too stupid to hear it. End of discussion.

Which isn't even a parody of my position. If people were too stupid to be influenced by political advertising, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

The issue is whether the majority of voters want to limit the influence of money on elections and the mechanisms they can use in order to do so.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I've already posted the four prong test.

Which this issue does not come close to satisfying.

Which isn't even a parody of my position. If people were too stupid to be influenced by political advertising, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

So you're saying people aren't too stupid to handle political ads.

So why do you want to limit them?

The issue is whether the majority of voters want to limit the influence of money on elections and the mechanisms they can use in order to do so.

The government may not violate the Constitution even when a majority of the people want it to.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you're saying people aren't too stupid to handle political ads.

I think this exchange illustrates the kind of game that is being played in this thread.

gamerunknown was actually trying to make sense of your position, and said if.

You then respond as though that he is asserting something, and in any case twist what the assertion would be.
If anything the assertion would be "People are too stupid to be influenced by ads" not "People are not too stupid to handle ads"; the former implying the smart are duped, the latter implying the dense.

The government may not violate the Constitution even when a majority of the people want it to.

Why not?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

I think this exchange illustrates the kind of game that is being played in this thread.

gamerunknown was actually trying to make sense of your position, and said if.

You then respond as though that he is asserting something, and in any case twist what the assertion would be.
If anything the assertion would be "People are too stupid to be influenced by ads" not "People are not too stupid to handle ads"; the former implying the smart are duped, the latter implying the dense.

I want to hear you and/or him say out loud "the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message."

If you can say that, then tell me why you would possibly need to ban or limit ads, or why you think you have a right to.

That will clear all this up.

Why not?

The fact that you even ask that question makes you unqualified for this discussion.

The government must abide by the Constitution. You didn't hear?

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I want to hear you and/or him say out loud "the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message."

Well, as a generalization, I simply disagree with that statement. Not all people will critically appraise political ads, like not all people will critically appraise ads in general. Note that this is not the same as saying "all the people are teh dumb and are swayed by political ads" -- you can't generalize in either direction.

Anyway, there is not a simple dividing line between swayed by ads and not. Everyone that sees them is influenced to one degree or another.

The fact that you even ask that question makes you unqualified for this discussion.
The government must abide by the Constitution. You didn't hear?

Countries can and do change parts of their constitution if there is huge consensus. It is ridiculous to imagine otherwise.

In any case, I should be clear that I do not believe that this is unconstitutional. The first amendment requires interpretation and I disagree with your interpretation. That's not the same thing as wanting to overturn it.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

"the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message."

This isn't the premise advertisers are operating on, otherwise they'd simply attempt to get advertisements seen by the majority of people, rather than relying on effective frequency in order to create artificial demand, in direct opposition to rational choice theory.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The government may not violate the Constitution even when a majority of the people want it to.

Call it what you will, it's not democracy.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Well, as a generalization, I simply disagree with that statement. Not all people will critically appraise political ads, like not all people will critically appraise ads in general. Note that this is not the same as saying "all the people are teh dumb and are swayed by political ads" -- you can't generalize in either direction.

Yes, it is. You just use gentler language.

But let's meet minds here. Can you agree with this statement?

"There is no justification for limiting speech based on the view that the people cannot think about the message in a way the government thinks is proper."

Anyway, there is not a simple dividing line between swayed by ads and not. Everyone that sees them is influenced to one degree or another.

Of course. They're supposed to be influential.

Countries can and do change parts of their constitution if there is huge consensus. It is ridiculous to imagine otherwise.

But the voters may not simply vote to violate the Constitution - only to change it. So if you have an amendment to offer, fine. If a constitutional amendment is seriously considered, you'll work to build a consensus, and I'll work to build a different one.

The supreme irony, though, is that your side will be using the very rights it is proposing to get rid of to do it!

There are groups today, including some that are incorporated just like the Citizens United group, that are accepting donations and using them to run ads calling for the repeal of Citizens United. And I just laugh when I see that. What hypocritical fools.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

This isn't the premise advertisers are operating on, otherwise they'd simply attempt to get advertisements seen by the majority of people, rather than relying on effective frequency in order to create artificial demand, in direct opposition to rational choice theory.

So what?

Call it what you will, it's not democracy.

Your doing that Orwell thing again.

Free speech, followed by free elections, isn't democracy? Okay.

Following the Constitution isn't democracy? Yeah.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

What hypocritical fools.

They may think that advertising has an inimical effect when used to influence elections and not when used to influence public opinion on supreme court opinions. That said. Cite?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Free speech, followed by free elections, isn't democracy? Okay.

Overturning a law with popular support is not democracy. You're doing professional goalpost shifting again.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So what?

So your characterisations are disingenuous.

[Lumpy]

The underlying presumption of this debate seems to be that since corporations are rich, and unfettered they would use their wealth to dominate the political process, then the only workable solution is to limit freedom of speech, since the little people have no chance anyway.

I think I'm going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

They may think that advertising has an inimical effect when used to influence elections and not when used to influence public opinion on supreme court opinions.

Seriously?

What a load of bullshit. Don't even try that.

That said. Cite?

For groups I'm talking about? If that's what you want I can provide it.

Overturning a law with popular support is not democracy. You're doing professional goalpost shifting again.

Fine. We live in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution.

Overturning a law with popular support is perfectly consistent with living in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution.

Better?

Stop playing games. The government may not violate the Bill of Rights. Vague notions of democracy is irrelevant to that fact. If you want to say it's not democracy, fine, whatever. What you are advocating is just what de Toqueville warned of: "Tyranny of the Majority." Even popular laws that violate the Constitution must be struck down.

So your characterisations are disingenuous.

Nope, your complaints are irrelevant.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

The underlying presumption of this debate seems to be that since corporations are rich, and unfettered they would use their wealth to dominate the political process, then the only workable solution is to limit freedom of speech, since the little people have no chance anyway.

I think I'm going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom.

Let us know if you start that thread, I'd like to see it.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Let us know if you start that thread, I'd like to see it.

Done! Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Even popular laws that violate the Constitution must be struck down.

What was that about Orwell again?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

For groups I'm talking about? If that's what you want I can provide it.

Go for it.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I think I'm going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom.

I said it before, democracy may be the antagonist of liberty. Socialism and syndicalism pose sharp threats to the freedom of property. Prisons are a fundamental intrusion on liberty. Campaign finance laws limit a person's freedom to have as much speech as money allows. To an extent, so do publicly owned channels. I think switching to strictly public funding for electioneering communications would be an appropriate limitation on freedom in service of democracy.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

What was that about Orwell again?

Seriously?

That's a bedrock function of our system. Certain laws may not be passed because the Constitution forbids them. Even if they are popular. Do you not get this basic principle?

I said it before, democracy may be the antagonist of liberty.

Sure.

Campaign finance laws limit a person's freedom to have as much speech as money allows.

No they don't. Donations aren't speech. Money isn't speech.

To an extent, so do publicly owned channels. I think switching to strictly public funding for electioneering communications would be an appropriate limitation on freedom in service of democracy.

Amend the Constitution then.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Do you not get this basic principle?

It's crystal clear. It's also not democracy.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Donations aren't speech. Money isn't speech.

But limiting the expenditure of money intended to be used on speech (in this case, the electioneering communications campaign finance pays for) limits speech.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

It's crystal clear. It's also not democracy.

Fine. We don't have a pure democracy. If you want one, feel free to propose any necessary changes to the Constitution.

We have a constitutional republic in which the government's power, and therefore the people's power, is limited.

But limiting the expenditure of money intended to be used on speech (in this case, the electioneering communications campaign finance pays for) limits speech.

Buckley addressed this. You should read it again, or for the first time.

If you want me to choose between limiting donations to Super PACs and repealing all donation limits to candidates, I'll choose dumping the limits to candidates. And the courts might do that soon too. Be careful what you wish for.