Should Hillary: The Movie have been banned?
The movie should not have been banned.
I don’t know anyone who argued that, exactly. The question was over its funding, and whether that was permissible.
No one here is arguing for censorship of content, only of regulation of corporate funding of political advertising.
But that’s a convenient way of avoiding the question.
Saying “the movie shouldn’t be banned” but then continuing to suggest that “the movie shouldn’t be made” because it was funded by corporations is really saying the same thing: I’m okay with stifling political expression because it came from corporate coffers.
In fact, the latter notion is worse as it censors speech before it even materializes.
Well, do you disagree?
No it’s not ipso facto anything. The point is that the term “negative effect” is subjective. Introducing this in the OP is well poisoning.
No, it isn’t. Saying “The movie shouldn’t be made” is merely an expression of disapproval. Saying “The movie should be banned” encourages government, the network or somebody to actually take action to ban it.
How could the rich always getting their way as against the majority’s way in public decisionmaking in a purportedly democratic republic possibly be anything but a negative effect?
Considering your paraphrase is inaccurate it’s pretty easy to rebut. You’ve moved from, *"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they **generally *do not get it." to “the rich always getting their way”. These are not the same. Probably an oversight, I’m sure.
In any event, let’s look at the article:
Assuming the study data calculations/conclusions are accurate, we’re talking 45% which you’ve characterized as “always”. This is so not even close that it’s funny. And that doesn’t speak to the study validity itself. But let’s look at your question itself as if it were an accurate portrayal of something because even though it is not, it’s easily rebutted -
Because it’s good if you’re rich.
Come to think of it, the Tillman Act of 1907 is still on the books.
Some courageous prosecutor could do something with it.
BTW, there’s a big protest going on in Washington all this week, against money in politics and a great deal else about our electoral systems.
Fair enough. But this discussion is all in direct reference to the Citizens United ruling, making the government’s involvement a central concern.
Not true. Banning the funding is banning the movie.
That’s bs. People opposed to Citizens United are against freedom of the press. There is no way to honestly spin that otherwise.
The ACLU says it better than I can.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution
Forbidding someone from using their resources to exercise their speech rights is an unconstitutional restriction on speech.
If someone is fined for spending money to publish a book or produce a film, to say that’s not akin to censorship is crazy doublespeak.
To say otherwise leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as the idea that the government could, for instance, pass a law forbidding the spending of money to buy a Bible, but say it’s not a restriction on religious liberty because you are still allowed to possess a Bible, or pass a law forbidding a woman from paying a doctor for an abortion, but saying it doesn’t violate Roe v. Wade because she can still have an abortion.
If you don’t want to call it “censorship,” fine. It’s not censorship. It’s still a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
I wonder how much MONEY the protestors spent to organize it?
You are absolutely free to make any movie you want. You just can’t spend any money on cameras, lights, actors or anything else. Freedom! (eyes rolling)
I didn’t say that. I said the choice of the voters is the choice, not that it is wise. The government may not restrict or manipulate speech based on the notion that the voters didn’t make a wise choice.
So? What’s that got to do with speech rights? If you have a problem with all that, by all means feel free to discuss it. Don’t claim it’s a reason to restrict speech or try to further manipulate the process.
Now that I’ve read the link, I see that the protests don’t have that much to do with money in politics. And, while most people deliberately or mistakenly mix up the two all the time, those quoted seem to be concerned with donations to candidates, which as we all know by now is not the same as spending on speech.
Don’t see how you could read it that way.
Of course it is. The candidates spend the money on TV ads.
So lets say you get your wish and nobody gives any money to any politician. How do they get elected? A senator for California would need to go out and knock doors from the day she is elected till the next to even make a dent in meeting voters.