How does an individual person make a movie alone?
I reject the word “censoring” here, because no actual content is banned.
And…I honestly don’t know. Maybe Unions should be included, and maybe not. Unions are not exactly the same as Corporations. It is not impossible to favor limits on political contributions for one but not the other. (Just as many on the Right want to limit Union contributions but not Corporate contributions. There is a precedent.)
That happens all the time. One guy, one camera. Lots of documentaries get made that way.
Also, limits on funding don’t have to be limits of “zero.”
Also, investing in a for-profit movie isn’t quite the same as donating toward a political ad, which is never expected to make any profit. The intent is different.
The petzel logic is impressive.
Stung by the tipo monxter.
But, seriously, show me the pretzel logic? I said, “I don’t know.” Isn’t that good enough for you?
Don’t just call names. Demonstrate the error. If you won’t argue substantively, there’s no way to know if you can.
Well there’s this:
Corporations are ultimately made up of individuals. If it’s okay for one person can use their resources to speak - it makes no sense whatsoever that that same person can’t speak when working together with another. And why corps? Does that mean partnerships are okay? The boogeyman of corporations is silly.
Then there’s this:
Sure, a group of people is not a single person, in the same way that a wagon is not a cow. It’s definitional, but there is no meaningful distinction when you are talking about speech. A person may speak, a group of people may speak. You may as well say a cow can yield steak, but a group of cows cannot. People gathering together, speaking with a collective voice is the desired outcome of persuasive speech.
Then there’s this:
Yes it’s not impossible to favor limits on one but not the other, if you are internally inconsistent and favoring a particular outcome rather than a principle. No mainstream view one on the right wants to limit union contributions - the desired limit is forced contributions. Hey, I’m also opposed to forced contributions to corporations too! The common factor is force, not contributions.
But really, this is the height of the pretzel logic:
So if one person makes a movie, that’s OK, but two people gathering together, holy shit that’s evil! And you know that a corporation can consist of a single person right? Is that person just in free speech limbo? It makes no sense.
And finally, many movies make no profit. Is the political ad is meant to make a profit, is that then okay? If it is made at a loss, then can the censorship begin? Wait, not censorship right because you reject the term and that’s bad so we have to engage in some newspeak. If a movie is made at a loss, then it can only be a single person working on it or else…something. Your positions make no sense and only hold up if you twist logic into a pretzel.
Believers in free speech believe in the quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” There’s no qualifier for non-profits, unions, making movies working alone, saying the same thing as the person you are ideologically aligned with, etc.
How does that make it different?
So somehow you found a place in the First Amendment that says people making movies alone is protected, but if they get together it isn’t.
Any limits are limits though, and they are unconstitutional.
The intent is irrelevant. You may not limit speech based on its intent.
But to say that is obviously absurd. It’s ridiculous nonsense.
And it’s hilarious that you use the tern “us” while asserting a right to limit speech of anyone in a group.
Stop it already.
This isn’t true. If the intent of speech is to intimidate with threats of violence then it may be restricted. There is also a tort of Intentional infliction of emotional distress though this hasn’t been as well fleshed out and likely applies to only private actors.
We all know that. We’re not talking about that sort of intent. I’m sure you agree that if ANY intent were fair game to limit speech, the government could limit any speech it wants since all speech has some kind of intent. So your comment is a red herring.
Where does the First Amendment say that only individual persons, acting alone, have speech rights?
WHy would one want to impose such a ridiculous notion?
No, that’s what people on both sides say. If you want to be the voice of reason, you can’t pretend that your side doesn’t have its share of quacks. Plenty of people have argued that money is speech, used that in analogies, examples, etc. in this very thread. As it were, its a shorthand to express the use of money as it relates to political contributions and political speech and how it is affected by federal electioneering laws. “Money is speech”, therefore, is a perfectly valid way to describe it
The movie ran afoul of electioneering laws, specifically that it violated
Its not that they banned the spending, even though the ultimate result was that they lifted restrictions on it, its that the movie could not be shown and instead of saying that, they simply restricted the money, at least that’s what I gather. And don’t make it about Hillary personally. The rule would have banned any such movie for any politician within that timeframe. It just so happens it was conservatives who tried to get around the law by illegally airing a movie.
It sounds like you’re ok with bribery then, considering that Super PACs and campaigns are little different. Good to know
We’re not talking about TV studios, we’re talking about giving money to a candidate. You said you thought campaigns and Super PACs are the same and feel money can be freely given to them, so don’t go dragging TV into this now to deflect. Donating money for the promise of future behavior is the exact definition of a bribe even if you want to pretend its a reward for past actions.
Another real-world example that the other side won’t honestly respond to, like the others posed here.
My comment was factual - yours was not. Your arguments are buttressed when they are clear and accurate.
So if one spends money on speech, or donates it to someone who will spend money on speech, and there is NO promise of future behavior, it’s okay with you?
I agree. Thanks. As long as you were not trying to say that an exception makes the rule invalid. That would lead to crazy results. If my comment was “inaccurate” the inaccuracy was irrelevant to this discussion.
No it’s not. But even if we accepted that, it’s absolutely WRONG to say that anyone has ever said contributions to a candidate are speech. That’s completely false. Only spending money on speech, or contributions to a non-candidate group that spends it on speech, has been defended as part of speech rights.
Do you donate money to a political party? Do you contribute valuable time? How do you reconcile those actions with your apparent dislike of “bribery?”
Every donor to the Democratic Party is by Yog’s definition a criminal.