[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
It’s so funny, now that free speech = money, it’s an unassailable right, according to conservatives. Back when the big free speech issue was obscenity, there were LIMITS, dammit … according to conservatives. Once again, conservatives only care about money.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying is two wrongs make, er, a left? Right? 
-XT
This a a fairly ignorant statement.
I’m not a conservative, nor was I a back of anti-obscenity laws and I think the SLAP test is a complete mockery as did Brennan, the man who made it and later regretted doing so.
Nor for that matter is the ACLU which also celebrated the Citizens United ruling.
Backers of Free Speech of all political stripes supported it and the defeat of the book burners.
Only in extremely narrow circumstances as allowed under Brandenbug, where the violence must be “imminent” and the behavior inspired has to be “lawless”.
To give an obvious example, Ann Coulter wasn’t jailed for writing in the National Review regularly appearing on Fox News where she repeated that the best response to 911 should be to “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
So no, leaders of the KKK are not allowed to point at a black man and declare “lynch him!” but they are certainly allowed to, and regularly do put out broadcasts, books, and videos in which they make it clear that blacks and other minorities deserve to die and they do this without being prosecuted.
Perhaps the opponents of Citizens United can explain why* Hillary: The Movie *needed governmental restrictions and regulations while any government restrictions on The Turner Diaries, which inspired the OKC bombing is Verbotten, but I certainly don’t see any.
Once again, I think it’s amusing that three of the Justices who favored the restrictions on a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton voted that laws couldn’t restrict the KKK’s burning of crosses even when such burning was done for the purpose of “intimidation.”
That was certainly mighty white of them.
While browsing the thread I had a brain-storm. Feel free to call me an imbecile.
The right to free speech does not give me the right to discuss a court case with one of the active jurors. (I don’t think it even gives me the right to say: “You want some tonight? You’d better convict that murderer!”)
Although the details of any restrictions would be completely different, I don’t think the analogy with voters is wholly flawed. Don’t voters have a solemn duty not unlike that of jurors? Is it in society’s interest to give elections to whoever can spend the most on bamboozling light shows?
Septimus, you imbecile, I think you’ve got it!
No, really, that is a pretty good argument on its face. But I think a lot of pols and judges have their minds made up on a conclusion already.
The fact that they did think about limiting free speech means that they didn’t consider limiting free speech unthinkable. Again, this is a demonstration that there is no absolute right to free speech, a fact that some here seem to have a problem with.
I don’t recall seeing anyone complain that movies can no longer be restricted. There are plenty of people who are up in arms that the decision opened the door to unlimited campaign spending.
Once again I request a cite for the assertion that any Justices argued in favor of retaining the restrictions on showing Hillary the Movie.
So then you think an episode of The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, or a skit on Saturday Night Live that is trying to influence an election is comparable to jury tampering?
No one has claimed that limits on free speech are unthinkable. They get brought up all the time. They get struck down all the time as well. What you need is a time when the First Amendment allowed limits on political speech.
That is what you are advocating - you want to limit campaigning by some groups to increase the influence of other groups. That is exactly what the Supreme Court said was a violation of the First Amendment.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes but look at the context of this.
First people in this thread were implying that there have been no exceptions to freedom of speech.
When the many exceptions were pointed out, it then became “Ah, but there have been no exceptions to political speech” (as though the first amendment unambiguously says political speech should be 100% protected but not other forms of speech).
When pointing out exceptions to even this, now you’re saying “Yeah, but that’s only in exceptional circumstances”.
An exception is an exception and shows that there’s a degree of interpretation required here.
My point throughout has been that there is a spirit in which freedom of speech is meant and it does not, to me, entail that there must be no caps on spending. To me that’s just a practical matter in carrying out elections – like mandating where banners can be placed, or “stand by your ad”.
Maybe this is semantics. If I were to say that there is an absolute right to free speech what I would mean is that there is no way to limit that right. Yet as I have shown there is such a way. Free speech can be limited when it conflicts with other rights and interests. Perhaps you mean something different when you say it.
Has there ever been a time when it has not? I’ve already pointed to the sedition acts of 1798 and 1918 as well as the Smith Act which remains in force today.
No. I do not wish to do that. I wish to prevent indirect bribery of candidates with unlimited campaign funding. Certainly you can interpret the outcome of the execution of that desire as limiting the campaigning of some groups to increase the influence of other groups, and that interpretation is certainly favorable to your own opinions, but that is not my goal. I hope to prevent any and all groups from bribing candidates. That this burdens those more willing and able to bribe more than others does not indicate any bias on my part.
Apologies.
I did not realize you were unaware that the decision was 5-4 in Citizens United rather than 9-0.
The 4 Justices had the opportunity to concur with the striking down of the part of McCain-Feingold which gave the government the power to regulate not just explicit campaign ads but anything they deemed to be “electioneering communications” during election season, including obviously books and movies designed to influence an election, while dissenting with the parts of the opinion regarding the use of general treasuries from unions and corporations but refused.
So then, to be perfectly clear, you think the government has the right to arrest people for criticizing either the draft(admittedly a bit anachronistic) and discouraging people from signing up for selective services because doing so is comparable to “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre”?
Please explain your reasoning because I find such reasoning utterly moronic and frankly anti-American.
Similarly, I’ll assume you were outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cohen V. California to void the arrest and conviction of a man for walking into a courtroom wearing a jean jacket with “Fuck the draft” emblazoned on the back.
If not, please explain your reasoning, because if you approve of Cohen V. California then that shows some fairly stunning hypocrisy and intellectual inconsistency on your part.
Thanks
So, in order to prevent “indirect bribery of candidates” you need to punish the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets or putting out ads criticizing the environmental records of sitting politicians.
Please explain the logic of such a position, because I don’t see it.
Thanks
No, I don’t believe money=speech so there’s no conflict with me saying there are no limits: the First Amendment means EXACTLY what it says.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
No, I don’t believe money=speech so there’s no conflict with me saying there are no limits: the First Amendment means EXACTLY what it says.
[/QUOTE]
And I believe you are completely wrong, except about the fact that the First Amendment means exactly what it says. Luckily, folks who are good with blithely setting aside things like the First in what they think is the greater good (and damn the slippery slopes) don’t have the fiat power to do so. I think that if you and others who think like you actually managed to do it, you wouldn’t like the unexpected consequences that would result (and I’m just talking about the results of banning or curtailing campaign money, not even the deeper ramifications to free speech). Happily, we’ll probably never know what a fucking mess would occur if the OP got his or her wish.
-XT
No, they don’t. Money != speech. And freedom of speech != freedom to buy the most time or the loudest amplifier in the room.
You might want to consider retiring that adjective. Far too often it appears that you are using it to attack the poster under the cover of attacking the post.
[ /Moderating ]
Ok, I’ll try not to use it if it bothers you.
And no, I wasn’t attacking the poster, I was criticizing his argument and I see no reason why it’s wrong to classify Schenck v. The United States as “moronic”.
Why does “money doesn’t equal speech” keep getting trotted out as if it actually responds to something?
Restricting the “amounts of money to be spent, on ANY sort of speech” is, and I realize this is a radical inference, a restriction of political expression. You may feel it’s warranted. This thread is full of people who do. But denying it with glib nonsense does not an argument make.
I’ve been asking for a citation and not an explanation. The minority provided a dissent explaining their disagreement with the decision. If it includes an argument condoning restricting movies and books during the period right before elections then you should be able to quote that part. Perhaps it does, I haven’t read the entire document. But your explanation there is just another unsubstantiated claim and not proof.
I don’t believe the government is allowed to do that. However they can and will arrest you for advocating the violent overthrow of the government or for revealing top secret information to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the government. So yes, there is a time when the right to political speech under the 1st Amendment was limited. Right now.
I don’t know that you do. It depends. The leaflets seem pretty innocuous to me. My understanding was that the objection to them was that they were purchased with corporate money but I doubt they were problematic. OTOH a hundred million dollar effort to publish leaflets and hire people to distribute them across the electorate, yeah I believe a promise to do so in favor (or threat to do so in opposition) certainly would get the attention of a candidate. As for the ads, they aren’t cheap and if they are being aired during campaigns then it’s hard to see how they are any different from campaign ads. Certainly that behavior should be regulated or it makes a joke of the campaign finance laws that the Citizen United decision left intact. (Which, of course, is what they are.) The basis for the reasoning is simple: it’s about the money. Individuals and groups should be prevented from buying influence in politics.