# The left hates free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720 "2013-11-12T13:39:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/41 "2013-11-12T20:55:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Here’s the proposed amendment:It does not strip protection for free speech from any human being. It does say that groups of humans may not form to create a Voltron-style metahuman that also gets free speech protections above and beyond those enjoyed by each individual. > > Your characterization of this amendment is so far afield that it beggars the imagination to grant you the courtesy of assuming it’s an honest mistake, but that’s what I’ll do because I’m a swell guy. My characterization is far afield of how the amendment is often promoted in the left leaning press, so I forgive your mistake. It certainly does strip first amendment protection from human beings. Collective social structures are how people communicate, as was true when the first amendment was written. The fact that you might support the limiting of the political speech of groups that use a certain subset of these collective social structures does not change the fact that this limitation is a limitation on the ability of humans to speak politically. Neither does the fact that you or others may consider this subset of political speech to be dangerous. It is not a new idea, that there might be certain political speech that is dangerous. It is a certainty that this will be the case, in fact, but we choose to protect it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/42 "2013-11-12T20:57:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How “shut down”? There was plenty of difference-making political speech in the days before such cost money. Such as? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/43 "2013-11-12T21:03:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How “shut down”? There was plenty of difference-making political speech in the days before such cost money. All putting an end to or limit upon all of that money-costing means is that all political actors are now in the same boat and A can’t outspend B. So what? If MLK’s enemies could have stopped the SCLC from spending money he would have been shut down. Every last person or group of people is a potential “political actor”. So what? The government should not be making laws to limit political speech, that’s what. Thankfully we have the the [flaming Teabagger right-wingnuts of the American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united) to protect us from this neo-lefty crap. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/44 "2013-11-12T21:06:02Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > shouting down speakers The Right hates free speech because they want to stop people from registering their objections. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/45 "2013-11-12T21:09:02Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > > [@cornopean](#): > > > > there are plenty of people on the right who hate free speech as well. no question. > > … > > There is none of this on the right. > > Wait, what? Quality post/user name combo. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/46 "2013-11-12T21:20:26Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > My characterization is far afield of how the amendment is often promoted in the left leaning press, so I forgive your mistake. > > It certainly does strip first amendment protection from human beings. Collective social structures are how people communicate, as was true when the first amendment was written. The fact that you might support the limiting of the political speech of groups that use a certain subset of these collective social structures does not change the fact that this limitation is a limitation on the ability of humans to speak politically. Blah blah blah, corporations are people, why do those leftists hate corporations, they’re just trying to buy elections, wah wah wah. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/47 "2013-11-12T21:24:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Blah blah blah, corporations are people, why do those leftists hate corporations, they’re just trying to buy elections, wah wah wah. “Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment.” -[ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/48 "2013-11-12T21:25:55Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > “Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment.” -[ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united) I don’t feel particularly beholden to what the ACLU argues. Do you? Furthermore, a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections would obviously make such a common-sense regulation constitutional. The reconciliation with the First Amendment would not be an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/49 "2013-11-12T21:28:30Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > My characterization is far afield of how the amendment is often promoted in the left leaning press, so I forgive your mistake. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It certainly does strip first amendment protection from human beings. Collective social structures are how people communicate, as was true when the first amendment was written. The fact that you might support the limiting of the political speech of groups that use a certain subset of these collective social structures does not change the fact that this limitation is a limitation on the ability of humans to speak politically. Bullshit. Bob is a radical. He can shout on the street corner to his heart’s content, or publish a zine talking about how terrible gummint is, or whatever. Bob joins a corporation. I do not advocate taking a single shred of his personal freedom away. What I do advocate is that the benefits accorded to the “corporate” structure don’t extend to being able to use that structure to influence elections. If you want to influence elections, you may continue to do so outside of the corporate structure as much as you want. You won’t be penalized for doing so, nor will your corporation. It’s really dumb to suggest that, because you can’t use a legal fiction to exercise your rights, you can’t exercise those rights. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/50 "2013-11-12T21:36:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t feel particularly beholden to what the ACLU argues. Do you? I am not beholden to them, nor am I aware of a time when they advocated for something I was opposed to. They are a group that represents my viewpoint, that I and other other like minded people use to collectively voice our political opinions. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections would obviously make such a common-sense regulation constitutional. The reconciliation with the First Amendment would not be an issue. Sure. We could make slavery constitutional again too. And “clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections” is not what the amendment does. It limits the first amendment protection of people acting collectively when they do so using particular organisational structures. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/51 "2013-11-12T21:37:47Z")
Remain in the designated free speech zone and the complimentary speech will be delivered shortly. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/52 "2013-11-12T21:38:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Bullshit. Bob is a radical. He can shout on the street corner to his heart’s content, or publish a zine talking about how terrible gummint is, or whatever. Bob joins a corporation. I do not advocate taking a single shred of his personal freedom away. > > What I do advocate is that the benefits accorded to the “corporate” structure don’t extend to being able to use that structure to influence elections. If you want to influence elections, you may continue to do so outside of the corporate structure as much as you want. You won’t be penalized for doing so, nor will your corporation. > > It’s really dumb to suggest that, because you can’t use a legal fiction to exercise your rights, you can’t exercise those rights. What about the opinion page of the NYT? It exists within the corporate structure. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/53 "2013-11-12T21:41:02Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > There is none of this on the right. The most important free expression in a democracy is the vote. Which side is trying to limit that expression? Which side mandates massive, carelessly compiled voter roll purges that typically disenfranchise many, many legally eligible and registered voters? Which side restricts early and Sunday voting, which have nothing to do with voter id? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/54 "2013-11-12T21:47:25Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > What about the opinion page of the NYT? It exists within the corporate structure. Did you read the amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/55 "2013-11-12T21:49:23Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > And “clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections” is not what the amendment does. It limits the first amendment protection of people acting collectively when they do so using particular organisational structures. Yes, that’s exactly what it does. [The first sentence, not the second. -ed] And your equivalency of money and speech is belied by the fact that nobody ever complains about the “pernicious influence of _speech_ in elections.” > [@](#): > > What about the opinion page of the NYT? It exists within the corporate structure. Holy crap! The New York Times Op-Ed page is attempting to send millions of dollars to the campaign coffers of politicians? When did this happen?!? ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/56 "2013-11-12T21:53:37Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Wait, Brown University was elected to be representative of the entire left? How did I miss that! Do you deny that universities are overwhelming leftist? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/57 "2013-11-12T21:54:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Bullshit. Bob is a radical. He can shout on the street corner to his heart’s content, or publish a zine talking about how terrible gummint is, or whatever. Bob joins a corporation. I do not advocate taking a single shred of his personal freedom away. Let’s talk about this idea of yours that you get to decide what Bob’s “personal freedom” is, and on this basis limit the way he and others collectively express themselves, limiting them to individually shouting on the street corner. Why should the restriction apply only to for-profit corporations? What about all of the benefits afforded by other structures, should those benefits extend to being able to use the structure to influence elections? ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/58 "2013-11-12T21:54:38Z")
> [@WilyQuixote](#): > > Do define Marxist. This should be interesting. Marxists believe that the govt is the answer to all of society’s ills. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/59 "2013-11-12T21:58:14Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Free speech simply means the government can’t shut you up. It doesn’t mean a private entity must provide a venue for your speech, or that your audience must sit politely and listen to it. But universities pride themselves on being places where you can speak your mind and people will respectfully listen or choose not to listen. This works just fine as long as you’re venting leftist ideas. As soon as your speech violates any cherished, leftist dogma, you are shouted down, hit with cream pies, or otherwise prevented from speaking your mind. How is this consistent with free speech? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/60 "2013-11-12T21:59:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Did you read the amendment? Yes I have. I reject the idea that the government should get to decide who constitutes “The Press”, and who is thus excluded from the restrictions to political speech. In fact this notion completely undermines the very idea of the first amendment. As well as being wrong on this basis it is also impractical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720.md?page=4)