Oh geez, what relief. When will the website to register my company’s status as a state approved media outlet be ready?
And the award for “Most Pointless and Fatuous Nonsequitur of the Week” goes to Hank Beecher! 
This would be true if every person in the organization were choosing to act. In fact, the decisions are made by a very small number of people in the organization.
You say the secret liberal code word, the duck comes down and gives you a prize.
I suggest that we close this thread on the grounds that the speech in it has become too free. *
And I hate that.
*Not an actual suggestion.
BrainGlutton, did you mean to say that the difference-making political speech of yesteryear cost less money, as opposed to no money? Because printing books, broadsheets, and pamphlets costs money. Speaking tours cost money. Renting out a hall for a rally costs money.
How is that a misreading? Unless we’re using “freedom of the press” as a term apart from the First Amendment guarantee.
To say nothing of the fact that the ban on expeditures in Section 3 isn’t subject to the “freedom of the press” caveat in Section 2. Only the additional regulations are.
Standing on a street corner yelling costs nothing.
Agreed. But does that describe “difference-making political speech in the days before such cost money”?
To clarify: what portion of difference-making political speech was done without expending any money? Common Sense was a published pamphlet. FDR’s fireside chats were broadcast on the radio. The Cross of Gold speech was delivered in the Chicago Coliseum, rented for the Democratic National Convention. Marx’s works were published. The March on Washington required funding, from sympathetic organizations and selling of buttons and such.
Common Sense made money.
Look, how far back in American history does the concept of a “campaign contribution” go? I doubt it existed in the FFs’ day.
I must not be expressing myself very clearly.
I submit that there has been little to no “difference-making political speech” that didn’t cost money to disseminate. One person yelling on a street corner would qualify, if the results were “difference-making”. I’m hard-pressed to think of any examples, though.
Whether or not Common Sense turned a profit, it is political speech that cost money to disseminate, in the form of whatever Robert Bell charged to print copies for Paine to sell.
Because if your reading makes sense, the clause “freedom of the press” has virtually no meaning in the amendment.
Why do you say that corporations get free speech protections that are above and beyond those available to natural persons?
Socrates, Jesus, Galieleo and Martin Luther (I think they all paid a price for their speech so we probably couldn’t call it free speech).
Yeah, the qualifier is “for profit” doesn’t seem outrageous but after thinking about it long and hard, I don’t think SCOTUS was irredeemably wrong about Citizens United.
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to people using public airwaves. You can impose neutrality requirements on entities that are using public goods to the exclusion of others. You can talk all you want but if you want exclusive use of limited public airwaves to do it, then we can force you to be even-handed.
We can limit time manner place of speech. Why are limits on contributions (evenly applied) a huge violation of free speech?
1828, at the latest, with Andrew Jackson’s campaign.
Any money? That’s a pretty dumb question.
The heart of the concern about the influence of money in campaigns really has nothing to do with the operating expenses for CBS News or the USA Today. It has to do with how candidates are incentivized to seek greater and greater amounts of money for their own purposes, and whether politicians are being put in positions that are not in the general interest of the public in order to obtain those contributions.
So there are plenty of examples of political speech where funds were used, but no campaign funds were used. I trust you don’t require a list of those examples of difference-making political speech that had nothing to do with campaign contributions… but I’d be glad to oblige if that’s really required.
The European Union is working tirelessly to ban a whole bunch of speech and thought - ironically enough in the name of “tolerance”. But as they say: no need to tolerate intolerance, although that sounds kinda oxymoronic. A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK NATIONAL STATUTE FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOLERANCE
“Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism”
So that rules out giving praise to for instance Communism.
Hey, thanks. It’s the question prompted by this remark:
It also points to the problems with a money-isn’t-speech approach, when money is necessary for speech.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The heart of the concern about the influence of money in campaigns really has nothing to do with the operating expenses for CBS News or the USA Today.
[/quote]
And yet, the Saving Democracy Amendment is so loosly written, it could easily affect the operating expenses of CBS News or USA Today, and thus affecting the right to a free press. That is cause for concern.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
It has to do with how candidates are incentivized to seek greater and greater amounts of money for their own purposes, and whether politicians are being put in positions that are not in the general interest of the public in order to obtain those contributions.
So there are plenty of examples of political speech where funds were used, but no campaign funds were used. I trust you don’t require a list of those examples of difference-making political speech that had nothing to do with campaign contributions… but I’d be glad to oblige if that’s really required.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that distinction (unrelated as it is to my question for BrainGlutton), but it’s far from clear that the Saving Democracy Amendment recognizes it.
I phrased myself ambiguously. Individuals get free speech protections. They cannot get additional free speech protections by forming a corporation. The corporation should have no free speech rights whatsoever and should be required to abide by whatever regulations imposed by the will of the people. The rights of free speech should always be traced back to the human involved.