Free Speech

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do "Free Speech Zones" still exist today like they did in the Bush era? Can you get a permit to protest whatever you want with whatever message you want, or will the state shut some groups down and promote others?

Do you believe that Facebook should be nationalized or broken up? Has it become the new digitized public square, with a corporation deciding what may and may not be spoken on it? Or is it just a private business that should be allowed to do as it wishes. Or should it be regulated? To what extent?

Is Free Speech a liberal or conservative value now? Or is it both? I used to notice it almost entirely on the left (the right squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc), but now see it more and more on the right (the left also squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc).

Should free speech trump a person's "right not to be offended" (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)? Should there be restrictions on it other than immediate calls for violence? Myself, I see that as the only restriction I would put on it.

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

 

[Bomb#20]

The Citizens United ruling didn't say money is speech. In fact it de facto said money isn't speech -- you have a right to speak about an election anonymously, but CU v FEC ruled that Congress can require disclosure of where the money came from.

 

[James Madison]

Do "Free Speech Zones" still exist today like they did in the Bush era? Can you get a permit to protest whatever you want with whatever message you want, or will the state shut some groups down and promote others?

Do you believe that Facebook should be nationalized or broken up? Has it become the new digitized public square, with a corporation deciding what may and may not be spoken on it? Or is it just a private business that should be allowed to do as it wishes. Or should it be regulated? To what extent?

Is Free Speech a liberal or conservative value now? Or is it both? I used to notice it almost entirely on the left (the right squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc), but now see it more and more on the right (the left also squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc).

Should free speech trump a person's "right not to be offended" (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)? Should there be restrictions on it other than immediate calls for violence? Myself, I see that as the only restriction I would put on it.

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

The Court never said “money is speech” in the decision of Citizens United.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zorq]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

 

[Ford]

Do "Free Speech Zones" still exist today like they did in the Bush era? Can you get a permit to protest whatever you want with whatever message you want, or will the state shut some groups down and promote others?

I don't know the answer for sure, but my guess would be yes. The last decade normalized the process of "let's put the protesters in their own little space" and I don't know of any successful challenges to that practice.

Do you believe that Facebook should be nationalized or broken up? Has it become the new digitized public square, with a corporation deciding what may and may not be spoken on it? Or is it just a private business that should be allowed to do as it wishes. Or should it be regulated? To what extent?

Is Facebook a monopoly? I suppose you could argue against that by saying other forms of social media exist, but they're mostly different platforms, and to what extent does Facebook have a lock on their model? Could someone come up with another platform that had a similar layout and functionality and not be sued into oblivion by Facebook? Their algorithms and software are proprietary, but is the idea? Can you copyright a form of media?

Is Free Speech a liberal or conservative value now? Or is it both? I used to notice it almost entirely on the left (the right squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc), but now see it more and more on the right (the left also squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc).

You mean like "religious liberty" is being bandied about nowadays? We're leaning towards a time when "religious liberty" is being weaponized. "Sincerely held religious beliefs" are dangerously close to being a license to discriminate.

Should free speech trump a person's "right not to be offended" (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)? Should there be restrictions on it other than immediate calls for violence? Myself, I see that as the only restriction I would put on it.

I guess I'm missing the part where a right not to be offended is codified in law.

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

No, but money amplifies speech. Sometimes literally. There's a guy downtown who preaches every day at the top of his lungs from his little space on the street corner. His voice is really impressive. Does he have the right to do that? Sure. But if I wanted to rent a sound system and set it up on the opposite corner, I could totally drown out his rantings. Every time he opened his mouth I could crack the mic and make sure people heard what I have to say and not what he has to say. Is that fair? Is that legal? And if the city government comes down and rules that I'm within my rights to drown out that guy, aren't they infringing on his rights?

 

[steve_bank]

Clearly Trump wants control of media to control his image. Not unlike Mussolimi, HJitler, and Putin today.

There can be no federal or stae law requiring privat information providers to organize information in any way.

It seems like outlets that simply provide info and links would be exempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

The equal-time rule was created because the FCC was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates

If there is a national propaganda outlet it is certainly FOX News, Hannity has a WH office and others are frequent visitors. It would seem the practice of requiring stations to push one conservative view on political stories by a corporate network of stations as has has been reported would be a violation. Prewritten text is passed down from corporate ownership and stations are ordered to read it on air.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

The Court never said “money is speech” in the decision of Citizens United.

Then it seems I as misinformed. I hadn't read the actual decision.

How about the rest of the OP?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is Facebook a monopoly? I suppose you could argue against that by saying other forms of social media exist, but they're mostly different platforms, and to what extent does Facebook have a lock on their model? Could someone come up with another platform that had a similar layout and functionality and not be sued into oblivion by Facebook? Their algorithms and software are proprietary, but is the idea? Can you copyright a form of media?

I think its more a matter of sheer size. They are huge and competitors don't stand much of a chance against them. And while so much online presence happens on them (or on Twitter for another example), it puts control and censorship without regulation into the hands of one company. That's a little scary. But I don't know what the answer is. Government control of them may be an even bigger problem.

You mean like "religious liberty" is being bandied about nowadays? We're leaning towards a time when "religious liberty" is being weaponized. "Sincerely held religious beliefs" are dangerously close to being a license to discriminate.

Absolutely. But I don't think this use of "religious liberty" is new. I remember it from the battle over gay marriage, etc. Has it grown lately and is it raging more than before? Is the religious right growing or shrinking? I hope shrinking.

I guess I'm missing the part where a right not to be offended is codified in law.

I agree. It was a fascinating look into how the illiberal left thinks though when Cathy Newman asked that question.

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

No, but money amplifies speech. Sometimes literally. There's a guy downtown who preaches every day at the top of his lungs from his little space on the street corner. His voice is really impressive. Does he have the right to do that? Sure. But if I wanted to rent a sound system and set it up on the opposite corner, I could totally drown out his rantings. Every time he opened his mouth I could crack the mic and make sure people heard what I have to say and not what he has to say. Is that fair? Is that legal? And if the city government comes down and rules that I'm within my rights to drown out that guy, aren't they infringing on his rights?

Good question.

 

[James Madison]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

I’m rather certain the expenditure of corporate funds for speech requires human involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ford]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

I’m rather certain the expenditure of corporate funds for speech requires human involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly does, but I think what zorq was trying to get at is, does a corporation and a person have equal standing under the law with regards to speech, and should they? Is a three letter media outlet owned by a global corporation and a guy on a street corner shouting at the wind count equally?

 

[Bomb#20]

No, but money amplifies speech. Sometimes literally. There's a guy downtown who preaches every day at the top of his lungs from his little space on the street corner. His voice is really impressive. Does he have the right to do that? Sure. But if I wanted to rent a sound system and set it up on the opposite corner, I could totally drown out his rantings. Every time he opened his mouth I could crack the mic and make sure people heard what I have to say and not what he has to say. Is that fair? Is that legal? And if the city government comes down and rules that I'm within my rights to drown out that guy, aren't they infringing on his rights?

Why are you making that argument? Do you imagine that if Citizens United had bought the 30 second spot on TV that the FEC forbade them to buy, and used it to invite people to go see "Hillary: The Movie", that this would have made sure people did not hear what pro-Clinton speakers said? The metaphor of "drowning out" that censorship fans keep incessantly reciting is a lie. More speech by our political enemies does not stop people who want to listen to our political allies from doing so.

 

[Bomb#20]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

If unions and corporations do not have 1st amendment rights to free speech, kiss the Pentagon Papers goodbye. The government lies to the people about the war, so somebody leaks that fact to the press, so Richard Nixon goes and finds a judge who gives him a court order telling the New York Times not to publish what they know, so they don't, so the people never find out they've been lied to. And that's a good thing, because the New York Times is after all a corporation, not a human, and we wouldn't want to deemphasize the significance of humanity. Is that really what you want?

 

[Bomb#20]

I’m rather certain the expenditure of corporate funds for speech requires human involvement.

It certainly does, but I think what zorq was trying to get at is, does a corporation and a person have equal standing under the law with regards to speech, and should they? Is a three letter media outlet owned by a global corporation and a guy on a street corner shouting at the wind count equally?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do "Free Speech Zones" still exist today like they did in the Bush era? Can you get a permit to protest whatever you want with whatever message you want, or will the state shut some groups down and promote others?

Do you believe that Facebook should be nationalized or broken up? Has it become the new digitized public square, with a corporation deciding what may and may not be spoken on it? Or is it just a private business that should be allowed to do as it wishes. Or should it be regulated? To what extent?

Is Free Speech a liberal or conservative value now? Or is it both? I used to notice it almost entirely on the left (the right squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc), but now see it more and more on the right (the left also squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc).

Should free speech trump a person's "right not to be offended" (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)? Should there be restrictions on it other than immediate calls for violence? Myself, I see that as the only restriction I would put on it.

Oh and finally, does anyone here actually believe that "money is speech" (Citizens United)?

I think we're in an information crisis right now, because of the rise of clickbait and fake news. But I think it'll get sorted over time. Remember that back in the old days everything was worse. It went well then. It'll get sorted now

It's premature to try to meddle with Facebook and think we know what we're doing. We might as well just make the situation worse. I think the government is still best off backing away from it. Government regulation is a crude tool.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

If unions and corporations do not have 1st amendment rights to free speech, kiss the Pentagon Papers goodbye. The government lies to the people about the war, so somebody leaks that fact to the press, so Richard Nixon goes and finds a judge who gives him a court order telling the New York Times not to publish what they know, so they don't, so the people never find out they've been lied to. And that's a good thing, because the New York Times is after all a corporation, not a human, and we wouldn't want to deemphasize the significance of humanity. Is that really what you want?

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

 

[James Madison]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

If unions and corporations do not have 1st amendment rights to free speech, kiss the Pentagon Papers goodbye. The government lies to the people about the war, so somebody leaks that fact to the press, so Richard Nixon goes and finds a judge who gives him a court order telling the New York Times not to publish what they know, so they don't, so the people never find out they've been lied to. And that's a good thing, because the New York Times is after all a corporation, not a human, and we wouldn't want to deemphasize the significance of humanity. Is that really what you want?

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

But from a collective speech perspective, there’s no difference. Free speech rights do not cease to exist on the basis the speech is from an entity in which people belong. By entity I mean, broadly, a group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization, or something akin to either one. Free speech rights extend to people engaged in speech through and by the entity, just as they do for an individual lawfully standing on sidewalk and holding a placard with wording denouncing Trump.

Some examples of collective speech are, NAACP, ABA (American Bar Assc.), fraternities, sororities, university clubs, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, unions, and like corporations, such as Citizens United, they are comprised of people who speak through and by the entity, the organization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

I’m rather certain the expenditure of corporate funds for speech requires human involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly does, but I think what zorq was trying to get at is, does a corporation and a person have equal standing under the law with regards to speech, and should they? Is a three letter media outlet owned by a global corporation and a guy on a street corner shouting at the wind count equally?

Does free speech require the equality you invoke? What is the relationship between free speech and the equality you invoke?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

But from a collective speech perspective, there’s no difference.

Yes, there is. One is press and the other is a for-profit corporation that has a goal of a bottom line, even if NO EMPLOYEE OR OWNER believes in a political issue that is in the for-profit corporation's best interest.

Free speech rights do not cease to exist on the basis the speech is from an entity in which people belong.

Free speech rights cannot belong to a for-profit legal entity but instead belong to individuals and the free press. See amendment#1.

By entity I mean, broadly, a group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization, or something akin to either one. Free speech rights extend to people engaged in speech through and by the entity, just as they do for an individual lawfully standing on sidewalk and holding a placard with wording denouncing Trump.

Some examples of collective speech are, NAACP, ABA (American Bar Assc.), fraternities, sororities, university clubs, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, unions, and like corporations, such as Citizens United, they are comprised of people who speak through and by the entity, the organization.

Sometimes there is a blurry line but there are some things that are true:
1. Individuals have a right to free speech. Free speech isn't quite dollars. The more it becomes dollars the less democratic it is.
2. Free press has rights to print and spread news etc. For-profit non-press organizations are not the same thing. The blurry line: To the extent that news corporations become conduits or are owned by for-profit non-press entities that infect news, something ought to be done.
3. Citizen non-profit organizations ought to be very similar to #1, a collection of individuals. To the extent that there are hidden corporate sponsors and the organization becomes a front for for-profit industry, foreign entities, etc, something ought to be done.

 

[James Madison]

Yes, there is. One is press and the other is a for-profit corporation that has a goal of a bottom line, even if NO EMPLOYEE OR OWNER believes in a political issue that is in the for-profit corporation's best interest.

Free speech rights do not cease to exist on the basis the speech is from an entity in which people belong.

Free speech rights cannot belong to a for-profit legal entity but instead belong to individuals and the free press. See amendment#1.

By entity I mean, broadly, a group of people belonging to a legally recognized entity or an organization, or something akin to either one. Free speech rights extend to people engaged in speech through and by the entity, just as they do for an individual lawfully standing on sidewalk and holding a placard with wording denouncing Trump.

Some examples of collective speech are, NAACP, ABA (American Bar Assc.), fraternities, sororities, university clubs, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, unions, and like corporations, such as Citizens United, they are comprised of people who speak through and by the entity, the organization.

Sometimes there is a blurry line but there are some things that are true:
1. Individuals have a right to free speech. Free speech isn't quite dollars. The more it becomes dollars the less democratic it is.
2. Free press has rights to print and spread news etc. For-profit non-press organizations are not the same thing. The blurry line: To the extent that corporations become conduits or are owned by for-profit non-press entities that infect news, something ought to be done.
3. Citizen non-profit organizations ought to be very similar to #1, a collection of individuals. To the extent that there are hidden corporate sponsors and the organization becomes a front for for-profit industry, foreign entities, etc, something ought to be done.

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities. Collective speech is collective speech. Corporations are just as capable as engaging in free speech as the NAACP, sororities, fraternities, unions, etcetera. And the fact corporations seek to make a profit doesn’t deprive them of free speech rights, there’s no “for profit” exception in the plain text of the 1st Amendment speech clause or in the historical evidence pertaining to the provision.

Free speech rights cannot belong to a for-profit legal entity but instead belong to individuals

There is any textual support for this view and neither is there supporting historical evidence.

But your logic just eviscerated the speech rights for the NAACP, unions, sororities, fraternities, ABA, ACLU, as the speech from those entities isn’t from an “individual” but the entity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steve_bank]

Anti trust laws came about because lagre comanies could wield too much individual ecommic influence.

Political advertisng, aka propaganda, wprks. If not companies would not spend a lot of money for Superbowl ads.

Wealthy individuals and business have undue influence. A demonstaed fact. National DNC and RNC by choosing who to give money to in state local elections essentialy supress others and choose candidates. The DNC/RNC essentialy supress free specch by denying a media paltform by withholding funding from one abd giving to another,.

DNC/RNC are funded by corportae and welthy money. We do not have re elections, free elctions requires equal voices.