Your goal is to level the playing field so that some individuals do not have more influence than others on elections. Have you considered the idea of censoring political blogs? Some bloggers have widely disproportionate influence, and by throttling their readership (perhaps by a government controlled internet filter occasionally injecting 404's), together we could take the "celebrity blogger" influence out of politics and level the playing field.
...or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free spe
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Whatever term you use, it's clear that you want to let the government take away our "freedom to spend our own money to get the word out about something". That means less freedom. Maybe you're happy with that, because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Using the government to outlaw political movies, political blogs (that cost money to operate), newspapers, etc. is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment. I would say that you are a very confused individual. Or perhaps merely naive, if you expect that only roses and happiness will result from such a loss of freedom as you advocate.
Ad hominem. I don't htink the mjm wants governments to "take away our freedom." Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities. Surely I don't have to point out examples of this over the last decade, with resulted in significant cost to the taxpayer. He likely thinks a reasonable balance could offset this other category of "loss of freedom.".."...is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment."
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
The idea behind democracy was one person, one vote.
Not one dollar, one vote.
If dollars didn't have the ability to warp the debate, by raising the noise level based not on the number of people involved, but sheerly on how much noise that could be made, we'd simply laugh at all the campaign spending excesses as a waste of money.
But, while it's obvious that money alone cannot guarantee an election, it's obvious that a lot of people both con and pro think it can do something, and if we're to be any form of demo
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doe
You spoke of "egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment". It's interesting -- originally voting rights were much more restricted than today. You had to be a white male, and you also had to own 50 acres of land in many states before you could vote. I'm not aware of any restriction on political donations back then, though.
Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amen
I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for
nothing. I gave them nothing for something.
-- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil
Should the US government censor political blogs? (Score:2, Insightful)
...or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free spe
Re: (Score:1)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Whatever term you use, it's clear that you want to let the government take away our "freedom to spend our own money to get the word out about something". That means less freedom. Maybe you're happy with that, because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Using the government to outlaw political movies, political blogs (that cost money to operate), newspapers, etc. is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment. I would say that you are a very confused individual. Or perhaps merely naive, if you expect that only roses and happiness will result from such a loss of freedom as you advocate.
Re: (Score:1)
Ad hominem. I don't htink the mjm wants governments to "take away our freedom." Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities. Surely I don't have to point out examples of this over the last decade, with resulted in significant cost to the taxpayer. He likely thinks a reasonable balance could offset this other category of "loss of freedom." .."...is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment."
You're reaching. The concept of mone
Re: (Score:2)
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
The idea behind democracy was one person, one vote.
Not one dollar, one vote.
If dollars didn't have the ability to warp the debate, by raising the noise level based not on the number of people involved, but sheerly on how much noise that could be made, we'd simply laugh at all the campaign spending excesses as a waste of money.
But, while it's obvious that money alone cannot guarantee an election, it's obvious that a lot of people both con and pro think it can do something, and if we're to be any form of demo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, with the original intent being that everyone has an equal right to speak. When money=speech, only those with money will have the right to speak.
If you want to look into the wayback machine, there was a time when corporations weren't people too. Ah, well, one step forward and two steps back.
Re: (Score:2)
Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amen