6 ms·

If money really is speech, than can speech only be free to the extent that we don't have income inequality? Edit: Honest question. Financing campaigns is a dif

If money really is speech, than can speech only be free to the extent that we don't have income inequality? Edit: Honest question. Financing campaigns is a difficult and complicated question.

jacobr1 11y ago
You are presuming that free speech must be equal speech. I see no reason that must be the case. We can have free, but unequal access to amplify our voices even without the influence of money. But that doesn't strike me as inherently wrong. I'd would argue free speech is about preventing coerced limitations on speech and only that.
- gremlinsinc 11y ago
  So if the richest family in the world spends a trillion dollars to convince the majority that Climate Change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life, that's not wrong? Because that's EXACTLY what's happening with the Koch brothers.
  - solipsism 11y ago
    What if the world's most convincing liar goes around convincing everyone that climate change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life? Does that mean free speech is wrong? I don't think political spending should be considered an exercise of 1st amendment rights, but this argument doesn't make any sense.
    - gremlinsinc 11y ago
      Democracy is about equal opportunity though, and equal voice -- putting money behind speech is like government controlling the media --it's simply wrong, and it's what Hitler did. Technically I think the news should still have fair-play laws where they were required to give equal time to someone with an opposing view everytime they did an op-ed. I think the news should be more open and accessible--I think when it comes to president ads shouldn't even be allowed, it should ALL be based on debates and nothing else. Because politics shouldn't be manipulated by people with more money than another person..--but that's in an ideal world.
    - Jarwain 11y ago
      One convincing liar can be countered by one person with hard data and equally good at persuasion who follows him around. One super-rich person requires another equally-as-rich person or enough poorer people to band together against said super-rich person. Said super-rich person also, at least in the case of the Koch Brothers, also has a vested interest in the topic at hand, whereas the equally-as-rich person or even the poorer people might not be as interested.

If money really is speech, than can speech only be free to the extent that we don't have income inequality? Edit: Honest question. Financing campaigns is a difficult and complicated question.

jacobr1 11y ago

You are presuming that free speech must be equal speech. I see no reason that must be the case. We can have free, but unequal access to amplify our voices even without the influence of money. But that doesn't strike me as inherently wrong. I'd would argue free speech is about preventing coerced limitations on speech and only that.

gremlinsinc 11y ago
So if the richest family in the world spends a trillion dollars to convince the majority that Climate Change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life, that's not wrong? Because that's EXACTLY what's happening with the Koch brothers.
- solipsism 11y ago
  What if the world's most convincing liar goes around convincing everyone that climate change doesn't exist, and in 50 years the world can no longer sustain life? Does that mean free speech is wrong? I don't think political spending should be considered an exercise of 1st amendment rights, but this argument doesn't make any sense.
  - gremlinsinc 11y ago
    Democracy is about equal opportunity though, and equal voice -- putting money behind speech is like government controlling the media --it's simply wrong, and it's what Hitler did. Technically I think the news should still have fair-play laws where they were required to give equal time to someone with an opposing view everytime they did an op-ed. I think the news should be more open and accessible--I think when it comes to president ads shouldn't even be allowed, it should ALL be based on debates and nothing else. Because politics shouldn't be manipulated by people with more money than another person..--but that's in an ideal world.
  - Jarwain 11y ago
    One convincing liar can be countered by one person with hard data and equally good at persuasion who follows him around. One super-rich person requires another equally-as-rich person or enough poorer people to band together against said super-rich person. Said super-rich person also, at least in the case of the Koch Brothers, also has a vested interest in the topic at hand, whereas the equally-as-rich person or even the poorer people might not be as interested.