General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

27. Well,

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:59 PM

Apr 2014

I understand that these are difficult questions to answer for those who want to limit free speech.

But the government stated in its argument to the Supreme Court during Citizens United that it would never, ever want to ban books. Regardless of how much it costs to publish them and regardless of their intent to influence elections. Now, 30 years ago you could draw distinct lines between "books", the "press", and "TV advertising". But today you can't. Even if you could somehow draw the line between TV advertising and the publication of a book, for First Amendment purposes, I think a political lobbying group would prefer to (for example) send an e-book to everyone's smartphone than to advertise on TV.

...from that, I understand that you're dismissing a point and still conflating issues.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The USSC does not say that "money is speech" [View all] cthulu2016 Apr 2014 OP

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #1

Dumb slander from Prosense: "spin in an attempt to defend both decisions" cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #3

Now, you're proving that you don't know the definition of "slander." n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #4

Ummm. while I might be inclined to agree with your STRICTLY Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #36

While your reply would be apropos in a courtroom, we aren't in one cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #40

It was Roberts who fast tracked Citizens United and it was likley the most egregious case imo, of Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #2

I believe the conservatives are motivated by partisan hackery cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #5

Clearly, and he knew who would side with him. We need to push it back. Senator Sanders: Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #7

The Supremes sort of did say corporations are people, in the sense that The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2014 #6

Well said. Yes, ProSense Apr 2014 #10

If only natural persons had constitutional protections, all sorts of horrible things could happen. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #11

In the case of a hypothetical PP raid The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2014 #25

Do you see another way to keep money out of the political arena? cheyanne Apr 2014 #12

The 1976 Court did Metatron Apr 2014 #8

Money IS speech. Sorry folks. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #9

That doesn't ProSense Apr 2014 #13

Would you be OK with banning corporations from publishing books that criticized election candidates Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #14

Again ProSense Apr 2014 #15

Well, would you? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #16

Ask me if I would ban "handmade signs." ProSense Apr 2014 #17

So where do you draw the line? Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #19

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #20

I understand that these are difficult questions to answer for those who want to limit free speech. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #23

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #27

You will find that arguing with a nihilist approach to argument is fruitless cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #18

Did you look up the meaning of "slander"? n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #21

Yes. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #26

"It said that slander is whatever Prosense says it is, at any given point in time." ProSense Apr 2014 #28

How is your name-calling somehow "fruitful"? BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #22

In this context it is hardly name-calling. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #24

Sorry but your argument for making ad-hominems is weak BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #29

Have a nice day. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #32

"In the context of any online argument, Prosense is a nihilist." ProSense Apr 2014 #30

There SHOULD be no context SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #31

Then alert on it. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #33

No I think my point was made SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #34

I think your assessment of Pro is spot on. Laelth Apr 2014 #38

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #39

Fair enough. Laelth Apr 2014 #41

No, ProSense Apr 2014 #42

I will let you have the last word on this. Laelth Apr 2014 #43

"Now, please, buzz off." ProSense Apr 2014 #44

Don't give them any ideas. eom Frustratedlady Apr 2014 #35

What is critical is that they did not say "Money is NOT speech and has no 1st amendment protection". stevenleser Apr 2014 #37

"It is vital to regulate....to prevent my speech...from being drowned out." BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #45

Elections should be publicly financed, candidatees should have to campaign within tblue37 Apr 2014 #46