If Free-Speech falls, we're in trouble

[Seducio]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those are the words in the actual text.


The Constitution/Amendments was and is interpreted differently by different folks and its various interpretations are a feature not a bug. Reason is that the variations of interpretation enabled all original 13 States to get on board with ratification despite vast cultural differences at the time.

Since ratification in 1791, the First Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court in many cases that have clarified and set parameters around what it means. Things like obscenity laws, the trials of comedians such as Lenny Bruce, as well as World War 2 state-side censorship have all played into how First Amendment works in the USA. So it has always been about regulating Government action and on the side of private citizens rather than most of the other powers in the Constitution that get delineated to the Govt.

With regard to political spending, most recently the 2010 Citizens United case enabled the concept that money equals speech and also that Corporations are people. This is highly controversial, but does seem in line with the intent of the Amendment. So essentially the current interpretation of the free speech clause with political spending looks like:


The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

[Cassawary]

Originally Posted by Seducio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those are the words in the actual text.


The Constitution/Amendments was and is interpreted differently by different folks and its various interpretations are a feature not a bug. Reason is that the variations of interpretation enabled all original 13 States to get on board with ratification despite vast cultural differences at the time.

Since ratification in 1791, the First Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court in many cases that have clarified and set parameters around what it means. Things like obscenity laws, the trials of comedians such as Lenny Bruce, as well as World War 2 state-side censorship have all played into how First Amendment works in the USA. So it has always been about regulating Government action and on the side of private citizens rather than most of the other powers in the Constitution that get delineated to the Govt.

With regard to political spending, most recently the 2010 Citizens United case enabled the concept that money equals speech and also that Corporations are people. This is highly controversial, but does seem in line with the intent of the Amendment. So essentially the current interpretation of the free speech clause with political spending looks like:


The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Citizens United was decided in the cradle by Buckley v Valeo

Good post though

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Seducio [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those are the words in the actual text.


The Constitution/Amendments was and is interpreted differently by different folks and its various interpretations are a feature not a bug. Reason is that the variations of interpretation enabled all original 13 States to get on board with ratification despite vast cultural differences at the time.

Since ratification in 1791, the First Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court in many cases that have clarified and set parameters around what it means. Things like obscenity laws, the trials of comedians such as Lenny Bruce, as well as World War 2 state-side censorship have all played into how First Amendment works in the USA. So it has always been about regulating Government action and on the side of private citizens rather than most of the other powers in the Constitution that get delineated to the Govt.

With regard to political spending, most recently the 2010 Citizens United case enabled the concept that money equals speech and also that Corporations are people. This is highly controversial, but does seem in line with the intent of the Amendment. So essentially the current interpretation of the free speech clause with political spending looks like:


The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Fuck. Speech is now an expenditure and costs money.

U just blewwwed me up outta da wattah. Direct hit.

[Gravydoo II]

Isnt that messed up?? You're not bribing a guy with 100k "donated" to them. You're just talking to them... If I "donate" 100 bucks to a cop at a traffic stop some how, im asking for something. When they do it, its just because they like that person SOOOOOO much. Its NEVER in exchange for anything, ever. lol cause we dummies.

I also thinks thats such a cute "rub our faces in it" thing with corporations being people. They are people right up until the point you gotta put handcuffs on someone. Then, all the sudden, they are not people and nobody even knew what was happening the entire time they were breaking the law, especially the boss.

Its legalized bribes. Anyone who takes corporate pac money is bought and paid for. The companies literally write the bills they want passed. lol its amazing. We think africa and the 3rd world is corrupt cause they will do it for less than a million. Trump was literally selling pardons.

[Seducio]

The corridors of power have always been Machiavellian.

The internet just gives regular folks a better glimpse into that club.

[Gwaihir]

340_fight club_result_result.jpg

[Seducio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU

The Big Club - George Carlin

(worth the 3 min watch)

[Grakken]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Free speech is only speech u didn't need money to say in the first place. No one owes u a platform.

Free speech applies directly to the verbal noises outa ur mouth and the government.

Not me. Or my multitrillion dollars of digital propogandas.

Things got muddy, when federal courts ruled Trump couldn't block people on twitter citing it as a public forum.

If twitter is a public forum than it should be protected by the first amendment.

[magnetaress]

He was in the government at the time tho. So it's not like me blocking Mr potato head. I am not executing the governments interests.

Twitter is a terrible public forum though and presidents should not use it in an official capacity. Just like they shouldn't use p99 forums.

That'd kill our community. Imagine if Biden conducted all his business here.

Nothing stops the government from making an actual dot.gov message board. They won't rly tho. Itd be an unmoderated shithole.

A gov discord channel would be lol wtf.

[Seducio]

For sure seeing Twitter messing with the Presidential Account in various ways should raise alarms. Big Tech is a new and relatively unchecked global power on the international stage.

I mean it may have been the only time European leaders ever stoop up for Trump on anything.

The devil is always in the details about the twitter issue. The courts basically said that if a Govt official uses a twitter account to broadcast official Govt business then their account page is like a public forum regarding being able to block views of their constituents. This is similar to how city council members have to hear members of their community for an allotted time even if their constituents say crazy things. However the Govt doesn't create Twitter rules so Twitter ultimately gets to decide who has an account.

The Govt can make Twitters existence very difficult in response. You will notice though that there is great division on how to handle Big Tech power.

So that power will grow unabated for a while.