Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170139 - 02/03/23 12:19 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

I think any rational person will see that you are for limited speech. Now your saying it's not protected free speech. Notice not a "yes" or a "no" just a redefinition of my hypothetical to avoid a most easy answer.


Good luck with that.
Since you take that stance, your viewpoint has little chances of gaining a foothold....you just fucked your viewpoint. I know, I know it's the principle.

You will have just as much as a chance passing a Constitutionial amendment.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170141 - 02/03/23 12:24 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblemushboyMDiscord
modboy
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/05
Posts: 33,062
Loc: where?
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170397 - 02/03/23 07:09 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 





why force a choice about something thats really not that complicated? especially involving free speech.

that doesnt sound like how you do free speech at all:awedisgust:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 47 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: mushboy]
    #28170446 - 02/03/23 07:58 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Going slightly off topic from Citizens United, isn't a major distinction between bribery and lobbying that bribery involves a guarantee of the result?


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 minutes, 20 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #28170567 - 02/03/23 10:06 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Attempted bribery is still a crime even if the other party does not participate in the scheme, but I think expected quid pro quo is a necessary element.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 minutes, 20 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170578 - 02/03/23 10:16 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.




It doesn’t matter if I want to believe the interpretation, their interpretation is the only opinion that matters. The courts have always been reluctant to carve out exceptions to the first amendment, and clearly on a purely free speech basis, telling someone their ability to voice their opinion or support for a candidate can be infringed is a violation of the first amendment. The court would have to carve out a very difficult to define exception.

The only solution to this problem is a constitutional amendment.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170586 - 02/03/23 10:20 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 minutes, 20 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170597 - 02/03/23 10:30 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
And would you have voted for her if she was sponsored by a grass roots organisations over a single corporation?




The vast majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party.

Lemme ask you this. What would you say about a group that paid to have a flyer supporting a candidate mailed to every household? That seems like a pretty straight forward first
Amendment right. Do you think just because that would cost tens of millions of dollars, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it?

What about a flyer that doesn’t support a candidate, but is critical of a candidate?

What about a media figure who is paid two million dollars a year, and spends their entire time advocating for one candidate?

Where do you draw the line? Right now the line is drawn at direct financial contributions to candidates. If you don’t agree with that, you need to figure out where the line will be because there will have to be a line.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (02/03/23 10:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170644 - 02/03/23 11:14 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



There's nothing new about the interpretation at all.  You're either for robust protection of speech or you aren't.  I know you're not American, but we do value free speech here.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170910 - 02/03/23 03:20 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.




Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170961 - 02/03/23 03:56 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

sudly said:

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



There's nothing new about the interpretation at all.  You're either for robust protection of speech or you aren't.  I know you're not American, but we do value free speech here.




The interpretation is barely a decade old.

You don't just unilateraly change the definition of what free speech means.

Legally the supreme court can, but what do you think the favourability rating of their vote to overturn Roe V Wade turned out to be?

An unelected panel of judges that can vote down your rights is a terrifying proposition. An unfortunate reality that imo requires acknowledgement at the very least.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: mushboy]
    #28170963 - 02/03/23 03:59 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

mushboy said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 





why force a choice about something thats really not that complicated? especially involving free speech.

that doesnt sound like how you do free speech at all:awedisgust:




Because whichever stance you stick to shapes how you interpret the giving of millions of dollars to political campaigns from a single corporation, PAC or wealthy individual.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #28170967 - 02/03/23 04:00 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Going slightly off topic from Citizens United, isn't a major distinction between bribery and lobbying that bribery involves a guarantee of the result?




The difference is opaque at best.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28170969 - 02/03/23 04:02 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.




It doesn’t matter if I want to believe the interpretation, their interpretation is the only opinion that matters. The courts have always been reluctant to carve out exceptions to the first amendment, and clearly on a purely free speech basis, telling someone their ability to voice their opinion or support for a candidate can be infringed is a violation of the first amendment. The court would have to carve out a very difficult to define exception.

The only solution to this problem is a constitutional amendment.




What does arguing against the merits of the decision have to do with me believing that the law is the law as it is now and that's not likely to change any time soon.

That the decision just over a decade ago by the supreme court to change the definition of free speech to include unlimited independent expendature isn't a good idea, because of the long term potential for bribery to occur between trading partners.

And yes, I am for a 28th ammendment such as the one being spearheaded by grass roots organisation Wolf-Pac.

Quote:

Add a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will ensure the integrity of our elections and establish a government accountable to the people.

https://wolf-pac.com/the_solution/




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170973 - 02/03/23 04:09 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.




A restriction would be for unions, corporations, billionaires or PACs to not be able to have unlimited independent expendature on political campaigns.

A corporation could have its members band together in a grass roots way and try to make their own political waves without the corporation itself being able to make the independent expendatures. Buying power held by the majority of the people. A democratic sort of system. Not something where a building can fund a political campaign and outweigh or match the influence of tens of thousands of people.

A corporation isn't a human being, it's a conglomorate of services and trades represented by a building(s).


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28170981 - 02/03/23 04:14 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

sudly said:
And would you have voted for her if she was sponsored by a grass roots organisations over a single corporation?




The vast majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party.

Lemme ask you this. What would you say about a group that paid to have a flyer supporting a candidate mailed to every household? That seems like a pretty straight forward first
Amendment right. Do you think just because that would cost tens of millions of dollars, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it?

What about a flyer that doesn’t support a candidate, but is critical of a candidate?

What about a media figure who is paid two million dollars a year, and spends their entire time advocating for one candidate?

Where do you draw the line? Right now the line is drawn at direct financial contributions to candidates. If you don’t agree with that, you need to figure out where the line will be because there will have to be a line.




If the group was financed through individual public donations I'd be fine with that. If the group was funded through a billionaire called Josh, I would hope for restrictions on the current campaign finance laws, or for campaign finance reform.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28171017 - 02/03/23 04:53 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.



Believing something you see in a political ad isn't the same as being convinced to change your vote. Granted that's not the only goal of the ads. They're also used to motivate people to actually go out and vote.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28171060 - 02/03/23 05:17 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.



Believing something you see in a political ad isn't the same as being convinced to change your vote. Granted that's not the only goal of the ads. They're also used to motivate people to actually go out and vote.




You can buy name recognition with independant expenditure and name recognition can effect candidate support, so a single entity can essentially purchase candidate support equivalent to what would require tens of thousands of grass roots supporters to accomplish otherwise.

Quote:

The mass media devote a great deal of attention to high-profile elections, but in American political life such elections are the exception, not the rule. The majority of electoral contests feature candidates who are relative unknowns. In such situations, does name recognition breed contempt, indifference, or affection?

Existing work presents modest theory and mixed evidence. Using three laboratory experiments, we provide conclusive evidence that name recognition can affect candidate support, and we offer strong evidence that a key mechanism underlying this relationship is inferences about candidate viability.

We further show that the name-recognition effect dissipates in the face of a more germane cue, incumbency. We conclude with a field study that demonstrates the robustness of the name-recognition effect to a real-world political context, that of yard signs and a county election.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496668




Free speech was well defined before 2010.

Quote:

"We don’t have jurisdiction over activities that are fully protected by the First Amendment," she said.

That includes, for example, the contents of a book. And — yes — political ads.

"The core of the First Amendment really is protecting political speech," said Claudia Haupt, an associate professor of law and political science at Northeastern University.

So, does that mean a candidate for office can literally say anything they want, no matter how untrue or outrageous? Yes, Haupt said. Pretty much.

"Lies are protected in public discourse," explained Haupt.

Case in point. In 2006, Congress passed a law that criminalized making false claims about one’s military service. A local candidate in California who was falsely claiming he’d won the Congressional Medal of Honor, was brought up on charges. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

"And the Supreme Court said, 'No, First Amendment. You can lie about your military service. ... You can’t ban lies in public discourse,'" said Haupt.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2019/11/06/why-dont-truth-in-advertising-laws-apply-to-political-ads




You can say what you want to, but unlimited political expenditure for corporations was not a part of it, and under a reasonable interpretation, is still not.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28171100 - 02/03/23 05:39 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Krysten Sinema has always been a corporate shill. She didn't change her stance. She lied about her stance to get elected.




Wait.. why do you think Krysten Sinema is a corporate shill?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171141 - 02/03/23 06:11 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

sudly said:

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



There's nothing new about the interpretation at all.  You're either for robust protection of speech or you aren't.  I know you're not American, but we do value free speech here.




The interpretation is barely a decade old.

You don't just unilateraly change the definition of what free speech means.

Legally the supreme court can, but what do you think the favourability rating of their vote to overturn Roe V Wade turned out to be?

An unelected panel of judges that can vote down your rights is a terrifying proposition. An unfortunate reality that imo requires acknowledgement at the very least.



The case didn't change the definition of free speech.  As I've already told you, the case only changed corporations' right to speech. 

The rich have always been able to spend unlimited money on speech.  Now, the poor can pool their money into a corporation and do the same thing.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. Psilocybeingzz 901 3 06/09/03 10:17 AM
by Anonymous
* Guardian article questioning the independence of MEMRI Andy21 591 1 09/29/06 02:54 PM
by lonestar2004
* The last good President of the United States...
( 1 2 3 all )
chunder 4,250 53 02/09/04 03:13 PM
by Blastrid
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,720 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Open Letter to the Citizens of the United States of America jux 489 0 09/20/04 03:52 PM
by jux
* Buisness seeks "unlimited immigration"
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 3,293 26 09/06/06 10:52 AM
by psilomonkey
* Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision Ellis Dee 1,140 10 06/26/03 09:51 AM
by Learyfan
* United States becoming Police State
( 1 2 3 all )
psyphon 4,943 49 06/05/20 06:27 AM
by Trippypete

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,331 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.