By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
badgenome on 27 February 2012
Edit Thread
Rath said:
badgenome said:
Rath said:

I don't believe it's really abridging freedom, I believe it leads to a more free and fair democracy.

If you look at the countries which rank highest in freedom indices - most of them actually have reasonably tough electoral spending laws.

You don't believe it's abridging freedom to tell a group that they can't release a movie?


Do you believe it's abridging freedom to tell someone they can't yell fire in a crowded theatre? Do you believe it's abridging freedom to tell someone they cannot lie to defame another person?

There are already limits on free speech based on the fact that not having those limits would abridge other freedoms. I believe that electoral laws that curtail spending are the only way to hold free and fair elections.

Yes, I do. However, it is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre. If you do it under false pretenses, though, and people get hurt, you are liable. Ditto for libel and slander; damages have to be proven before action is taken against a person. It's a matter of balancing the freedoms of the speaker with the freedoms of everyone else. A person (or a group of people) saying things I don't like or expressing political opinions with which I disagree is not in any way infringing on my freedom, and that's all this is about.

Fundamentally there is no difference between the New York Times (a corporation) engaging in political speech and something like Wal-Mart (also a corporation) engaging in political speech. If the government were to tell the NYT to shut up, people would be incensed and rightly so, but many of the same people would be totally cool with Wal-Mart's ability to speak being squelched.