Law Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech - The Democracy for All Amendment aims to mute some voices so that others can be heard.

Are Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine's gripes valid?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 22.0%
  • No

    Votes: 25 42.4%
  • Most are valid, some are not

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • Most are not valid, but some are

    Votes: 8 13.6%
  • They're equal portions valid and invalid

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • I don't know/I'm not sure

    Votes: 7 11.9%

  • Total voters
    59

wylfım

To live a lie, or die in a dream?
kiwifarms.net
Yes, corporations exerting manipulative influence over the populace is a problem.
No, just banning them from speaking isn't the solution. Every slope is slippery, that just opens the door to Congress banning powerful individuals, and then anyone critical of the majority, and then the majority itself.
Break up the monopolies in Silicon Valley and the problem goes away without regulation. Government made the problem, so why would more government be able to fix anything?
 

Stoneheart

kiwifarms.net
Every slope is slippery given enough time. What's to stop the overton window from shifting in 20 years, and democrats making an amendment that "fascists" don't have a right to speak, and then citing this as case law?
How is this case law? we are talking about corporations, not humans.
Its also not something that was always there, its that way since 2010.
 

wylfım

To live a lie, or die in a dream?
kiwifarms.net
How is this case law? we are talking about corporations, not humans.
Its also not something that was always there, its that way since 2010.
>corporations exert too much influence over elections and are dangerous, let's ban them from speaking
30 years later
>fascists exert too much influence over elections and are dangerous, let's ban them from speaking; oh look, here's an example of when that's been done before, so it's okay!
30 years later
>people who disagree with the status quo are a threat to our democracy, let's ban them from speaking using these two previous laws as justification
The 2010 decision just reaffirmed that government can't stop people from talking about elections, yes the technical decision was made in that year, but the spirit of the law had been in place for much longer. Look at how exceptional the case was— people were ass-blasted that someone was smack-talking Hillary in a movie within 2 months of the election (rules that had only been set in place in 2002, by the way).

And yes the equivalency between corporations and fascists is a false one. Narratives don't need to be true, though, it's about how the facts are spun and presented. Same way pedophilia is a false equivalency to gay marriage, but that hasn't stopped MAP activists from latching on to the movement to increase the acceptance of their own cause.
 

Coleslaw

kiwifarms.net
Not gonna lie, wouldn't mind the political power of corporations being stomped flat, but this type of legislation is extremely abusable. Needs a lot of tweaking or even just a full re-write. How about this instead?

The political power of multinational corporate entities has reached a point where it is no longer tolerable. This legislation, through it's approval and application by the federal and state governments respectably, shall reduce the influence of these corporations on our elections. Under this amendment, no corporate entity with ties to foreign powers may engage in advertising for political candiates, or donate funds to said candidates. A corporation can not be classified as a citizen, and can not be treated as such with how these entities can handily influence our national proceedings.
Secondly, no corporate entity may lobby the federal government, state government, or the governorship of our nations' territories. Though, as an important exception, US based local businesses, of a size and wealth generally smaller than the average corporation, may lobby local, state, and the federal government for greivences. Non corporate groups, such as protest, charity, etcetera, are not bound by this amendment.
No sections. Actual grammatical and spelling mistakes. Statement of purpose and reasoning longer than the actual law. More surplusage than CWC.

Congratulations, enjoy your F from legislator school.
 

SmallTalk201

kiwifarms.net
Ok give your autistic ratings but here the solution....
The most you can do is take care of your family and those who done most good for you.

No matter what legalisation gets passed most folks here say it either complicate things or well meaning but can be abused.

This system cannot be fixed. Only replaced.

What you can do is form self sufficient mutual assist collectives at the personal level. If folks were not reliant on the market and not reliant on the state but each other then both these corporations and the state would starve due to your withdraw.

Take twitter. If every one on twitter took all their followers and formed their own forums instead then twitter would vanish. This is fragmentation from bottom up. Same applies in real world. By creating self sustaining and separate communities and separate micro economies a bottom up fragmentation would occur and erase the system multinational and the likes of Epstein rely on for power.
 
Last edited:

Xarpho

kiwifarms.net
Break up the monopolies in Silicon Valley and the problem goes away without regulation. Government made the problem, so why would more government be able to fix anything?
Breaking up the monopolies in Silicon Valley is regulation. Ideally, a total ban on corporate donations would curtail a lot of problems in government, but that would never get to the voting stage.
 

wylfım

To live a lie, or die in a dream?
kiwifarms.net
Breaking up the monopolies in Silicon Valley is regulation. Ideally, a total ban on corporate donations would curtail a lot of problems in government, but that would never get to the voting stage.
Considering how much Silicon Valley gets in subsidies and special government privileges, yes it's technically regulation, but it would be more of reversing previous regulation. Monopolies can't form without the power to prevent others from entering the market, and the most tyrannical of all powers is government regulation and intervention making it impossible for alternatives to compete.
 

MembersSchoolPizza

Sworn Brother of the Cult of Browning
kiwifarms.net
The democrats are behind a proposed constitutional amendment?

The answer is no, every single time. They've shown their true colors regarding freedom of speech, and they are not to be trusted.
I mean, this is also true. This isn't a "most sides" issue, either - consistently in interviews and polls, Democrat politicians and voters have expressed far more willingness to get rid of (or at least heavily abridge) our existing constitution. So, basically, no, fuck off for all eternity.
 

garakfan69

Please be patient, I have idiocy
kiwifarms.net
The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.
So by that same logic, if government taxes cut into my megaphone fund then it's a First Amendment violation?
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
Laws like this are analogous to sticking your finger up a running faucet, you'll never stop the flow of money the elite always find a way to fund their interests. Its arguably not even worth the effort to try and stop it.

If you want to crash the power base for the elite you need to render the institutions by which they exert social control obsolete or irrelevant. This is why if anything we should look into creating local institutions by and for the people living there that are immune to external acquisition. so for example, a town-owned news venue who's sole purpose is to keep the local public informed on matters directly relating to their local politics and goings on and maybe national politics too. The focus would be less on "Commentary" from journalists and more on immediate information directly relevant to people's lives and government functions. It doesn't touch on what Kim Kardashian or whoever the fuck said last night. A purely(or at least mostly) utilitarian information apparatus deferent to the needs and interests of the local constituency. Same thing for banks and telecommunication companies.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino