dougsmith - 15 January 2012 09:01 PM

Charles Collom - 15 January 2012 03:55 PM

Once someone has reached the “limit” is he precluded from filling up his gas tank to drive to the next rally? Can he buy that extra ream of printer paper to make his pamphlets?

Depends how the law is written. But arguing that there are dumb ways to write the law is not an argument that there are no good ways to write the law.

That’s my question, Doug. How do you write the law without making an arbitrary distinction?

TimB - 15 January 2012 09:03 PM

The central problem, as I see it, of equating money with free speech, is that it can have the effect of rendering the free speech rights of anyone who has little money, essentially meaningless. 

Christopher Hitchens once said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

How on earth are your free speech rights impacted by your neighbor’s money? You have an international platform to disseminate your views.  Does his money render your arguments illogical? Does his TV ad make your blog disappear?

How many people complaining about their free speech being negatively impacted are blogging and podcasting and video blogging and pamphleteering and organizing rallies?  The answer must necessarily be “very few” as very few people do all those (extremely inexpensive) things.  This leads me to suspect (just suspect, mind you) that this debate is motivated by a desire to silence people with whom the speech limitation proponents disagree.

We (atheists) are members of a very small and very unpopular minority. Frankly, I’m shocked that speech restrictions have so many proponents among our ranks.

I think you will agree that blogging on a website is not the same as flooding the public air-waves dominated by television or radio stations. Most bloggers have their preferred blog-site with people who already agree with their political (or philosophical) viewpoints. How many theists come to CFI?  How many atheists frequent theist’ blogs?
The playng field has become inherently skewed in favor of big money.
This is no longer a matter of freedom to voice one’s opinion, it has become closer to the free market system in commerce. Politics are being sold by very sophisticated advertising entities. They are expert at concealing hidden “trigger words” and “code words” to elicit emotional reactions, such as doubt, fear, hatred. This is a far cry from a sober discussion of the issues.
The political system has become a market place itself, where the highest bidder buys the “merchandise”, i.e. individual votes, congressional votes, and even the presidency.

TimB -

The central problem, as I see it, of equating money with free speech, is that it can have the effect of rendering the free speech rights of anyone who has little money, essentially meaningless. 

Charles:  Christopher Hitchens once said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hmm.. did you see the evidence for that Christopher Hitchens assertion.  Or did you simply accept it due to its apparent internal validity and logic?

Charles: How on earth are your free speech rights impacted by your neighbor’s money? You have an international platform to disseminate your views.  Does his money render your arguments illogical? Does his TV ad make your blog disappear?

My neighbors aren’t spending enormous amounts of cash to buy political influence.

Charles:How many people complaining about their free speech being negatively impacted are blogging and podcasting and video blogging and pamphleteering and organizing rallies?  The answer must necessarily be “very few” as very few people do all those (extremely inexpensive) things.

Well most of those things do cost a bit, and cost a good amount of time and energy, probably more time and energy than starting a Super PAC and funneling in the money.

Charles:This leads me to suspect (just suspect, mind you) that this debate is motivated by a desire to silence people with whom the speech limitation proponents disagree.

I don’t think that persons like the Koch brothers should be silenced.  I just think there should be fair footing with the non-wealthy.

Charles:  We (atheists) are members of a very small and very unpopular minority. Frankly, I’m shocked that speech restrictions have so many proponents among our ranks.

Don’t be shocked. Just accept the logical assertion that unlimited amounts of money pumped into the political system can buy influence that essentially renders the free speech of non-wealthy atheists, secularists, and humanists meaningless.

Check out the current state of politics in Michigan. The governor is trying to abolish voting altogether and using “special” powers to appoint public officials, effectively overriding the entire voting system in Michigan.

Write4U - 16 January 2012 07:13 PM

I think you will agree that blogging on a website is not the same as flooding the public air-waves dominated by television or radio stations. Most bloggers have their preferred blog-site with people who already agree with their political (or philosophical) viewpoints. How many theists come to CFI?  How many atheists frequent theist’ blogs?
The playng field has become inherently skewed in favor of big money.
This is no longer a matter of freedom to voice one’s opinion, it has become closer to the free market system in commerce. Politics are being sold by very sophisticated advertising entities. They are expert at concealing hidden “trigger words” and “code words” to elicit emotional reactions, such as doubt, fear, hatred. This is a far cry from a sober discussion of the issues.
The political system has become a market place itself, where the highest bidder buys the “merchandise”, i.e. individual votes, congressional votes, and even the presidency.

Hidden within these statement is an unspoken assumption that the masses cannot think for themselves. They are easily duped into emotional reactions with “trigger words” and “code words” that override their rational sense.  Were I to take these assertions as true, and I do not, you are no longer arguing for limiting expenditures. You are now setting forth arguments for regulation of what can and cannot be said. This would not be acceptable in a free society.

TimB - 16 January 2012 07:25 PM

Don’t be shocked. Just accept the logical assertion that unlimited amounts of money pumped into the political system can buy influence that essentially renders the free speech of non-wealthy atheists, secularists, and humanists meaningless.

This is known as begging the question, and I respectfully decline you offer.

Charles:  ...You are now setting forth arguments for regulation of what can and cannot be saidquote…

I don’t think he is saying that at all.  Anyone can include code words or whatever manipulative tactics they can come up with into their political free speech.

The point is that your stance leads to any effective speech by the non-wealthy being denied.  Effective free speech goes only to the highest bidder.  That is what is unacceptable.

Charles Collom - 16 January 2012 07:50 PM

TimB - 16 January 2012 07:25 PM

Don’t be shocked. Just accept the logical assertion that unlimited amounts of money pumped into the political system can buy influence that essentially renders the free speech of non-wealthy atheists, secularists, and humanists meaningless.

This is known as begging the question, and I respectfully decline you offer.

I wasn’t responding to a question, nor was I begging.  I was reponding to your statement that indicated (IMO) a misguided sense of dismay.

Charles Collom - 16 January 2012 07:49 PM

Write4U - 16 January 2012 07:13 PM

I think you will agree that blogging on a website is not the same as flooding the public air-waves dominated by television or radio stations. Most bloggers have their preferred blog-site with people who already agree with their political (or philosophical) viewpoints. How many theists come to CFI?  How many atheists frequent theist’ blogs?
The playng field has become inherently skewed in favor of big money.
This is no longer a matter of freedom to voice one’s opinion, it has become closer to the free market system in commerce. Politics are being sold by very sophisticated advertising entities. They are expert at concealing hidden “trigger words” and “code words” to elicit emotional reactions, such as doubt, fear, hatred. This is a far cry from a sober discussion of the issues.
The political system has become a market place itself, where the highest bidder buys the “merchandise”, i.e. individual votes, congressional votes, and even the presidency.

Hidden within these statement is an unspoken assumption that the masses cannot think for themselves. They are easily duped into emotional reactions with “trigger words” and “code words” that override their rational sense.  Were I to take these assertions as true, and I do not, you are no longer arguing for limiting expenditures. You are now setting forth arguments for regulation of what can and cannot be said. This would not be acceptable in a free society.

First, where did I say that the masses cannot think for themselves?  Read more carefully, I was speaking of “flooding” the public airwaves with ads (true or untrue), effectively “drowning out the lone voice of reason”. When there is not sufficient open debate in person, no one wil be able to use their reason in deciding who makes sense and who does not. If there are only lies, even the most reasonable choice will be a lie.
Why is it that atheists are considered “evil” by the masses who have been taught (incuculated) with lies about hell and damnation. How many reasonable people fall prey each year to “scam” artists?

Your conclusion that I am trying to stifle free speech is wrong. On the contrary, I am advocating for more free speech, just not in the form of “money”. Money does not speak, it buys.
As long as you adhere to the illusion that money is free speech you will never get truth. Truth cannot be bought, but lies can be sold.
As long as you adhere to the concept that a corporation is equal to a “person” other than for purposes of legal corporate law, you will be a David up against a Goliath.

The wonderful concept of equality is ill served by the introduction of money and corporate might into that equation.  The system needs to be changed drastically, not to stifle speech, but to allow equal opportunity speech, regardless of financial or social status.