Paid speech is not the same as free speech

[starroute]

I'm bothered by the fact that some of the strongest defenders of free speech -- Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Turley, the ACLU -- seem to think that the Supreme Court decision was just fine or at least inevitable.

I don't buy that. I think there *is* a difference between actual free speech and the expenditure of millions of dollars for political advertising. But I'm trying to figure out what it is -- and whether there'd be any way to codify it into law that doesn't trample on actual free speech.

It reminds me of that old crack about the Golden Rule being "he who has the gold makes the rules."

Or Cyndi Lauper singing, "Money changes everything."

In the old days, when money intruded into politics, it was generally in the form of bribes or vote-buying or something that was universally recognized as corruption. But once elections began to turn primarily on television appearances and advertising, money took on a new importance, while at the same time not fitting into the old definitions.

I think we have to get back to the original understanding of free speech -- when it was someone getting up on a soapbox and orating, or writers expressing their personal opinions. Or at most a news outlet providing an editorial that was clearly identified as opinion and not as news.

All of that type of speech deserves the strongest protections available. But the moment you start paying -- for PR and advertising firms to package the message, for television networks to broadcast it -- it becomes something else. And I think there is room for government regulation of *paid* speech that leaves free (which is to say, free as in beer) speech strictly alone.

I don't know if it would actually be possible -- for example, how you would draw the link between spending $20 at Kinko's to photocopy your flier and spending $2 million to run an ad in the Superbowl -- or whether it would achieve the desired effect even if it was. But I'd like to toss the question out for discussion.

[kudzu22]

1. Everything costs money

Even if all you do is stand on a soapbox in the town square and yell, you still paid for the soapbox. Don't be too eager to limit spending on constitutional rights. Always think about how the far right would abuse the precedent you set when they get back into power.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. good question- maybe it is that $ gives speech more volume-

and that makes some 'peoples' right to this freedom unequal.?

An advertisement isn't someone's 'free speech' in action- it is a separate entity of it's own, isn't it? Corporations may as a group have an opinion - and to voice that opinion, like an individual citizen, is not the same as creating a campaign which is designed to manipulate/control others.

??

[bemildred]

3. Free speech is free because it is free (available) to everyone.

An unequal right to speech is not free speech. The "free" in "free speech" is not a demand that it cost nothing, it is a demand that everyone be able to speak. A right to speak that is based on ones ability to pay is not free speech, it is unequal speech, speech as a commodity for sale. That's why it isn't "free speech".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. free mean unlimited, not costing no money

[bemildred]

5. Prove it. nt

[bemildred]

8. I said:

The "free" in "free speech" is not a demand that it cost nothing, it is a demand that everyone be able to speak.

Do you think I meant the opposite of that?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. You said it then said the opposite.

"A right to speak that is based on ones ability to pay is not free speech, it is unequal speech, speech as a commodity for sale. That's why it isn't "free speech"."

[bemildred]

11. Because not everyone has money.

Because the distribution of money is unequal, there is no "Free Money".

[fascisthunter]

12. BINGO! Rights are not to be Bought and Sold

there should never be a price tag on Freedom.

[mzmolly]

18. I think this is a good point.

:hi:

[G_j]

6. in other words,

$$$ = "free speech"

[sharesunited]

7. Can cigarette advertising be returned to broadcasting by means of this decision?

Can you now insert cigarette brand names and pro smoking adjectives and depictions in political issue ads? Seems like a loophole big enough for a box truck to drive through. And a damn sneaky way of sharing the cost of unwholesome messaging.

[bemildred]

9. Good point. +1 nt

[fascisthunter]

13. the ACLU agrees with this shit.... even they are tainted

by corruption

[MrsCorleone]

14. Jon Turley seemed to show his Libertarian stripes in an interview with Randi Rhodes

yesterday. Seemed befuddled when Randi asked pointed questions regarding his logic on the ruling.

His free market mindset seemed to muddle his objectivity.

[Gregorian]

15. I don't think it's free speech. It's election manipulation.

Any money into an election is manipulation.

Anyone can pay "for PR and advertising firms to package the message, for television networks to broadcast it". That's free speech. That's advertising.

The problem is elections are won or lost on how much money they have, along with other things like message. But even message gets lost when enough money is used.

It's election manipulation.

[brettdale]

16. What Politicans on what side

Are coming out against this?

[MrsCorleone]

17. How they answer this question will speak volumes.

The SC ruling drew a distinct line between the corporate whores and those representatives that stand with us average peeps.

I, personally, cannot wait to see their response.