Support NeoGAF

[Antiochus]

Specifically, by the right currently speaking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html

“The right, which had for years been hostile to and very nervous about a strong First Amendment, has rediscovered it,” said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University.
The Citizens United campaign finance case, for instance, was decided on free-speech grounds, with the five-justice conservative majority ruling that the First Amendment protects unlimited campaign spending by corporations. The government, the majority said, has no business regulating political speech.
The dissenters responded that the First Amendment did not require allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace and corrupt democracy.
“The libertarian position has become dominant on the right on First Amendment issues,” said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute. “It simply means that we should be skeptical of government attempts to regulate speech. That used to be an uncontroversial and nonideological point. What’s now being called the libertarian position on speech was in the 1960s the liberal position on speech.”

Many on the left have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.
Take pornography and street protests. Liberals were once largely united in fighting to protect sexually explicit materials from government censorship. Now many on the left see pornography as an assault on women’s rights.
In 1977, many liberals supported the right of the American Nazi Party to march among Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Far fewer supported the free-speech rights of the white nationalists who marched last year in Charlottesville, Va.
There was a certain naïveté in how liberals used to approach free speech, said Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

Some liberals now say that free speech disproportionately protects the powerful and the status quo.
“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”

The New York Times of course, refrained from stating the obvious: the 1st Amendment was never taken seriously by either the left nor right. It has always been about political expediency rather than higher order principles. Now in this current age, the 1st Amendment is effectively a casualty by the ongoing civil war by the left and right political networks in American politics.

 

[ilfait]

“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

Not only is it an effective means to accomplish a more just society, it's a defining and necessary characteristic of a just society.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think back to two years ago, when the Left rolled its eyes at the Conservative claim that universities were suppressing free speech. "No one is suppressing free speech," the Left chuckled.

And here we are. Free speech might be an obstacle to a better future... uh huh.

The Left's ideology is cratering upon itself. Full collapse.

 

[iamblades]

Citizen's united was 100% a correct decision, as much as the left hates it.

The law in question was effectively banning the publication of a political documentary.

If that is not what the first amendment was made to protect, I don't know what use it is.


First amendment jurisprudence is in the best place it has ever been, though it is worrying that there are increasing numbers of split decisions like Citizens United and Janus(even more worrying that the democratic party has been so aggressively attacking Citizens, when it is obviously the correct decision).

Worth noting though, that there are also examples of unanimous decisions that go against ideological biases. Mainly obscenity cases for the right and commercial speech cases for the left. So it's not entirely based on political expediency.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, fuck the left wing for throwing free speech under the bus.

Nothing proves more how idiotic and short sighted the left wing has become now, free speech is either something you have or you don't, there's no "free speech but"

 

[KINGMOKU]

“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

Not only is it an effective means to accomplish a more just society; it's a defining and necessary characteristic of a just society.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. The absolute principle that makes the United states such a beacon is the freedom of speech. Not one party, or persons interpretation of that, but freedom to say offensive things and debate them in the open.

This law professor's statement is worrisome in my view. It's what the United States is all about. Freedom of speech, and freedom from having that speech suppressed or deemed dangerous.

What he's saying is poisonous, and if this train of thought continues amongst people like him, potentially explosive.

Arrogant son of a bitch. (Please excuse my language but seeing this boils my damn blood as its peak ignorance)

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is exactly what I've been talking about. The absolute principle that makes the United states such a beacon is the freedom of speech. Not one party, or persons interpretation of that, but freedom to say offensive things and debate them in the open.

This law professor's statement is worrisome in my view. It's what the United States is all about. Freedom of speech, and freedom from having that speech suppressed or deemed dangerous.

What he's saying is poisonous, and if this train of thought continues amongst people like him, potentially explosive.

Arrogant son of a bitch. (Please excuse my language but seeing this boils my damn blood as its peak ignorance)

Yep.

What's utterly bizarre is that the Left breathes disdain for Trump and anything he says or does (even if the outcome is good). Yet, with the next breath they'll say "The government really needs to crack down on these offensive displays hiding behind free speech".

You mean...?

Let me get this straight, "never Trumper"...

You want to grant the government control over free speech, when literally the worst president in the history of any civilized nation ever (in the Left's view) is in control over that government? Which the Left-leaning media outlets are always crying about, how much unbridled power "the tyrant" has? That's the guy you want to give that power?

You... you wanna start a conversation about giving the government that sort of oversight... when Trump is in power?

It's a good example of how detached from reality some uber-political folks on the Left are being right now. They're screaming about contradictory goals and blaming "the racists" when their plans fall through. It's getting weird, guys. Might wanna self-reflect on your political ideologies a bit.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I might be the wrong here, but I think there are some examples where both sides attack free speech and defend if it favors/disfavors them. It's just visible on the far left at the moment. But the end result of the far right is something I would find scary.

 

[Amory]

Many on the left have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.
Take pornography and street protests. Liberals were once largely united in fighting to protect sexually explicit materials from government censorship. Now many on the left see pornography as an assault on women’s rights.

The left is one big stupid contradiction.

"Women are strong, independent beings and can do anything they want. Well, except porn of course, the poor dears can't understand how harmful that is to the movement."

Fuck off with that. Stop trying to micromanage everything in the world. Just fuck off.

 

[MayauMiao]

I might be the wrong here, but I think there are some examples where both sides attack free speech and defend if it favors/disfavors them. It's just visible on the far left at the moment. But the end result of the far right is something I would find scary.

I find the Far Left can be equally terrible as the Far Right.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

It's easy to cast stones at the first amendment when you have tenure, make over 6 digits and are in a position of power over the youth seeking education. Shame on those law professors.

 

[It's Jeff]

1996 or 2018? You decide.

 

[pramod]

I might be the wrong here, but I think there are some examples where both sides attack free speech and defend if it favors/disfavors them. It's just visible on the far left at the moment. But the end result of the far right is something I would find scary.

Can you give me an example of a Trump supporter trying to shut down anyone from speaking or expressing their views? I have never seen it.

 

[Spheyr]

Yep.

What's utterly bizarre is that the Left breathes disdain for Trump and anything he says or does (even if the outcome is good). Yet, with the next breath they'll say "The government really needs to crack down on these offensive displays hiding behind free speech".

You mean...?

Let me get this straight, "never Trumper"...

You want to grant the government control over free speech, when literally the worst president in the history of any civilized nation ever (in the Left's view) is in control over that government? Which the Left-leaning media outlets are always crying about, how much unbridled power "the tyrant" has? That's the guy you want to give that power?

You... you wanna start a conversation about giving the government that sort of oversight... when Trump is in power?

It's a good example of how detached from reality some uber-political folks on the Left are being right now. They're screaming about contradictory goals and blaming "the racists" when their plans fall through. It's getting weird, guys. Might wanna self-reflect on your political ideologies a bit.

They also want him to take all their guns.

 

[LegendOfKage]

“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

Not only is it an effective means to accomplish a more just society, it's a defining and necessary characteristic of a just society.

Complete agreement. You know how I know that the underlined isn't true?

Because we never fined anyone for saying that maybe women should be given the vote. We never jailed people for saying that maybe separate but equal wasn't really equal. We never lined up people and shot them for saying that maybe homosexuality shouldn't be against the law.

And if we ever did do something like any of this, it was brought to a stop by the same laws and government enabled freedoms that are now ironically considered "a mistake to think of as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

Women can vote, black people are free, and homosexuality is legal today because people were allowed by our government to make unpopular "hateful" statements in support of these people.

 

[Unknown Quantity]

A lot of cunty nonsense in my opinion. No wonder they left Europe, lucky them natives couldn't send those ships back.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

Yep.

What's utterly bizarre is that the Left breathes disdain for Trump and anything he says or does (even if the outcome is good). Yet, with the next breath they'll say "The government really needs to crack down on these offensive displays hiding behind free speech".

You mean...?

Let me get this straight, "never Trumper"...

You want to grant the government control over free speech, when literally the worst president in the history of any civilized nation ever (in the Left's view) is in control over that government? Which the Left-leaning media outlets are always crying about, how much unbridled power "the tyrant" has? That's the guy you want to give that power?

You... you wanna start a conversation about giving the government that sort of oversight... when Trump is in power?

It's a good example of how detached from reality some uber-political folks on the Left are being right now. They're screaming about contradictory goals and blaming "the racists" when their plans fall through. It's getting weird, guys. Might wanna self-reflect on your political ideologies a bit.

See they don’t mind the contradiction because- here’s the kicker- they don’t really believe in democracy either. At least not a democratic republic. In order to have true free speech, you have to have democracy with some kind of term limits.

For their dream of limiting speech to come true, they would have to have absolute control of the government for decades at a time. And that will never happen in America without a full on coup.

The right hates it, too. But not as much. Everyone on the right except maybe the fringe have a semblance of what it means to have American values somewhere underneath their rhetoric. They’re not just a collection of sub-cultures and political agendas like the left are.

And just look at all the people the NYT is sourcing. They’re all academics and lawyers. You think they’re going to interview any blue collar hardworking Democrat? No! Because only those stuck in the ivory tower believe that nonsense.

 

[TTOOLL]

Having no free speech means you will have someone controlling what can and can't be said...guess who tries to do this already??

 

[ilfait]

Complete agreement. You know how I know that the underlined isn't true?

Because we never fined anyone for saying that maybe women should be given the vote. We never jailed people for saying that maybe separate but equal wasn't really equal. We never lined up people and shot them for saying that maybe homosexuality shouldn't be against the law.

And if we ever did do something like any of this, it was brought to a stop by the same laws and government enabled freedoms that are now ironically considered "a mistake to think of as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

Women can vote, black people are free, and homosexuality is legal today because people were allowed by our government to make unpopular "hateful" statements in support of these people.

Right, and protection of the individual's liberty even when it doesn't benefit his society is an intrinsic good. I'd find it difficult to describe a society in which the individual's right to express his thoughts is--as a rule and not as a rare exception--viewed as unimportant, or completely disregarded, or demonized. A just society needs at least to attempt to maximise personal liberty, even if it can never be perfect in doing so; it's obvious to me that deprioritising or removing speech protections severely limits the degree to which it can be considered just.

Most of us constantly impinge on the freedoms of other people; unless you live in isolation it's unavoidable. If one guy's mowing his lawn or building an extension on his house it may mean that his neighbour who works the night shift isn't able to sleep, but the right way to approach that problem is not to say, as distasteful as the sound of hammering may be, "when I was a naive child I believed that home renovation was alright . Turns out I was wrong".

The argument that one person's speech may jeopardize another's safety is a necessary and true one, but it only applies to rare limited situations; we're much more likely to be seriously affected by and possibly maimed or killed by someone exercising his freedom to drive a car than by someone who's saying even the nastiest shit. The kind of speech that's (actually) likely to endanger a life (i.e. open calls for violence made by people with influence) obviously needs to be restrained; but those infrequent serious cases and, more relevant to what's been happening recently, cases of "offensive" speech that's labelled as hate speech by the PC crowd, can't be allowed to be used as leverage by authoritarians to justify stripping away fundamental human freedoms.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Free speech is just an idea. People in power will always censor others for the smallest of reason or discomforts. Look no further than our own mods for proof. Die mods die! But seriously free speech ain't free :/.

 

[Mahadev]

First of all, NYT isn't left and doesn't represent the Left. It's a neoliberal rag that has repeatedly supported the wars of the military industrial compex and corporate/banking interests in general.

Second, their authoritarian take is perfectly in line with what the neoliberal establishment wants, complete control of public discourse through censorship and they can only achieve that by manufacturing consent, at the moment they're targeting the Left by pretending to represent them.

Third, Citizens United is a disgusting decision that has nothing to do with free speech. Corporations aren't people, if anything they're suppressing people's right to free speech by drowning their voices with lies and propaganda as evident in this article and by hijacking our democracies. The first part of the article has nothing to do with the rest of it, but nice attempt from the "journalist".

The only thing the article is right about is that many liberals are now leaning authoritarian, and they do that because of the propaganda neoliberal rags like nytimes and other online clickbait trash have been spreading for the last 5-6 years, propaganda aided by identity politics neoliberals have weaponized. It's not free speech that has been weaponized, free speech was always there and never caused a serious problem in the country, it's this identity politics bullshit these idiots are spamming in every fucking discussion no matter how irrelevant to push their narrative and agendas.

 

[iamblades]

First of all, NYT isn't left and doesn't represent the Left. It's a neoliberal rag that has repeatedly supported the wars of the military industrial compex and corporate/banking interests in general.

Second, their authoritarian take is perfectly in line with what the neoliberal establishment wants, complete control of public discourse through censorship and they can only achieve that by manufacturing consent, at the moment they're targeting the Left by pretending to represent them.

Third, Citizens United is a disgusting decision that has nothing to do with free speech. Corporations aren't people, if anything they're suppressing people's right to free speech by drowning their voices with lies and propaganda as evident in this article and by hijacking our democracies. The first part of the article has nothing to do with the rest of it, but nice attempt from the "journalist".

The only thing the article is right about is that many liberals are now leaning authoritarian, and they do that because of the propaganda neoliberal rags like nytimes and other online clickbait trash have been spreading for the last 5-6 years, propaganda aided by identity politics neoliberals have weaponized. It's not free speech that has been weaponized, free speech was always there and never caused a serious problem in the country, it's this identity politics bullshit these idiots are spamming in every fucking discussion no matter how irrelevant to push their narrative and agendas.

Even ignoring the doctrine of corporate personhood, corporations are made up of people, and their first amendment rights don't cease to exist when they form a corporation.

More importantly basically every bit of culturally, politically, and societally important bit of expression in the modern world is done by corporations to some degree. Even if it is solely the work of a single individual, at some point it is published and supported by a corporation. If you decided Citizens United the other way, the first amendment would become absolutely meaningless in real terms. About the only thing that would be protected would be standing on the street corner yelling at pedestrians with a bullhorn.

If you hold that corporations have no first amendment protections, then nothing is stopping censorship of the news, the banning of publication of books, or any number of things that clearly should be protected. Because even self publishers don't own their own TV stations or printing presses.

Also, yes I know the laws in question that were overturned exempted 'media' companies, but it is nonsensical to argue on one hand that corporations have no first amendment rights and on the other that these laws were constitutional because they exempted the media. Also what is a media corporation? Surely if you are engaged in the publication of media, you are the media. So a law restricting publication of media by corporations while exempting the media is absurd on it's face, since everyone publishing media is exempt from the law, it can't be applied to anyone.

Citizen's United was the correct decision.

 

[iamblades]

oops

 

[BlueAlpaca]

Sorry to bump this but can someone explain to me how is this not generating any more anger? I'm just lost here. If a conservative paper published an article saying voting rights for non-white property owning men was a mistake, would there be a similar reaction to this? I honestly expected this stuff to happen decades from how, and even then it would be a shock. The totalitarian take-over of America is proceeding rapidly, and not a word from 'moderates' like clinton and obama. They're not even bothering to pretend anymore.

There was a satirical new yorker cover back in 2008, during the elections, of obama and michelle burning an American flag. The idea was mocking the lunatic right-wing notion that obama is an anti-american marxist. I think that needs to be updated now with the entire democratic party. America truly is gone.

nonsense

Ah yes, the marxist military- corporate industrial complex. Watch out for those guys.

Things change, comrade. The New York Times is now clearly anything but centrist.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

man. the left really suck

 

[Hari Seldon]

My mind is so filled with fuck that a newspaper of all things would be advocating against the 1st amendment lol. That is like a gun manufacturer advocating against the 2nd amendment. If we had a weakened 1st amendment, literally the first target a Trump administration would go after would be the newspapers, the 2nd would be college professors lolololol.

 

[Corderlain]

Anyone not for complete and open freedom of speech is quite clearly in the wrong.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Anyone not for complete and open freedom of speech is quite clearly in the wrong.

Indeed, it strikes me as weird when all these folks pointing out oppression and at the same time want to curtail/abolish free speech.

If groups are being oppressed, they'd definitely want the freedom to call out the oppression.

 

[Corderlain]

It's the same as the ultra progressives on the coasts being so worried about safe spaces in college campuses that they self segregate.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

This isn't about the left or the right. Free Speech isn't a left or right problem, but an authoritarian one. Authoritarians crave power. The current style of authoritarianism that is in vogue is left leaning. It wasn't long ago that right leaning authoritarianism in the US was popular - and it still is with certain groups on the right. People who desire power are universally dangerous. I'd imagine many people have never taken the time to read George Washington's farewell address. It is a cautionary warning to the US about our current situation.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Both extremes desire to limit the liberties of the other to secure their power. Don't forget that before the SJW movement we had Jack Thompson trying to censor games, as an example.

 

[JCK75]

Translation - get rid of the First Amendment because people I don't agree with have it too.

 

[Mahadev]

Even ignoring the doctrine of corporate personhood, corporations are made up of people, and their first amendment rights don't cease to exist when they form a corporation.

More importantly basically every bit of culturally, politically, and societally important bit of expression in the modern world is done by corporations to some degree. Even if it is solely the work of a single individual, at some point it is published and supported by a corporation. If you decided Citizens United the other way, the first amendment would become absolutely meaningless in real terms. About the only thing that would be protected would be standing on the street corner yelling at pedestrians with a bullhorn.

If you hold that corporations have no first amendment protections, then nothing is stopping censorship of the news, the banning of publication of books, or any number of things that clearly should be protected. Because even self publishers don't own their own TV stations or printing presses.

Also, yes I know the laws in question that were overturned exempted 'media' companies, but it is nonsensical to argue on one hand that corporations have no first amendment rights and on the other that these laws were constitutional because they exempted the media. Also what is a media corporation? Surely if you are engaged in the publication of media, you are the media. So a law restricting publication of media by corporations while exempting the media is absurd on it's face, since everyone publishing media is exempt from the law, it can't be applied to anyone.

Citizen's United was the correct decision.

Organizations aren't people and more importantly authoritarian organizations that serve the interests of a tiny rich elite certainly aren't people or represent the people. Practically bribing politicians with large sums of money also isn't a 1st amendment right and has nothing to do with free speech despite what the Supreme Court said and honestly I don't really care about the mental gymnastics they used to support this decision, I care about real life consequences and the spirit of the law. When your so called right suppresses the rights of the vast majority of the population it stops being a right and becomes a burden on society and the corporations' "right" to bribe politicians that eventually end up serving their interests is a direct attack on democracy imo.

Ah yes, the marxist military- corporate industrial complex. Watch out for those guys.

Things change, comrade. The New York Times is now clearly anything but centrist.

The New York Times has supported Bush's and Obama's wars directly and indirectly and I'm certainly not accusing them of being centrist, neoliberals aren't centrists, they're rightwingers cowardly hiding behind identity politics to appear as centrists or even left. Just because the US political system has moved so far to the right that now corporate puppets like Hillary Clinton and neoliberal rags like New York Times and Washington Post are considered left it doesn't mean politically educated people should adhere to these preposterous standards.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Organizations aren't people and more importantly authoritarian organizations that serve the interests of a tiny rich elite certainly aren't people or represent the people. Practically bribing politicians with large sums of money also isn't a 1st amendment right and has nothing to do with free speech despite what the Supreme Court said and honestly, I don't really care about the mental gymnastics they used to support this decision, I care about real life consequences and the spirit of the law. When your so called right suppresses the rights of the vast majority of the population it stops being a right and becomes a burden on society and the corporations "right" to bribe politicians that eventually end up serving their interests is a direct attack on democracy imo.






The New York Times has supported Bush's and Obama's wars directly or indirectly and I'm certainly not accusing them of being centrist, neoliberals aren't centrists, they're rightwingers cowardly hiding behind identity politics to appear as centrists or even left. Just because the US political system has moved so far to the right that now corporate puppets like Hillary Clinton and neoliberal rags like New York Times and Washington Post are considered left it doesn't mean politically educated people should adhere to these preposterous standards.

I'm not seeing the shift to the right by the US, at least under the lens of the NYT and WaPo being right wing on foreign policy.

The US is becoming more isolationist, less interventionist, less war-hawkish (in action, not words), more selective offensively, and more diplomatic towards enemy nations.

 

[finowns]

Nazis, Klansmen, and.. Pornographers?! These guys have never been stronger.. I guess.

 

[Hotspurr]

The best thing to do as an individual is to stop identifying as "right" or "left". The problem with political identity these days is it punishes centrists. If you are pro guns for some reason you're not allowed to also be pro abortion/choice. A lot of it comes from religion constantly being in a tug of war with humanist values that are inherent to us (otherwise why would we have abolished slavery, given women rights to vote and accepted homosexuals, all which have been problems due to religion). Religion is just a part of it. There is also the moral relativism which is a big one.

Each person has to realize that they are capable of developing their own moral philosophy rather than "subscribing" to a prevailing political identity. The Constitution is a great place to start given how successful it has been. Our morals and values change over time, and are constantly contested by new ideas. In this way, the balance of conservatism and liberalism is critical to move forward. The first amendment is a key and indispensable aspect of furthering the progressive society (which has been a long term trend). The fact that so many "leftists" oppose this is the very definition of irony.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Citizen's United was the correct decision.

Corporations have a right to freedom of speech because they are made up of individuals, but not a right to purchase governance. Since they are not people, they should not be treated as such. Corporations don't have the right to vote, correct? Should they?

Collectivism is bad in all forms - both left wing and right wing. Corporatism is Communism for oligarchs and monopolists.

If you hold that corporations have no first amendment protections, then nothing is stopping censorship of the news, the banning of publication of books, or any number of things that clearly should be protected. Because even self publishers don't own their own TV stations or printing presses.

News reporting falls under freedom of the press, it isn't a speech issue.

Frankly, there is no right to use a printing press. Banning publication of books though would fall under freedom of speech, but there is no guaranteed right to be able to utilize someone else's (or a corporation's) printing press.

 

[iconmaster]

My mind is so filled with fuck that a newspaper of all things would be advocating against the 1st amendment lol. That is like a gun manufacturer advocating against the 2nd amendment. If we had a weakened 1st amendment, literally the first target a Trump administration would go after would be the newspapers, the 2nd would be college professors lolololol.

They have to see this, right? Trump has made no secret of his distaste for mainstream news outlets, including specifically the New York Times.

Free speech is as available to the Left as to the Right. Or as unavailable, if this author has his way.