7 Likes
Right. And since the 2nd amendment doesn’t say exactly what types of arms citizens can bare without being infringed, obviously everyone ought to be allowed to build nuclear bombs in their back yard.
6 Likes
But they already do. There are time, place and manner restrictions on free speech. The courts have already ruled on this and there are tests from those ruling that limit these restrictions. You are arguing a slippery slope from the status quo to totalitarianism.
5 Likes
Well, DUH! Of course the should! Anything less is pure tyranny! /s
5 Likes
And, with the tax, everybody will still be able to do that, but if significant amounts of money are spent doing so those funds will be taxed. This restricts the ability of any person to petition the government not at all.
4 Likes
Or at least avail themselves of the bombs, mortars and grenades that were available to colonial militia at the time. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bigger bomb.
You are giving money to others in exchange for them displaying your speech on their property via their time and resources. That is work, not speech.
1 Like
Ah, always fun to meet a pedant!
That work contains content that communicates information about your views and, as such, is speech. Next.
I feel that you are being purposefully obtuse. The phrase “money talks and bullshit walks” is a colloquialism with clear meaning. In a political context when one refers to money as speech it is commonly understood to mean that giving money is a form of speech which competes directly with the act of voting. You don’t have to include the word giving for the meaning of “money is speech” to be understood. Voting is speech, that which competes with must also be speech.
“Manufacturing rifles is not speech, it is manufacturing.”
It is content-rich action on a substrate that changes its entropic content. It is both manufacturing and speech. You can label it performance art.
You can call anything art. By calling it art you make it art. This is beside the point.
You expect to be represented in others speech. This intention does not constitute speech on your part. You proxying that act to a third party you do not control and whose content you do not inform. It is not speech.
I express my intention by giving money. This is speech. “Money talks.” How can you possibly believe politicians are not controlled by the wealthy. If you give a politician enough money, hell if you give anyone enough money, they will act faithfully on your behalf. If you do not give them money they are unlikely to give a rat’s ass about your needs. Giving money conveys expectation. This is speech.
“Pointing a rifle at someone is speech, I have transmitted information.”
This is classified as a violent threat. It is a form of speech that we have agreed is harmful and unlawful.
I don’t recall agreeing on any such thing.This is, indeed a violent threat. It is not, necessarily harmful or unlawful. Police point guns at people all the time. Occasionally it is even justifiable.
Why are you so invested in the idea of money as speech?
Because the use of money as speech infringes upon and can negate, entirely, all other forms of political speech. Because the wants of the wealthy have more weight than the needs of all others. Because a donation has greater impact than a vote. Because money talks.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
