[Rant] Rant Spinoff Thread - Corporations and Free Speech

PatrThom

PatrThom

Sorry for the discontinuity, the thread got pruned before I managed to submit my post.
stienman said:
But you have the same opportunity to wield that leverage for your message too, and without becoming a corporation. Further, you can incorporate, and have all the privileges and obligations they have as well. I still assert that the presence of the corporation doesn't take something from you that you had before in terms of free speech. Perhaps wealth does this, but corporations do not.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's more a matter of influence, really. It's not "all corporations are evil," just that the pooling of resources can sway elections.
One person is supposed to equal exactly one vote.
All of these votes are supposed to be exactly the same size. And they are.
But...
Spending money will influence the number of people who vote. This could be done by blatantly paying people to vote one way or another (bribery), or by lobbying to get some sort of discriminatory barrier to voting erected (poll taxes, qualification tests). It can also be done indirectly through crowding out other candidates, the same way a guy who doesn't want his view of the valley spoiled can do so by buying up all the adjacent properties to prevent others from moving in, or through negative propaganda/smear campaign, or through astroturfing.

I'm sure everyone would be happier if stupid people didn't vote. The trouble is, everyone seems stupid to everyone else, and everyone thinks their ideas are the best, but even stupid people are supposed to be guaranteed a vote by the US Constitution (and its amendments). That's why it's a democracy.
stienman said:
Besides which, free speech never guaranteed a forum or an equal speaking opportunity to anyone else. It simply guarantees you won't be thrown in jail for expresses of free speech. So your free speech still belongs to you, and if it's less effective than it used to be, you are responsible for raising your message to the level of others. It's not their responsibility to be quiet enough that your efforts, no matter how small, are still significant.
Click to expand...
If I am still able. Any group with enough power can squelch those without, using the same sorts of tactics that oil barons used to drive independent gas stations out of business. Me and my ideals are of no consequence unless I start building enough of a following to threaten the status quo, at which point someone will no doubt wish to speak with me.

--Patrick
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Whiskey-coke and I cdon't remember how I got home yesterday.

Wait, this isn't the "I got drunk" thread? Had me fooled.

Anyway, this argument boils down to the same as in many other aspects of (US) society organization. On the one hand, all the freedom for all, but on the other hand, how do you make sure everybody can keep being free?

Having limits in place evens the field, but may be limiting some people's freedom. Not limiting anything at all may seem extremely free, but will inherently devolve into some form of bullying/dictatorship/silencing of the weak/poor/stupid/black/female/whathaveyou.

of course, if you really truly believe it will evolve naturally into the biggest and strongest silencing the weak and the small, you feel the need for some form ofp rotection of those weaker/smaller/poorer, since equality is pretty important to the American ideal of freedom. On the other hand, if you feel there's autocorrection and autobalancing; with the poor and weak joining together to overthrow the bigger/stronger or whatever, you feel that there's no need for limits or checks in the system - quite the contrary, as such systems may slow down the correction or rebalance and, perhaps, institutionalize or cement inequalities.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

This looked like the most appropriate thread.

“.sucks” registrations begin soon—at up to $2,500 per domain

You can read more about it at Vox Populi's main site, where they paint the idea as one where anyone will have the ability to voice their pet concern(s) in a public forum where other like-minded individuals will be able to find them.
However, some are calling this outright extortion, since the domains are artificially restricted and priced artificially high and it's expected that corporations themselves will probably be the ones most interested in buying up the domains to ensure John Q. Public doesn't set up a website just like the one I describe above. At 2500 per, it only takes 400 buyers to hit a cool million.

--Patrick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top