Thread by @soychicka

Some thoughts - a little rambly, but it seems important to get out...

We have a little conceptual problem with Citizens United.
If the holding in Citizens United is essentially that money in politics = speech, and restricting spending = a violation of the first amendment...

Freedoms can not be restricted based on availability of or differential access to resources.

One can not have more or less freedom than anyone else: one can either be free, else they are not free.

If "speech" is construed to include compensated amplification of a message, that means that those with limited financial resources are less free to 'speak' than others.

Differential access => restricted access for some => abridged freedom.

If money == speech, any law restricting one's free access to funds for amplification of speech would "abridge," or cut short, that individual's access to free speech.

Unequal distribution of access to speech is a clear violation of the first amendment.

So, either the founders intended "speech" to reference an individual human's voice, unaided by any form of electronic amplification ('cause it didn't exist back then)...

they intended to pass laws that prevented an unequal distribution of wealth (unlikely),

or they intended for there to be no laws to prevent theft, fraud, and other crimes that allow for on-demand redistribution of wealth (that's just stupid).

Because unless one of those three conditions exists, otherwise an unequal distribution of wealth would inhibit the relative freedom enjoyed by those with limited resources.

So, the key to Citizens' United is that it overlooks the difference between speech and amplification, which are not the same thing.

Municipalities require permits to amplify music or protest outdoors; the FCC requires permits to amplify messages over the airwaves;

none of these limit one's enjoyment of their freedom of speech...

Were the intent of the founders to permit amplified communications, they should have used a different word - but "Speech" clearly references the direct transmission of ideas from ones' thoughts to the surrounding air.

And note: "a speech" can reference an event before a formal audience, including those amplified by crude megaphone or microphone...

But the amendment specifies "speech," an uncountable noun ("some [of], a lot of, freedom of"), with a corresponding verb "(to) speak."

We have freedom to speak; others have freedom to listen, to agree, to disagree.

We have freedom to print our thoughts on paper - a literal treatment of 'the press' - which allows those interested in opinions of all sorts to seek out and engage.

But an interpretation of "the press" that extends beyond print media, which requires electronic amplification to broadcast sound and images to an open-ended audience, was not addressed by the founders - in part because it didn't exist,

but had simultaneously broadcast media existed back in the 1780s, I can only assume our modern interpretation of "the press" would be viewed with skepticism, at best, as sound and video broadcasts do not require intentional engagement on the part of the audience...

and whether cast as 'speech' or 'press,' the dangers of anonymous, unaccountable voices reaching millions with audio and visual stimuli that can not be escaped when consumed by others in the nearby environment pose a threat to domestic tranquility.

At minimum, the "press" requires a publishing entity that can be held accountable for the words they publish - just as "speech" necessarily demands an identifiable "speaker" who can be held liable for any wrongs done by their words.

So, yeah.

Broadcast political messaging as it's addressed by Citizens United is NOT an issue of Freedom of the Press, it's NOT an issue of Freedom of Speech... because no one person has a right to more "freedom" than any other person - if they do, that is NOT freedom+democracy.

So, if speech can be purchased, unless it's within the bounds of the law for those of us who aren't able to contribute tens of millions to pirate, pillage, & do whatever else it takes to get our hands on the funds to get equal airtime, CU abridges some citizens' freedom of speech

and in doing so, violates the first amendment rights of some citizens.

So, instead, why don't we just say no to privately funded ad buys, and instead mandate, as part of the broadcast licenses of all new media companies, that an equal amount of air time is provided free of charge to all candidates

that political messaging from campaigns or unverified sources are not amplified algorithmically

and that tech companies are required to verify the identity of anyone who wishes to speak publicly

and that all political advertising is published to a central repository visible to everyone, along with any targeting criteria and resulting analytics.

Anonymized, of course.

But that's just a first pass.

Feedback appreciated. 😊