From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 17:20:24 GMT
Hi Jon,
> This should be causing *more* outrage and shock. It's a sad commentary on the
> public that most don't even realize how serious this is. Let's call it what
> it is: the most blatant, direct assault on the first amendment, ever. When
Rush
> Lim and the ACLU are on the same side, something is clearly wrong.
> Jon
An example of a blatant attack on the first amendment right to free speech
would be to throw you in jail for critizing the Supreme Court's decision. In
that case I'd be more than outraged, too. This is not such an attack unless
you can convince me that money really does equal speech. This equation is
thrown around as a truism, but I don't buy it. (In the MOQ I think "money"
refers to a social pattern while speech refers to intellectual patterns.)
This decision is not an attack on free speech since, as ever, we are all free
to say anything that could be said before. We just can't donate more than
$2000 to our favorite candidate's campaign. This law is an attempt to limit
wealth-based political power. Since wealth is a social pattern, this may be a
moral thing for the Supreme Court to do so long as this law remakes social
stuctures to allow for greater intellectual freedom. I could be comvinced that
campaign finance reform does not provide this benefit and is therefore a bad
idea, but outrage about loss of free speech rights seems inappropriate.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 17:22:07 GMT