Monday, October 08, 2012
I think this is a lot more complicated than the Times presents it to be. How can we square the fact that it usually costs money for most people to speak loudly and our commitment to speech freedom. Just because someone can spend the money and speak more loudly, while others cannot, does that make her/his speech more in need of restriction than the speech of someone with no money at all? By that logic, it may be that especially creative protesters need some extra restraint as well, lest their point of view wind up reaching more people because of their ingenuity? I am presenting that as an extreme, and only to make the point that the real truth lies somewhere between covert political contributions and kneejerk negativism about the Citizens United US Superme Court decision.