The Gaming Den

I need to work with a higher class of asshole.

Anyway, with the Hobby Lobby case coming before the Supreme Court, the argument came up at work about whether giving money to political candidates/campaigns counted as freedom of speech. I argued no on the grounds that money was not an expression of free speech, nor did anyone have a right to money. The guy I was arguing with tried to say that freedom of contract was a thing (I don't know where he was going with this) and that money was too a right. I pointed out that United States money says right on it that it belongs to the Federal government (and indeed, some forms of money are restricted in ownership and use, like gold certificates), but then he busted out full gold bug and I left the argument to take a piss.

But out of interest, to you intelligent people here, what case would you make that money is or is not a right?

How is a right to money distinct from ownership rights in general?

Money as a right:

1) Owning Money is not any different than owning other things. In that it an interest the government protects, with qualifications, though a bunch of assholes think that there should be no qualifications.

2) Spending money is also a qualified right. Freedom to contract is the freedom to make contracts approved by the government. That is why you can't sell yourself into slavery or your children, and why you have to abide by all the regulations of your field. You can't sell cars without abiding by government regulations for cars, and you can't loan money without abiding by government laws for loans.

3) Speaking is allegedly (but not, because see porn/communism/violent overthrow/threats) an unqualified right. This is not money.

However, it is obvious that people can spend money to spread their speech wider, see, TVs.

Now, for some godforsaken reason (because they believe that money should be an unqualified right) people on the right have this obsessive desire to shove all the money they spend to win elections into the comparatively less regulated speech category, as opposed to the more regulated contracts category in order to argue that it is wrong to limit them.

In some sense this is founded on a trueish principle. If you are spending money to spread your speech far and wide, you probably shouldn't be regulated in most contexts. After all, if you could be, then the internet can be censored of anything under the lower standard of regulating contract instead of speech.

However, that principle buts heads with the obvious reality that money buys elections, and therefore power over the elected. The correct solution is to recognize that dangerous forms of speech are in fact regulated, and that this is a fucking dangerous form of speech, so it doesn't even matter if spending money is speech or not.

Given that wealth is not and never will be equally distributed but very obviously allows you to sway the results of elections, the people of a democratically elected government have a legitimate interest in controlling the influence of wealth on their elections. Despite whatever stupid fucking bullshit the Supreme Court is saying these days, being ingratiated to (let's be realistic, dependent upon) wealthy donors instead of the voting public is corruption of the electoral process, and in the interest of seeing that their elected government represents them and not an aristocracy the people have every right to control the influence of wealth on politics. It's a fundamental necessity of fair and meaningful elections.

Anyone who suggests that it is acceptable for Charles Koch (who lives in Kansas) and David Koch (who lives in New York) to spend millions of dollars influencing state gubernatorial elections in Wisconsin is a fucking tool. Full stop. The residents of Wisconsin have the right to elect their own governor, and when individuals outside that state flood their elections with money in the interests of changing the outcome of those elections the people of Wisconsin get their voices shat on and that is unacceptable.

Money is a measure of value in society, it's up to society to determine what's valued and by how much. Of course it can be manipulated but ideally things are worth a price determined by its value.

Laws restricting donations to political candidates are good because when the guys who have the power to move a lot of money around and determine the value of things also have all the monies it hurts society as a whole.

'Money is speech' doesn't hold any more water than 'votes are speech'. Speech, money, and votes are all relevant to the electoral process, but they are all fundamentally different things.

That money can increase the number of people that 'hear' a person's speech, and that speech can influence votes, is irrelevant.

What dangerous forms of speech are regulated?

fectin wrote:What dangerous forms of speech are regulated?

Everybody trample eachother running for the exits, this forum's got a bomb in it!

fectin wrote:What dangerous forms of speech are regulated?

If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that is dangerous, and that can also get you prosecuted.

There's also the thing where various countries make it a crime to shout "Let's go kill the N(ot very nice word for black people)s!" and others make it a crime to say "Gay people should have rights too, you know".

Unfortunately, saying "Vaccinations cause autism, for the safety of your children you must not vaccinate them!" only gets their medical licence put through a paper shredder, they don't go to prison for that.

Slander, pornography, harassment, etc.

fectin wrote:What dangerous forms of speech are regulated?

Confining myself purely to things in the US that I know about and not other countries, because this is fundamentally a first amendment issue in the US:

1) Saying "Let us, you and me, go gather arms to Rob a bank" is a conspiracy to commit a crime. Saying you want to commit a crime, and asking someone's help is a crime.

2) Saying "We the people, should gather arms and overthrow the government" is similar, but doesn't even require you to actively enlist others in your attempt, because just saying that can be the crime of formenting rebellion.

3) Traditional "Fire" in the crowded theater type public disruption/disturbances.

4) Porn, which is expressly speech, is regulated such that you totally cannot show it to minors and shit.

5) Solicitation is regulated.

6) Defamation/Libel is false speech that damages character, and it isn't technically a crime, but you can face civil damages of fucked up amounts, and could probably be a crime if anyone wanted.

7) Yelling at people a lot to disturb them is harassment. That is a crime.

8) Threats are a crime, even and especially "terroristic" threats that are not directed at specific people.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:'Money is speech' doesn't hold any more water than 'votes are speech'. Speech, money, and votes are all relevant to the electoral process, but they are all fundamentally different things.

That money can increase the number of people that 'hear' a person's speech, and that speech can influence votes, is irrelevant.

I don't... WTF are you saying. Like, those sentences do not plausibly cohere into any thesis imaginable.

Like saying 'money is speech' doesn't hold water is saying that campaign spending (and arguably lots of other stuff, such as buying a website) can undergo substantial regulations that would not be justified if it was.

But then you turn around and say that it doesn't matter that money influences votes. So...

Kaelik wrote:2) Saying "We the people, should gather arms and overthrow the government" is similar, but doesn't even require you to actively enlist others in your attempt, because just saying that can be the crime of formenting rebellion.

Wait really? Then why aren't all the gun nuts ranting about how their going to take "their country" back with their guns already in jail?

Lord Mistborn wrote:

Kaelik wrote:2) Saying "We the people, should gather arms and overthrow the government" is similar, but doesn't even require you to actively enlist others in your attempt, because just saying that can be the crime of formenting rebellion.

Wait really? Then why aren't all the gun nuts ranting about how their going to take "their country" back with their guns already in jail?

Because their friends win elections.

Lord Mistborn wrote:

Kaelik wrote:2) Saying "We the people, should gather arms and overthrow the government" is similar, but doesn't even require you to actively enlist others in your attempt, because just saying that can be the crime of formenting rebellion.

Wait really? Then why aren't all the gun nuts ranting about how their going to take "their country" back with their guns already in jail?

They aren't planning on fighting the American government and turning the country into BangBangSafetyland, they're saying "take back the country" like the good ol days when men had guns and minorities couldn't vote. Or something like that.

Kinda related:
One of my friends' neighbors has a fucking bumper sticker on his door that says "NRA, STAND AND FIGHT" on it. After the Trayvon tragedy it's an especially stupid sticker (it doesn't quite say stand your ground, though it's fucking close), but I don't think he's trying to overthrow the government. At least not yet.

Koumei wrote:If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that is dangerous, and that can also get you prosecuted.

Why can't people ever get this right? This is a classic example of a misused argument, and yet it's still made. Over and over again.

1) There's nothing illegal, or 'regulated', about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

2) If there IS a fire, and people get hurt in the ensuing rush to the exits, the person who yelled about it is NOT legally responsible for those injuries. It would make no difference if they had urged people to be calm and and proceed cautiously out of the building because of dangerous combustion.

3) If there ISN'T a fire, you can be held liable for any losses or injuries sustained because you said there was. But there's no prior restraint on your making the claim.

Occluded Sun wrote:1) There's nothing illegal, or 'regulated', about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Actually, since the theater is a privately owned place. They can and do make up whatever regulations they damn well please, and they can even kick you out for breaking them, or kick you out forever. Or make you sign a contract to buy a ticket that states that if you break any of the regulations you owe a fine of 40 million dollars. And you piece of shit libertarians are supposed to support that last one.

And hey, the government can regulate the action of yelling shit for the purpose of creating a disturbance, which is part of why the police show up at your house and tell you to shut up in a noise complaint. So in fact, there can very easily be something illegal and regulated about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Occluded Sun wrote:But there's no prior restraint on your making the claim.

So fucking what? The practical difference between a fine for saying X and paying liability for X is just that one happens every time you get caught and is cheap, and the other one happens more rarely and bankrupts you. There is no prior restraint for regulated activities either in reality. In reality you can just murder people and then be put in jail after the fact.

But hey, good job completely ignoring the examples of eight kinds of policed speech as presented by someone who actually knows the law, instead of your ignorant ass, in order to whine about how their is no "prior restraint" in a specific kind of case in which their is totally prior restraint.

Occluded Sun wrote:1) There's nothing illegal, or 'regulated', about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

In the UK at least, there is. Acting knowingly in a fashion liable to cause a breach of the peace is an offence for which you can get arrested, even if you don't actually succeed in getting anybody trampled.

If a crowded theatre is on fire, and you spot the fire, you tell a steward so that they can evacuate the place in a calm fashion where nobody gets trampled. That's the sensible human thing to do. Not that people often behave sensibly, of course.

Laertes wrote:In the UK at least, there is.

The UK's standards of speech are heavily derided for for being ridiculous.

Occluded Sun wrote:The UK's standards of speech are heavily derided for for being ridiculous.

Our tort law standards of speech, fuck yes. That shit needs reforming, and sadly isn't going to be reformed because the libel tourism brings in too much money.

But that case above isn't tort law. It's a public order thing.

Occluded Sun is just fucking wrong. This is the statement he was taking issue with:

Koumei wrote:If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that is dangerous, and that can also get you prosecuted.

And it is simply factually true that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater in order to provoke a panic is a thing you can get prosecuted for criminally. It's called endangerment, and it's a criminal offense. In every fucking country on Earth.

-Username17

So, outside of the discussion on a more top level conceptual sense, is having money a right? Certainly most people would agree that the ability to sustain your lively hood; food, shelter, and so on, is a right. Barring a Marxist state where in theory at least your needs are taken care of by the state is it a right to have money with which to support yourself? If so, why is social security not more prominent in society?

Ancient History, since this is your thread, could you (or someone else) give us a working definition of "right" for the purpose of the thread?

FrankTrollman wrote:And it is simply factually true that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater in order to provoke a panic

Ah, the good ol' Bait-and-Switch. You take a statement which is entirely correct, pretend that a key part of it is actually something totally different, then condemn the altered statement.

Laertes wrote:Our tort law standards of speech, fuck yes. That shit needs reforming, and sadly isn't going to be reformed because the libel tourism brings in too much money.

But that case above isn't tort law. It's a public order thing.

It's been a while since I read about the cases I have in mind, but isn't sending 'racist' tweets punished by fines and potentially jail time in the UK?

It's not just tort law. The UK doesn't value freedom of expression very much.

Presumably we are talking about rights as set down by the preamble of the American constitution, things that can be taken a priori to be things all people should have for a healthy society to exist. For instance the right to not be murdered in the street by the government for no reason, and, indeed the right to not be murdered by the government without due process.

Also, things that can be extrapolated to be necessary for those rights that can be taken a priori to exist.

darkmaster wrote:So, outside of the discussion on a more top level conceptual sense, is having money a right?

I'd go as far as to argue the opposite. That while in a universalist sense sapients are unconditionally entitled (call them 'rights' if you want) to what they need for their short and long-term survival, a supermajority share of their labor, and opportunity for advancement that it's a terrible idea to enshrine access to money as a right. The fact that money is used to obtain these things clouds the issue, of course, but I'd go as far to say that enshrining access and ownership of money as a right impedes people getting stuff on the first list.