[walterstucco]

> So you shouldn't be able to support political causes?

No, you shouldn't if they are based on hate

Countries that allow this kind of "political support" are idiotic.

The main difference between Europe and USA is that we Europeans have learned from our past mistakes

[Danihan]

He's talking about Citizen United, which has nothing to do with hate. Corporate money is speech because you need money to buy advertising / billboards / etc. This holds true for small corporations and non-profits as well.

If money wasn't speech, the government would easily be able stifle speech simply by limiting what advertising and promotions a corporation could do. So the ruling and legal precept are prefectly valid.

Aside from that, "based on hate" is a completely meaningless phrase. It's great for creating stuff like "blasphemy laws" though, I suppose. In your opinion, should I not be able to insult Scientology? Is criticism "hate?" Are insults? What about making a negative documentary about Catholicism, or any other religion?

>The main difference between Europe and USA is that we Europeans have learned from our past mistakes

Are you sure? Europe doesn't seem too stable lately.

[anigbrowl]

The activities of corporations should be limited, particularly where politics is concerned. That's why we have campaign finance laws in the first place. citizen's United promotes the idea that whoever has the most money should be able to buy the biggest megaphone, which is inherently anti-democratic.

[Danihan]

Corporations are already limited by normal laws and by market forces. I'm skeptical when people claim that isn't enough.

Political influence reform is a whole separate issue and I think the problems are structural and go much deeper than just "corporate money in politics."

Personally, I think the idea of a "representative" democracy is simply outdated and problematic. Representatives can be bought, and that will always be the case. I'd prefer to see more direct democracy (with constitutional constraints.) I believe you'll see society gradually transitioning towards that, as in California.

[anigbrowl]

I largely agree, and can see some sort of governance model that's a mashup of cryptocurrency and Wikipedia editing, where political influence (and the ability to make significant changes is proportional to one's established credibility (not that this is beyond abuse either). .

[walterstucco]

> In your opinion, should I not be able to insult Scientology?

Of course you can

But then you have to suffer the consequences if what you said is against the law

For example if you say that scientology is a cult, it's your right to say so

If you say that members of scientology are pedophiles without any proof, it's not

When a right has no limits it's not a right anymore, it's a privilege

> What about making a negative documentary about Catholicism, or any other religion?

Seriously, if you don't get the difference between criticism and hate speech, I can't help you.

BTW, you can't say lightly anything bad about Scientology for the same reason Citizen United is a threat to freedom

They can throw an enormous amount of money to "the problem"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t...

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/32899/TampaBay/Hardball.html

> Are you sure? Europe doesn't seem too stable lately.

Still not killing each other in the streets over a stupid statue