Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by galaxyLogic 443 days ago
It would be counter-intuitive if they defended the free speech of those who want to take away the free speech of others.

Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
2 comments
raxxorraxor 443 days ago
The ACLU did change course noticeably and there is ample criticism for that and this resulted in their diminished influence of today. There was even bipartisan consent on that, especially regarding the first amendment.

For example if you search for the "ACLU lost its way", you will find a lot about their behavior. I think the opinion pieces are often well argued.

link
milesrout 443 days ago
No it wouldn't. Part of freedom of expression is the right to express opinions of any kind. That includes the view that freedom of expression should be limited: that is a perfectly legitimate opinion.

>Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.

link
galaxyLogic 443 days ago
I understand, constitution gives you the right to speak against free speech as well. I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech.

Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?.

But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not.

It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.

link
milesrout 442 days ago
>I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech.

It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view.

>But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does.

Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports.

>It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections.

There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.

link