For example, what if a corporation set up the page? Oh, we can't let corporations have free speech, according to popular sentiment (which is packaged up as "campaign finance laws"). So, we had better make sure we know who says everything, to make sure it's not a corporation.
In a society that hates freedom, freedom dies. We live in that society.
I can't tell if your comment is subtle parody. But on the theory that you're really not kidding:
I have never heard of a campaign finance law that would prevent a corporation from putting up a web page. Have you? If so, please post a link to the text of the law. I'd be fascinated to read it. Heck, even if it's just a proposed law, that'd be interesting, so you can just put up a link to the bill.
The infamous McCain-Feingold Act made it unlawful to, among other things, publicly criticize a politician within months of an election, unless you were on a list of exceptions that did not include ordinary corporations. It was the law for nearly a decade until recently being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
It's a little ambiguous if a mere webpage would count because the rules for internet communications are even less clear than those for traditional media.
My point isn't about specific legal "switch statements" (to use programming terminology). It's about the fact that the _principle_ of free speech is being actively attacked in this country.
I'm quite surprised that, as a brother/sister comment to this one pointed out, a law such as the one you described actually did (does?) exist.
The reason democracies are universally big on free speech is that the citizenry must be able to freely discuss how to run their country.
You appear to be a free-speech fundamentalist. Which is an opinion you're entitled to hold. But personally, I strongly disagree that free speech should privilege those spending millions or billions manipulating the opinion of the voters, especially when that's an attempt to line their own pockets.
If any Fortune 500 CEO would like to stand on the streetcorner and explain his views on an issue, I believe no law should stop him. But I believe the current system is just a fancy form of corruption, and does significant harm to the goals that led to the adoption of the first amendment.
If I were running for president, my #1 campaign promise and the first thing I'd do upon election would be to shroud the Statue of Liberty, which is currently the greatest symbol of hypocrisy in the world. 99.999% of American citizens' ancestors came here from other countries, which is now regulatory hell, i.e., practically illegal.
> Clearly, they must think that freedom is alive and well in the United States my friend.
May be better than where they came from. But anyway, what anybody thinks is not evidence for what's true.
I don't disagree with your point, but your hyperbole does you no credit. 99.999% implies there about 3000 American Indians in the US. There are closer to 3 million (depending on exactly what you count), or about 1%. The US census has the number at 1.2%.
> the greatest symbol of hypocrisy in the world
Really? The single greatest signal in the whole world? You can't think of anything that better exemplifies hypocrisy?
Your basic point, which I agree with, would carry a lot more weight if you cut down on the rhetoric.
For example, what if a corporation set up the page? Oh, we can't let corporations have free speech, according to popular sentiment (which is packaged up as "campaign finance laws"). So, we had better make sure we know who says everything, to make sure it's not a corporation.
In a society that hates freedom, freedom dies. We live in that society.