Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes
by throwawayPYy4 on Friday February 14, 2020 @02:26PM
(#22329466)
The libel(etc)-cutoff is orthogonal to the money/speech-cutoff scenarios above.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes
by foldr on Friday February 14, 2020 @02:51PM
(#22329708)
Yes, of course. My point is just that there is also no obvious logical point at which to make the cutoffs in those cases either.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes
by throwawayPYy4 on Friday February 14, 2020 @04:40PM
(#22330680)
Yes. My point is that it is a category mistake to make the analogy between the two types of cutoffs. Just because a line can be drawn on the content of speech does not mean that a line can be drawn between money and speech.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes
by foldr on Saturday February 15, 2020 @04:13AM
(#22334173)
The point is that the mere fuzziness of a given line is not a reason to doubt that a legal distinction can be drawn. All OP did was to show that the line is fuzzy. I was criticizing OP's argument, not presenting a positive argument by analogy. Perhaps a legal line can't be drawn between money and speech, but if so, this can't be the case merely because the logical boundary between the two is fuzzy.
In fact, any disanalogy only lends further support to my point. If the First Amendment doesn't even permit you to say anything you like, then it surely doesn't permit you to spend money any way you like!
If it were really impossible to draw a line between money and speech, then the First Amendment would protect all kinds of dubious financial schemes. It doesn't.
But these sorts of fuzzy lines have to be drawn in other areas in relation to the First Amendment. Libel, illegal images, threats to assassinate the President, etc. etc. Just because there's no logically compelling cut off point doesn't mean that a court can't draw the line somewhere. The First Amendment isn't absolute.