If that money is funding speech, especially political speech, yes.

If it’s being used in some random commercial transaction, not so much.

If North Korea donates stolen money to American political campaigns, is that protected free speech?

North Korea is not a US citizen and "they" are not located in the United States they don't get constitutional protections.

True. And that only goes to highlight that the US consitution is not a universal inherent moral code for humanity, but ideas on how a bunch of people in a region should get along.

While this applies in this instance, it doesn't make it right.

Any foreign contributions to any US political campaign are forbidden, so no?

> Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures(including independent expenditures) and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any federal, state or local election. This prohibition includes advances of personal funds, contributions or donations made to political party committees and organizations, state or local party committees for the purchase or construction of an office building funds under 11 CFR 300.35, and contributions or disbursements to make electioneering communications.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/foreign-n...

I'm sure if you traced campaign contributions back you'd find what is legal already isn't that much different. I'd much rather see money out of politics.

Author here. That is a gross oversimplification imo. Money can be used for expression of speech but most commercial transactions shouldn't fall under it. I am of the opinion that money laundering/tax evasion etc are illegal activities which should be monitored and banned. Blanket banning a legitimate service by uploading Etherscan tags is super stupid and affects a lot of normal people.

Equivalent would be to block all withdrawals/deposits for all users at an international bank because they were found to be violating AML laws in some country.

Bribing an official with money isn't speech, say.

Politicians who got those bribes decided that it was speech, so now it is legal.

(the supreme court are so closely tied to politicians that their decisions can't really be separated)

Who as far as we know will gladly accept any kind of speech in an envelope slid under the door.

It's not a bribe, just a donation!

This is so much of an oversimplification as to be more wrong than right.