OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


ChristianKl 22 March 2016 05:23 AM
60%

Hillary doesn't argue that new laws should be passed for that purpose and Citizens United wasn't a newspaper.

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 22 March 2016 07:24 PM
64%


Hillary doesn't argue that new laws should be passed for that purpose


She wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices to overturn the decisions. I don't see how the distinction matters.


Citizens United wasn't a newspaper.


So? Or is your argument that free speech should only apply to specifically designated newspapers?


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 27 March 2016 04:56 PM
61%

Or is your argument that free speech should only apply to specifically designated newspapers?
My argument is not about who should have free speech.
The fact that you think it is suggests speaks of the fact that you confuse deontological claims with questions of predicting reality. Confusing the two with each other is a good sign of not reasoning clearly and therefore making bad predictions.

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 28 March 2016 06:20 PM
62%


My argument is not about who should have free speech.


Then what is it about? It was originally about what Trump would do as president and how it differs from Hillary? So is your argument that Hillary would stop at letting specially designated newspapers have total free speech while, restricting citizen movie makers' right to criticize her? Somehow I don't find that a believable position.


stars0
Reply