(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] xorphus.livejournal.com at 07:57am on 22/01/2010
Sean articulates my position nicely. There's also a tricky bit of logic in the phrasing here.

"Money is speech:" the facile legal theory pushed during both the 2003 case and this one.

"Money is not speech:" the immediate intuitive reaction, which, you rightly point out, is as facile as its reverse.

More specifically, these positions are "ALL money is speech" and "NO money is speech." Neither of these makes sense. The actual premise we're looking for here is "NOT ALL money is speech."
[parent entry] [link] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
1
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31