General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArticle: "Law professor tells senators:If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is
unconstitutional"
Talk about a graphic argument...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/04/law-professor-tells-senators-if-money-is-speech-outlawing-prostitution-is-unconstitutional/
Law professor tells senators: If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is unconstitutional
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:26 EDT
An American law professor told senators on Tuesday that outlawing prostitution was a violation of the First Amendment if spending money was a form of free speech.
Your other point though about money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand, American University professor Jamie Raskin said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. There are lots of forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalize, for example, buying sex. We dont say if someone wants to purchase the services of a prostitute, well that is just an expression of their speech.
In its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on political spending violated the First Amendment. The court held that spending money to influence elections was a form of constitutionally protected speech.
The decision was later followed by similar rulings in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, further eroding limits on political spending and contributions. The Supreme Court rulings have led to an unprecedented amount of money being spent to influence the outcome of elections.
...more
Timez Squarez
(262 posts)He got it right in the first try.
If money trumps free speech, then everything that is money-related should be 100% legal.
Talk's cheap, green is the need.
blm
(113,091 posts)heheh
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)now unconstitutional?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)have than that abomination of a Supreme Court decision?
unblock
(52,317 posts)i don't think the supremes, or as far as i know, anyone else, ever said that money is speech in all contexts and no matter what you do with it. in fact, i think they were probably pretty specific in talking about the political context. if what you're purchasing is airtime or print space or making a contribution to a candidate so that candidate can run and purchase airtime and print space and so on.
did anyone argue that buying cheerios is specifically protected under the first amendment as a form of free speech just because money is involved?