Ah yes, just like how free speech means corporations must be allowed to bribe politicians.
But they’re people! Well, only in that one instance and not in any others that would allow punishments levied against people to be applied to businesses.
Like, if I sold poison that killed millions of people every year, I’d get the death penalty.
Didn’t you know? Disabling ad blockers ensures free speech and apparently may also peacefully end the current crisis in the middle east… oh, did I mention it helps with world hunger too?
I allow USA Today to speak freely, including speaking their ad frames and images.
But that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to listen to everything they say.
USA Today: speech isn’t free if I’m forced to listen to it.
Corporations are not people, therefore do not have a right to free speech.
In reality, no, you’re right. Legally though, they are. And we are second class citizens.
Wasn’t that the whole crux of Citizens United?
CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.
Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.
They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.
They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually
Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.
preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard
Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.
Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements
I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.
They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually
Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.
preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard
Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.
Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements
I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.
I disagree. If you think USA today or any other news outlet shouldn’t have free speech then why bother with free speech to begin with.
I don’t think USA today or any other outlet should be protected. I do think the reporters that work there should be protected.
Corporations should be held accountable for what they say or “strongly encourage” others to say. Individuals should be protected if they get things wrong, though.
We are dedicated to safe and ethical advertising practices
Mates, that ship has long sailed
There are ethical ad services, but I’ve never seen outside of one random blog site.
I wouldn’t visit these sites if you paid me. Much less forced me to watch ads.
deleted by creator
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to be forced to consume something (including ads). Freedom of speech includes not sending all of my metadata to you and your business partners.
freedom of their speech, not ours
FREE* speech for everyone
*conditions_apply
Fee speech
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Get fucked, USA Today
We believe in free speech, do you? Give us all your money and send us your nude to prove it.
Just use the right ublock filter to get past these silly anti adblocks
Good Independent journalism requires money. You can’t have everything for free you know. If you want to keep your privacy then you should pay for the news sources that you read.
Edit: I’m not american I do not know if USA today is good journalism or not. I am speaking more generally
Yeah, advertising is not “free speech.” It’s a way for corporations to steal your life from you, 60 seconds at a time
… They mean that you’re supporting free speech by disabling and block and supporting them
