The ALPB Meeting is a convenient time to present experimental radio scripts to a test audience, which is what I tried at last night's meeting.
My small radio play took place in a courtroom with attorney Stag Pinstripe defending a man acused as a "John", a solicitor of prostitution.
Knowing that mutual consent between adults was legal, Stag argued that using cash to enlist the consent of a woman was speech and so equivalent to consent.
The judge pronounced aquittal and the case was won.
But some of the test audience wasn't familiar with the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring money as speech.
If money is equivalent to speech should we expect that the Govt. will take 40% of our speech as they do our money?
For those with difficulty speaking for themselves, will the Govt. provide speech for them?
An obvious over-simplification.
Neil
Good points, let's take tham one at a time...
If money is speech, then the reverse is also true, and we can pay our taxes with speech instead of money.
If we feel unable to speak for ourselves, perhaps the government will pay us money as compensation.
It could be good.
SCOTUS ruled in 2010 (Citizens United Case) that money is speech and corporations are people. so there is legal precendence that money is speech.
but if corporations are people then why aren't there CEO's in jail for crashing the economy in 2008 due to their criminal behavior?