Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here
, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions
. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum
. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
To what extent does MONEY=SPEECH?
I just saw this little exchange between two extra-ordinary members of the forum, and thought this might be interesting enough for its own thread:
Freedom to use capital to enable speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Money is not speech and money should never be considered a valid accessory to speech because it is inherently coercive.
Following your logic, the government could pass a law making it illegal for newspapers to pay their employees salaries or to spend money on paper and newsprint. The newspapers could keep publishing, but all reporters would have to work for free and all supplies would need to be donated. The government can't ban your ability to spend money to exercise your rights.
I basically agree with Modern Man here. A law saying that “Michael Moore can’t produce or direct any more movies or publish any more books” is different from a law that says "nobody can pay money to buy a Michael Moore book or a ticket to a Michael Moore movie", but it's still an effort to censor Michael Moore and to prevent the spread of Moore's ideas.
Making such a law more general might make it more fair. There could be a law banning money being spent on health care related commentary. That seems even worse in many respects though.
Money is totally basically
speech. Right? Wrong? Why?