If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is unconstitutional

[ClosedCaption]

“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 don’t say if someone wants to purchase the services of a prostitute, well that is just an expression of their speech.”

Raskin noted that even defenders of the Supreme Court rulings have agreed that laws to prohibit outright bribery are constitutional and necessary.

“And it’s not clear in their position why,” he remarked. “After all, if I just feel very strongly about an issue and I want to give you a thousand dollars or a million dollars to go my way, why shouldn’t you be able to accept it?

“I think it is because we believe that within the governmental process and electoral process there are right reasons for those who hold public office to make decisions and there are wrong reasons — and a wrong reason is the money you are either going to put into your pocket or huge amounts of money that you’re going to put into your campaign.”

What say you?

Also, if money is speech then that means that some people have more rights than others right? Why does the rich have more god given right than I do? Why God?!? /sarcasm

 

[g5000]

There is a big difference between paying someone money to do something they otherwise would not have done, and paying someone money for doing things they were going to do anyway and which supports your position.

One is a bribe, one is a contribution.

Learn the difference.

 

[g5000]

Also, if money is speech then that means that some people have more rights than others right? Why does the rich have more god given right than I do? Why God?!? /sarcasm

We have propety rights, too. Then that means "some people have more rights than others", because rich people own more stuff.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is a big difference between paying someone money to do something they otherwise would not have done, and paying someone money for doing things they were going to do anyway and which supports your position.

One is a bribe, one is a contribution.

Learn the difference.

Yeah but technically why is one bad and the other not is what he was getting at.

 

[g5000]

If a candidate says that, if elected, he will provide free hookers and blow to every American, and I spend a million dollars to help get that guy elected because I want everyone to have free hookers and blow, I am not bribing that candidate.

This very simple principle seems to be beyond the intellectual grasp of a lot of people.

If a candidate was elected who promised to provide free hookers and blow to every American, and then I channel a million dollars to him to outlaw hookers and blow, and he takes my money and then writes a bill to outlaw hookers and blow, then that is a bribe. And that bastard should go to prison for a very long time. As should I.

 

[g5000]

There is a big difference between paying someone money to do something they otherwise would not have done, and paying someone money for doing things they were going to do anyway and which supports your position.

One is a bribe, one is a contribution.

Learn the difference.

Yeah but technically why is one bad and the other not is what he was getting at.

Why does he consider a contribution bad?

I have explained why one is bad and the other isn't in my previous post.

 

[BobPlumb]

Money can be used to buy many things. If you don't understand the difference in using money to buy political advertisements and using money to buy sexual services then there is no use in me trying to explain it.

That being said, the libertarian in me would support prostitution being legal. That does not mean that I believe prostitution is morally right. But why should it be illegal to provide or purchase a service that is legal when it is free?

 

[g5000]

Complaining about contributions is an admission that one was unable to come up with a superior counterpoint to the other guy's plan.

If giving everyone free hookers and blow is a bad thing, and you don't want that to happen, then you better be able to explain why. Make a superior argument.

This is why Obama won. He had a really, really shitty plan. But the GOP failed to adequately explain why it was shitty, and they utterly failed to put a superior plan on the table.

So Obama did not win because he was so cool or great, he won because he had the unprecedented good fortune (from his perspective) of being opposed by people even dumber than himself.


We all have the right of association. It's right there in the Constitution. You only have ten bucks you can spare for helping your team? No problem! You can send it to a big powerhouse organization like Greenpeace or the NRA and have your voice amplified a million times louder!

 

[g5000]

Money can be used to buy many things. If you don't understand the difference in using money to buy political advertisements and using money to buy sexual services then there is no use in me trying to explain it.

That being said, the libertarian in me would support prostitution being legal. That does not mean that I believe prostitution is morally right. But why should it be illegal to provide or purchase a service that is legal when it is free?

It is a little weird that you can pay a woman to have sex while being filmed, and that is legal as long as you show that film far and wide to the world, but you can't pay a woman to have sex in the privacy of your hotel room.

 

[pvsi]

If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is unconstitutional

Prostitution is outlawed by the politicians so that they themselves (the mostly male political prostitutes) would look less than the prostitutes that they are. THEY are the ultimate prostitutes, and they do not like competition.