34 Comments

  1. The irony here is that the Citizens United case protects Joe Rogan's right to say what he wants on Youtube, even during the lead up to an election. Youtube is a corporation. Joe Rogan's speech is facilitated, directly and indirectly, by this massive corporation. If you disagree with Citizens United, the logical result is that Congress would have the right to censor Joe Rogan, during the lead up to an election, if Joe Rogan wants to criticize Trump or any other politician. This very video that we're watching could be censored and banned, in the lead up to an election, if you accept the premise that there's some magical anti-corporation loop-hole to the First Amendment.

  2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *FREEDOM OF SPEECH*." Congress has no right to regulate how much money is spent on speech. It doesn't matter whether the source of the money is an individual or a group of individuals who happen to come together in the form of a corporation. Imagine if Congress tried to regulate how much money you could give to a church, or regulate the price of art, or say that doctors could not be paid for abortions. "Money isn't speech" is a red-herring. Congress is regulating the money as a means of regulating the speech. That's clearly unconstitutional.

  3. I hate how this guy keeps saying that we don't have a presidential candidate that make campaign finance an issue. Bernie has been harping on this for so many years. Bernie literally raised millions in small donations. I agree with this guy, but he is such and asshole to Bernie. This guy is the fucking cancer that makes all these things not possible (even if he means well).

Leave a Reply

© 2024 FYTube Online - FYTube.Com

Partners: Omenirea.Ro , masini in rate