Holding views that are fatal to modern society while enjoying its benefits… So hot right now! Maybe they’ll keep the dead half-husk of democracy that has all their stuff!
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
Responsible limits on campaign contributions are not remotely at odds with thinking money can be used on speech.
Writing a book is undeniably free speech. So why would it not be free speech if you pay out of pocket and self-publish? What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?
Or how about Chevron running an ad saying "buy our gas." What if the ad says "buy our gas because global warming isn't real?" What if the ad says "vote for Eric Erickson, a staunch global warming denier?"
All are money, all are free speech, but not all are political speech. We don't need corporations or billionaires throwing unlimited money at political speech.
It's also worth pointing out that corporations aren't citizens, and aren't people - they have no more right to first amendment protections than your pet parrot or Vladimir Putin.
Sounds like a corporation to me. What if the book is political? Now you've got a corporation throwing money at political speech. Can't have that.
The problem with the OP comic like most such comics is that it's demonizing the acknowledgement of nuance and considering arguments to have merit when they do. It can be simultaneously true that campaign finance laws serve a valid purpose for protecting democracy from regulatory capture, and that they risk enabling oppressive violations of free expression. There is nothing wrong with realizing this, people should be thinking things through enough to become conflicted about them.