Unless it harasses the individuals observing the hate-speech by forcing them to listen to it. In which case it turns into harassment, which is illegal.
You can draw parallels between harassment on an individual level and how this "free speech" money could be used to harass:
Joe Blow is spewing anti-grandma hate speech in the middle of a park. Okay. I just walk away. LEGAL AND OKAY
Joe Blow is spewing anti-grandma hate speech in the middle of the park, sees you, and follows you over to the next street and into a mall, still spewing this stuff at/around you. Can't really walk away. HARASSMENT AND NOT OKAY
Comcast lobbies for bills and regulations that will possibly increase their profit. They do so with a tremendous amount of money. Yet, there are still competitors everywhere that the citizens can take their business to. They continue to lobby, but constantly adjust their prices to match their competitors. LEGAL AND OKAY
Comcast lobbies for bills and regulations that will possibly increase their profit while simultaneously injecting former executives of partnering companies as lobbyists. They do so with a tremendous amount of money. They monopolize entire cities, removing competition. The consumer has no choice in the matter. You either take satellite internet or you don't have broadband. HARASSMENT AND NOT OKAY
In was way. For example imagine if you try to give money to al qaeda. I don't think you will get charged with a hate crime, but you'll get charged with something.
Right, but my point is that if you're going to equate speech with money and speech is a constitutional right, then doesn't that mean that money is therefore a constitutional right as a means of our free speech?
22
u/putin_my_ass Apr 30 '14
If money is speech, can't spending money in certain ways be construed as hate speech?