I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking if it is really free speech when it is not "free" and paid for speech.....speech that is promoted with commie money.
IOW, juxtapose the Tea Party vs paid zealots who are not spontaneous but rather paid to agitate.
IOW, would they be speaking if not for the money?
IMO, that is not free speech, it is purchased, fraudulent speech.
The same case could be made against the tea party and many other organizations.
The same argument is being made in oppoisition to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
You enter believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. It’s an absolutists issue.
Just because someone has more money to get a louder megaphone doesn’t mean it isn’t free speech.