...as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations.
I apologize for what must be a failure in my writing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to convey. In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue. You'll note though that as of this writing an absolutist interpretation is still the highest voted comment for this article.
" In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue."
Avoiding the actual argument while trying to cast the side you disagree with as ridiculous and extreme is the essence of the strawman fallacy.
You misunderstand. There is no side I disagree with. The only thing I disagree with is using strict constructionist interpretations, whether such interpretations argue for or against campaign finance reform. Similarly, I am opposed to literal interpretations of religious documents, independent of how I feel about the morals behind them. I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up. You may look to the religious right in the United States for examples of the effectiveness of debates that do not reject absolute interpretation.
You can be pro-free speech and against an absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment. Similarly you can be deeply religious and still object to a literal interpretation of your sacred documents. I do not believe I misrepresented jsyedidia's position and if I have I invite him to correct me.
I most certainly am not trolling. You would know that if you read past the first sentence of the comment you replied to. Clearly you did not. I will quote myself again here in the hope that you read it this time: "I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up.".
I believe our exchange is past the point of being constructive, as you appear to be ignoring significant parts of my comments. I think I'll stop replying to this thread here, although I will certainly read your reply if you post one.
I did, and I found it unconvincing. You are representing the mere discussion of free-speech principles as absolutist and fanatical. If this is not towards the end of something you believe is undermined by someone else's free speech, and it is not intended to provoke, then it is a puzzling misrepresentation.
As it is, I believe the involvement of people with different degrees of attachment to principles is a useful thing. The more compromising people buffer the excesses of the stalwarts, and the stalwarts in turn help keep them honest.
Noooo, he's saying that solving the finer points of free-speech issues with an uncritical and literal interpretation of the first amendment is absolutist.
More specifically, corporate personhood didn't exist at the time of the writing of the first amendment. It's somewhat disingenuous to take the lack of qualification in the first amendment as canonical on the matter. It's (arguably) absolutist because it's appealing to the exact wording out of context, when the current import of that wording is a historical accident. A non-absolutist viewpoint needs to acknowledge historical, legal, or social context.
"he's saying that solving the finer points of free-speech issues..."
Which of course requires that one consider this question a "finer point", or that the wording is "out of context". The Internet didn't exist at the time, either, but that doesn't mean free speech doesn't apply to it - or that there's a controversy we should teach on that question. That some people want to restrict speech in any given way does not mean free speech should be up for grabs in any given context.
The general constitutional-law take on civil liberties is that they come before other legal concerns unless one can demonstrate a serious and clear factor that outweighs them. To argue against the civil liberty interest without demonstrating that outweighing factor is far more ridiculous than to stand pat by the civil liberty interest.
That said, I'm not continuing this thread of argument.
I apologize for what must be a failure in my writing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to convey. In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue. You'll note though that as of this writing an absolutist interpretation is still the highest voted comment for this article.