"This freedom is widely acknowledged—except by the case’s critics—to be at the very core of the First Amendment. If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects freedom to engage in political speech. And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak."

While I believe the first two sentences of this argument are be true, I see no logical reason to infer the final sentence, which I think is false. This being the case, I find entire line of reasoning invalid.

I have no desire to learn more about any Golden Girls fanfic where Bea Arthur has retired from the Russian space program, either.

Yes, with the original intent being that everyone has an equal right to speak. When money=speech, only those with money will have the right to speak.

If you want to look into the wayback machine, there was a time when corporations weren't people too. Ah, well, one step forward and two steps back.

I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.

Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.

When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doesn't equating speech with money make "free speech" an oxymoron?) And that is the direction that speech=money heads us toward.

Something, I am sure, corporate interests would never stoop to. In any case, in a properly functioning democracy, there are means for preventing this. In our current plutocracy, not so much.

And, for the record...
    democratic: pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all

That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.

And yet, due to the vagaries of the English language, you cannot ask something without it being a question. Therefore, anything asked is a question.

Neither are any of your suggestions Golden Age. There are no Marvel Comics from the Golden Age.

It's less complicated than that. If you are a Verizon or Comcast customer, you are paying for internet access, and you aren't getting it. Why hasn't there been a class action suit?

I actually got an email reply to my complaint about this site design in which the editors seemed sympathetic to my concerns, but apparently not in control of the look and layout.

My problem with this design is mostly the color and font of the comment system. The font is very light weight. In addition, it is only slightly darker than the background and just doesn't contrast enough to be easily readable. I mean, it looks pretty, but it is a real eyestrain to read. Actually, looking at it again, I guess they modified it a little. Previously I had to magnify the page to 125% to read it. Now I can read it reasonably at 110%, though not comfortably.

A darker font might not be as pretty. But this isn't an art museum. This is text, and I am trying to read it.

Oh, the functionally of the Preview Comment button is just plain stupid... Is that check mark above my comment supposed to be submit? If so, it doesn't work for me at all. I had to switch back to classic view to submit this.

Wasn't the work contracted out to a commercial company?

"'The computer has become personal not just in the sense of how it's used but in the sense of how it's owned."

What did the author intend to mean by this? That if IOs devices outnumber Windows, computer hardware is even less "owned" by the consumer?

So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?

Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?

This stems from the social norm that expects men to earn more than women. Attacking the problem at its roots seems the best way to achieve equality for both sides.