To change the first amendment such that it no longer applied to the speech of political parties would amount to a revolution. Even if it were somehow accomplished without violence, it would deeply change the form of government.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Revolutions are the norm in the American setup.

The first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another is sometimes called the "Revolution of 1800". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidentia...

Every constitutional amendment changes our government. The people who wrote the mechanism in expected this. I doubt they expected us to just... stop amending.

▲

delichon 2 days ago | parent [-]

To say that every election and amendment is a revolution may be true in some sense, but it isn't near the colloquial definition. Neither, strictly speaking, would removal of political speech protections by the approval of 38 out of 50 states be an actual revolution, but that's a lot closer. And I doubt it's possible.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I certainly doubt it's going to happen - too many vested interests in power opposing. But it seems less impactful than, say, "women can now vote" in the spectrum of constitutional changes.

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's a reasonable thing that the political parties shouldn't be able to use targeted online advertising that makes use of distressing amounts of demographic information to spread propaganda. Granted, I'm biased, I think we should ban targeted advertising altogether but still.