Paul Barrett’s practical concerns about applying the First Amendment online are well-taken, but constitutional law demands this result in certain cases.
We’re living with an unprecedented threat to free speech, with much of today’s public discourse controlled by a handful of companies with unsurpassed wealth and power—companies whose capitalization values exceed the economies of major developed countries.
What undermines democracy is the use of electronic surveillance by government without tight limits: judicial oversight, transparent policies and publicly available information after the fact.
I respect Norm Coleman, but in his comments he repeats the demonstrably false talking point that the Democratic Party has moved to socialism.
“I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence that the U.S. response to the pandemic was disappointing because the government was too small.”
In the previous issue, Moment asked whether arguments for small government are still possible at a time of pandemic and massive government intervention. Russell Roberts said yes; Harold Meyerson said no. Here, they respond to each other’s arguments.
In the previous issue, Moment asked David Dayen and Stuart M. Butler to debate whether there should be Medicare for All. Dayen said yes; Butler said no. Here, they respond to each other’s arguments.
I think there should be a limit on immigration, but we shouldn’t restrict it to zero. I think we need to be smarter about its composition and prioritize people with skills that could help the economy.
America was conceived as a haven of refuge—Thomas Paine says so in Common Sense—for people fleeing from religious and political repression and violence all over the world. He said we would be an “asylum for mankind,” and he did not mean an insane asylum
We need to bear witness to the Talmudic dictum, “The poor people living in your own city come first.”