If you're not allowed to set up a massive amplification system and use it to scream obscenities in through the window of an orphanage at 4am, then your speech is restricted.
Yes it is. But I'm afraid all your example illustrates is your own ignorance of constitutional law. What you refer to is a content-neutral restriction. As such, it must meet a much lower threshold for restrictions than non-content-neutral restrictions. And on top of that, the extent of the restriction is much, much, MUCH lower than what we're discussing here. It does not prevent you from conveying whatever message you have to whomever you want to convey it to. So the fact that such a restriction is constitutional, while the non-content-neutral restriction specifically on political speech (the kind of speech which deserves the MOST protection) which DOES prevent people from getting their message out to the public is unconstitutional.
Is it worth discussing when total freedom of speech might not be the best possible option, and instead just having freedom of speech that doesn't harm other people?
What qualifies as harm? Who gets to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful? Would you dare to empower
anyone to make that decision in regards to political speech?
Why on earth do you think that it would be safe to cede such vast power to any authority?
If you agree that sometimes the dissemination of information can be restricted
There is already a vast body of law dealing with precisely this question.
we can discuss whether or not allowing very rich people to get their opinions much more widely heard than ordinary people during election campaigns is something that constitutes harm to other people.
That isn't what Citizens United decided. And the law prior to the decision did not prevent that either.
Yes, it is. Before considering the citizens united case, just imagine two countries. In one country, you have to have a huge amount of financial backing to stand a chance of becoming a politician. In the other country, you don't. Quite clearly the barrier to entry is lower in the country where you don't need the financial backing.
No, that's not clear at all. You have described one aspect, and one aspect alone. You haven't specified what else is in play. What about the backing of media organizations? Hell, what about the simple willingness of media to cover (or not cover) your campaign? The fact is, the media will never be fair in how much coverage it gives, and without coverage or the ability to finance advertising (which you've ruled out), a candidate is dead in the water. Hell, you can't even objectively
define "fairness", nor is that necessarily even preferable. The media probably
shouldn't spend much time covering all the thousands of people who would
like to run for president. They don't, and they never will. So whoever gets the media's attention already has an unfair advantage. But who gets the media's attention? Well, quite possibly exactly the same people who currently get financial backing. But even if not, there's no reason to think that this group will be any more "democratic". Hell, they could even be
less democratic, because now there's no way to circumvent the media. And if you don't think money influences media, well, you're kidding yourself. You haven't prevented rich people from getting more influence, you've just handed that influence to the rich people who
own the media, and locked out everyone else. Just think about the influence Rupert Murdoch would have under your supposedly more democratic system.
As to citizens united, in a system with no restrictions there will be times when ordinary people want to get out a political message (and have the ability to make a film), but they won't be able to do this often enough to counter the people who want to buy political influence or buy an election for a party that offers them a better deal, because they can't afford to.
So the solution to the fact that they can be outspent is to... keep them from getting out their message
at all? Sorry, that's no form of improvement.
And as i'm sure you recognise, since being right-wing as you are you're sure to be a fairly staunch believer in financial incentive as a motivating factor (intended as an observation, not an insult), the group of ordinary people will also have less motivation to do as you describe, because they have less to gain.
You don't get it. This wasn't some hypothetical situation. That was
exactly what happened to Citizens United. They were trying to do what you claimed they wouldn't have reason to do. But they did. Except that the government stepped in and stopped them, via an unconstitutional restriction on their speech.
