money as free speech case against prostitution laws
If money is free speech (it isn't but the Supreme Court ruled that it is), then shouldn't any money that a person gives to a provider be protected as free speech? After all, without any money being exchanged, the acts are 100% legal by themselves.
In other words, how does adding free speech to a legal act make it illegal?
Or is money somehow only considered free speech when it is used in politics? How does this magical transformation from money to free speech back to ordinary money take place, justice Scalia?
|