Was the problem political ads though? I think a lot of the content shared across Facebook was meme-like images that received shares and likes organically after an initial push by bots and Russian facebook users?
The top image here (http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/11/house-democrats-release-r...) is one of these Russia ads. However, I wouldn't call that a political ad, just a terrible meme that happens to be about Clinton and the election.
Maybe ask why America is the only democratic nation with uncapped campaign spending.
"Jailed for a Facebook post:" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-com...
Even then, in this case, Peralta was not prosecuted. Which is probably OK if he was just extremely stupid and not actually intended to proceed with burning the house down. But specific violent threat is not the same as just speech, and one should never present it as such.
In America you can also freely speak slander on the internet and the victim will have to live with it for life.
It is fascinating that you do not recognize how contradictory your statement is. "Campaign finance caps" is the limitation of speech, so if "the forces" prevent it from happening, they are not shutting down any speech - they enable it. With that, I have never heard any of the organization opposing campaign finance caps ever shutting down any political speech. Can you name 2-3 cases?
I can name a case where a prominent politician, known for support of campaign finance limitations (and running an extremely well-financed campaign), tried to suppress clearly political speech against that politician, under the guise of campaign finance laws. You know this case as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
> In America you can also freely speak slander on the internet and the victim will have to live with it for life.
Slander is a verbal spoken defamation. Defamation is a persistent form is called libel. Both are actionable offenses in the US. Of course, proving libel is not easy. Neither it should be.
Where on earth do you get an idea like that?
No, the US is not the only democratic nation with uncapped campaign spending, for any plausible definition of "democratic" and "campaign spending".
The caps in other countries might not implemented in an umbrella dollar amount but as rules like no TV ads, or the dollar amount could only apply to certain items. Often it is a cap on donations which effectively caps spending. At the end of the day, democracies generally must limit campaigning influence because if they don’t, they might end up with skewed democratic process, possibly a reality show star as president.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling.