80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[goldcatt]

No, you are going to stop this right here.

Give Me your take on what you believe this is about. I am not going to have you twist what you want in little spurts and I am no kid to be led down a path of your choosing.

I've made it very clear how this ruling should be analyzed. So, why don't you give Me the terms of how you think the First Amendment should be applied and I'll lead you down the garden path after that.

You've made it clear you don't understand the First Amendment.

Free speech is neither unlimited nor is it about guaranteeing unlimited access to any desired forum. It is about what the government can NOT do, which is pass laws to prohibit a speaker from speaking or to punish or discriminate against a speaker for that speaker's message. You have the right to speak, you do not have the right to unlimited access to a forum if it will cause substantial public harm or infringe on the rights of others. If you picket my home at 2 in the morning, I will have your ass arrested. If you set up your soapbox in the town square, chances are you will get your ass arrested. And it's not an abridgement of free speech. It's reasonable regulations on the time, manner and forum.

Corporations, unions and the others covered in this decision already had the right to speak - via their lobbyists, their PR departments, etc. etc. What this decision did was give them unlimited and permanent access to the forum of their choosing - one that has little if anything to do with their purposes for existing - at the cost of both further corruption of the political process and harm to the rights of the individual who do not have the same rights of access. In that sense alone it is outrageous, never mind the danger to the corporate body itself, or the danger from foreign meddling in our political process....those arguments were covered thoroughly elsewhere.

The First Amendment in its entirety - other than freedom of the press - was meant to guarantee individual liberties. And the free press was granted for the benefit of the individual, even if the individual is not the one exercising it. When a union or a corporation is given a protected right greater than those of individuals, in theory or practice, the decision is both activist and wrong. Period.

You equate the rights of companies as the same as a local nuisance and then claim I do not understand the First Amendment?

Of course they already had the right to speak. With this ruling, it ensures that the right continues no matter what the soapbox. To claim that it is okay for government to restrict speech in one forum while allowing it to continue in another is nothing more then sophistry of the worst kind. An abridgment of speech in any forum by government is a violation of the not only the spirit of the Constitution but of the letter of it as well.

The notion that in the public interest only pertains to those instances where it is reasonable to conclude that the public had no other recourse but to be subjected to speech which could be reasonably construed to cause harm. I'll explain that to you.

If you run into a theater and yell fire, the public in that theater has been given no recourse to avoid that kind of speech and therefore, they could be subjected to harm should the crowd panic.

Advocacy advertisement and announcements of intent to support one policy over another are not akin to a nuisance like having your house picketed at 2a.m. This would be like saying that the political action committees could not advocate in ads for a policy because they have workers who can go door to door with fliers.

Lastly, you continue to make the mistake of getting hung up on the word individual. The owner of a company is an individual, the workers of a company are individuals and the shareholders of a company are individuals. The company represents the interests of many, but not all, of them. To most, it is just the interest of keeping a job.

I find your whole argument flawed in its presentation solely on the basis of the notion that since I can speak on the corner of Main and State street, My rights are not being violated if I am prevented from speaking on the corners of Maple and Elm.

Then once again you misunderstand my argument. I'm wondering at this point if it isn't deliberate?

The manner of speech can be and is heavily regulated based on what you describe as local nuisance. How much more compelling the argument to regulate the manner of speech based on public corruption? Or the compelling (and note I'm using "compelling" as a term of art here) interest in avoiding foreign interests from influencing our political system?

And this brings me back to my original point. Money is not speech. A purchase is not speech. It only allows the speech itself to be delivered in a certain manner to a certain audience. The manner in which speech can be delivered can be, should be and even must be regulated in order to protect both the public and the rights of others. And nobody is guaranteed an audience.

 

[Darkwind]

You've made it clear you don't understand the First Amendment.

Free speech is neither unlimited nor is it about guaranteeing unlimited access to any desired forum. It is about what the government can NOT do, which is pass laws to prohibit a speaker from speaking or to punish or discriminate against a speaker for that speaker's message. You have the right to speak, you do not have the right to unlimited access to a forum if it will cause substantial public harm or infringe on the rights of others. If you picket my home at 2 in the morning, I will have your ass arrested. If you set up your soapbox in the town square, chances are you will get your ass arrested. And it's not an abridgement of free speech. It's reasonable regulations on the time, manner and forum.

Corporations, unions and the others covered in this decision already had the right to speak - via their lobbyists, their PR departments, etc. etc. What this decision did was give them unlimited and permanent access to the forum of their choosing - one that has little if anything to do with their purposes for existing - at the cost of both further corruption of the political process and harm to the rights of the individual who do not have the same rights of access. In that sense alone it is outrageous, never mind the danger to the corporate body itself, or the danger from foreign meddling in our political process....those arguments were covered thoroughly elsewhere.

The First Amendment in its entirety - other than freedom of the press - was meant to guarantee individual liberties. And the free press was granted for the benefit of the individual, even if the individual is not the one exercising it. When a union or a corporation is given a protected right greater than those of individuals, in theory or practice, the decision is both activist and wrong. Period.

You equate the rights of companies as the same as a local nuisance and then claim I do not understand the First Amendment?

Of course they already had the right to speak. With this ruling, it ensures that the right continues no matter what the soapbox. To claim that it is okay for government to restrict speech in one forum while allowing it to continue in another is nothing more then sophistry of the worst kind. An abridgment of speech in any forum by government is a violation of the not only the spirit of the Constitution but of the letter of it as well.

The notion that in the public interest only pertains to those instances where it is reasonable to conclude that the public had no other recourse but to be subjected to speech which could be reasonably construed to cause harm. I'll explain that to you.

If you run into a theater and yell fire, the public in that theater has been given no recourse to avoid that kind of speech and therefore, they could be subjected to harm should the crowd panic.

Advocacy advertisement and announcements of intent to support one policy over another are not akin to a nuisance like having your house picketed at 2a.m. This would be like saying that the political action committees could not advocate in ads for a policy because they have workers who can go door to door with fliers.

Lastly, you continue to make the mistake of getting hung up on the word individual. The owner of a company is an individual, the workers of a company are individuals and the shareholders of a company are individuals. The company represents the interests of many, but not all, of them. To most, it is just the interest of keeping a job.

I find your whole argument flawed in its presentation solely on the basis of the notion that since I can speak on the corner of Main and State street, My rights are not being violated if I am prevented from speaking on the corners of Maple and Elm.

Then once again you misunderstand my argument. I'm wondering at this point if it isn't deliberate?

The manner of speech can be and is heavily regulated based on what you describe as local nuisance. How much more compelling the argument to regulate the manner of speech based on public corruption? Or the compelling (and note I'm using "compelling" as a term of art here) interest in avoiding foreign interests from influencing our political system?

And this brings me back to my original point. Money is not speech. A purchase is not speech. It only allows the speech itself to be delivered in a certain manner to a certain audience. The manner in which speech can be delivered can be, should be and even must be regulated in order to protect both the public and the rights of others. And nobody is guaranteed an audience.

I don't think I have misunderstood your argument at all. I simply disagree with your analysis. The manner can only be regulated if there is provable harm to the public. Note this. To the public. Not the public interest. No one government agency can determine accurately what speech and what manner of speech can cause harm to the public interest.

I think that you are using the idea of 'pubic corruption' incorrectly. The way to define public corruption is in terms of an elected official, not a private entity. But as to the notion that money is not speech.

The idea is always misrepresented by those who would curb those whom they oppose. I've never seen a case where the purchasing of a medium to promote an ideology has harmed this country. Even in WWII, there were ads from the Communist Party and the NAZI party right here in the USA.

Of all your arguments, I find the foreign influence aspect the only truly compelling aspect. In a global world of international corporations, there is bound to be an influence on the opinion of the public from an international conglomerate. I have to wonder at the consistency however; that we permit foreigners to own our land and buildings, but we balk at their owning a company that may wish to look out for its own interests.

With that, I'm out of here. Its late and I have a number of things to get done tomorrow.

Have a pleasant evening or morning if you have already left.

 

[Zona]

The republicans on the supreme court are obviously not in touch with what the people want. Those Righty's make me sick.

 

[Vast LWC]

I don't think I have misunderstood your argument at all. I simply disagree with your analysis. The manner can only be regulated if there is provable harm to the public. Note this. To the public. Not the public interest. No one government agency can determine accurately what speech and what manner of speech can cause harm to the public interest.

I think that you are using the idea of 'pubic corruption' incorrectly. The way to define public corruption is in terms of an elected official, not a private entity. But as to the notion that money is not speech.

The idea is always misrepresented by those who would curb those whom they oppose. I've never seen a case where the purchasing of a medium to promote an ideology has harmed this country. Even in WWII, there were ads from the Communist Party and the NAZI party right here in the USA.

Of all your arguments, I find the foreign influence aspect the only truly compelling aspect. In a global world of international corporations, there is bound to be an influence on the opinion of the public from an international conglomerate. I have to wonder at the consistency however; that we permit foreigners to own our land and buildings, but we balk at their owning a company that may wish to look out for its own interests.

With that, I'm out of here. Its late and I have a number of things to get done tomorrow.

Have a pleasant evening or morning if you have already left.

Congress can certainly make a law determining whether certain methods of conveying speech, and certain locations from which such speech is conveyed, are harmful to the public interest. Such as running into a theater and yelling fire, or standing on your front lawn at 2 in the morning with a megaphone and keeping you up all night spreading your message.

Goldcatt is completely correct in this. There is a large variety of precedent set on the subject.

If congress determines that blanketing the commercial public airwaves with advertising is an invasion of privacy, and therefore harmful to the public interest, then they have the power to make a law about it.

Some people do not have the means to purchase cable channels or Tivo, and are forced to watch these commercials if they wish to get the news, or watch the Olympics, or the Superbowl. The public airwaves are licensed by the Government after all.

 

[saveliberty]

80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech is the thread title. Are corporations Americans? If so, I would guess the percentage is quite a bit higher. Thing is, companies are not Americans, but organizations with many differing views of those within the group. Suggesting they can speak as one united voice through funding is wrong.

Americans are not against free speech, they are against calling a corporation a person. Americans are against power being shifted away from them and to well financed politicans and business leaders. They are against access to government leaders greater than the public's. Rights should create some level of equality which this ruling clearly does not give to Americans.