Debate USSC decision on "Free Speech"

[Wry Catcher]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

 

[Gunny]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

 

[Annie]

While I am all for free speech, there are reasons to do with 'greater good' in school settings. I do believe that was the Bongs hits... case, no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

Really? Tell me why it's "stupid" and I might not continue to believe you're a moron (or is that moran in your language?).

 

[Wry Catcher]

While I am all for free speech, there are reasons to do with 'greater good' in school settings. I do believe that was the Bongs hits... case, no?

That was the majority opinion, "greater good" being subjective as was "Separate but Equal".
Worthy of debate? I think so. Is the "greater good", in utiltiarian speak, that which does the greatest good to the greatest number? That would seem to be contrary to UC v. FEC, would it not?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're OK with corporations publishing the most foul pornography but not political speech?
You are a book banner. Some liberal.

 

[Annie]

While I am all for free speech, there are reasons to do with 'greater good' in school settings. I do believe that was the Bongs hits... case, no?

That was the majority opinion, "greater good" being subjective as was "Separate but Equal".
Worthy of debate? I think so. Is the "greater good", in utiltiarian speak, that which does the greatest good to the greatest number? That would seem to be contrary to UC v. FEC, would it not?

Actually I don't think so. Millions of Americans belong to corporations through Unions, employers, stockholding, etc. The free speech thus is not limited to just one individual's voice at a time.

Actually with the proliferation of 527's and such, this whole aspect seems a tad redundant.

 

[Luissa]

I think if they treated the same way normal citizens are I think they should have to follow the same laws and tax systems we do.

 

[Luissa]

While I am all for free speech, there are reasons to do with 'greater good' in school settings. I do believe that was the Bongs hits... case, no?

So you are for free speech in settings you feel are acceptable? It is okay for a corporations to give all kinds of money to a political candidate, but God forbid a kid wears a shirt you dont like.

 

[rightwinger]

Corporations are not people. Their right to influence the political process should be controlled.

 

[Annie]

While I am all for free speech, there are reasons to do with 'greater good' in school settings. I do believe that was the Bongs hits... case, no?

So you are for free speech in settings you feel are acceptable? It is okay for a corporations to give all kinds of money to a political candidate, but God forbid a kid wears a shirt you dont like.

I haven't a problem with a kid wearing any shirt, mask, etc they choose. Most school boards do and their right to control has been upheld.

 

[Xenophon]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

There you go underestimating again.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due and say this has a superior level of stupid.

BTW, in case some of you are wondering, all of this bullshit is the talking point they were issued to distract you all from their massive defeat in Mass last tuesday.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you're OK with corporations publishing the most foul pornography but not political speech?
You are a book banner. Some liberal.

Assuming this is directed at me, please provide a link which shows my support of "the most foul pornography". And, I'm not opposed to corporations publishing political speech; what I oppose is a corporation supporting a candidate with money, but the source of the money given to the candidate is secret.
I do not support book banning; again, if you're going to make allegations you might provide evidence, otherwise more readers may believe you're full of partisan baloney.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Corporations are not people. Their right to influence the political process should be controlled.

Oh, you mean like the NY Times Corp? Is that what you had in mind? Would you deny First Amendment rights to NY Times Corp?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

There you go underestimating again.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due and say this has a superior level of stupid.

BTW, in case some of you are wondering, all of this bulshit is the talking point they were issued to distract you all from their massive defeat in Mass last tuesday.

Well, if it is so stupid, you must be intelligent enough to respond with evidence. Prove me wrong, or at least post something substantive (you wouldn't want others to think your a chicken shit moron - or is it moran - too).

 

[Avatar4321]

Corporations can spend money on advertising for candidates, but they still have to disclose who is doing the advertising. Did you bother reading the decision?

Rhetoric is not reality

 

[slackjawed]

Those that have the gold have more input in making the rules.
If that doesn't sit well with you then may I suggest diligence and hard work to get yourself more gold so you too can have more input as well.

 

[PixieStix]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

Yes it is

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know you think you did it better, but someone already posted a similar, politicized opinion on the decision. Yours is just as stupid.

Yes it is

Laugh all you want, it's your absolute right to agree with name calling; by your post I assume you too are incapable of writing a congent or thoughtful response.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Corporations can spend money on advertising for candidates, but they still have to disclose who is doing the advertising. Did you bother reading the decision?

Rhetoric is not reality

Really? I'll make it easy for you, highlight the section which requires disclosure.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf