80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[midcan5]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

 

[Vast LWC]

Where do you come up with the whole notion of fraudulent use of shareholders funds? When you purchased your shares of stocks, did it come with a disclaimer that the company would have to consult with you before they appropriated that money in the interests of the the company?

I don't know what you find repugnant about it. If you purchase a game for your Xbox360 and later find out that the company you purchased the game from used the profits from your purchase to advocate for a tax break for all gaming companies? Have they defrauded you in any way?

It is fraudulent because it is using funds that would otherwise be profit to go for a non-profit related purpose. One that I as a stockholder do not find any benefit in.

If I purchased stock in a Microsoft, and Microsoft used all the money I had invested to buy mile high piles of flapjacks instead of using it to develop a new operating system, that would be fraudulent use of my funds.

And what about the second part of my post, where I asked about voting shareholders, that were not told about the contributions until the quarterly report?

Or how about voting shareholders that are in the minority, and are outvoted?

 

[Darkwind]

Where do you come up with the whole notion of fraudulent use of shareholders funds? When you purchased your shares of stocks, did it come with a disclaimer that the company would have to consult with you before they appropriated that money in the interests of the the company?

I don't know what you find repugnant about it. If you purchase a game for your Xbox360 and later find out that the company you purchased the game from used the profits from your purchase to advocate for a tax break for all gaming companies? Have they defrauded you in any way?

It is fraudulent because it is using funds that would otherwise be profit to go for a non-profit related purpose. One that I as a stockholder do not find any benefit in.

If I purchased stock in a Microsoft, and Microsoft used all the money I had invested to buy mile high piles of flapjacks instead of using it to develop a new operating system, that would be fraudulent use of my funds.

That is not true at all. They made no disclaimer to you on how they would use that money. They simply sold you a product. That product is a share of the company. Nothing more, nothing less.

Said company may be purchasing these ads in the belief that the outcome of those ads will aid in making the company more profitable. So either way, they have not defrauded you in any way.

 

[goldcatt]

No where. But cutting off their right to speak does not safeguard someones right to not listen.

But you're making the same mistake. The right to be heard is NOT the same as the right to speak. There is nothing regarding the speech itself, the message, that is even addressed.

So where does the First Amendment protect the right to an audience?

No, I am not.

The court ruling did not say that companies have the right to force people to listen to them.

Who said anything about force? You don't have the right to even have an audience available. Go back to basics. What is the purpose of the speech clause of the First Amendment, and what does it stop government from doing?

 

[Darkwind]

But you're making the same mistake. The right to be heard is NOT the same as the right to speak. There is nothing regarding the speech itself, the message, that is even addressed.

So where does the First Amendment protect the right to an audience?

No, I am not.

The court ruling did not say that companies have the right to force people to listen to them.

Who said anything about force? You don't have the right to even have an audience available. Go back to basics. What is the purpose of the speech clause of the First Amendment, and what does it stop government from doing?

Well, if you want to go that route.

Infringement upon free speech can only happen by the government.

Do you understand that aspect of the First Amendment? If I kick you off My property because I don't like what you are saying, I have not violated your First Amendment rights because I am not the government.

So, in that regard, the SCOTUS ruling was such that they said if government said that a company could not purchase advertising time with another company, that would violate the companies right.

Conversely, if the company that was selling advertising time refused to take the money of the first company and refused to run the ad, there is no violation of the first amendment.

 

[goldcatt]

BTW, my followup question will be why PR departments, marketing departments, lobbyists, lawyers, advertisers and other assorted agents were so substandard from a Constitutional point of view that organizations MUST be allowed to pump unlimited amounts of cash into the system to take a political message directly to the consumer in order to be able to "speak".

 

[goldcatt]

No, I am not.

The court ruling did not say that companies have the right to force people to listen to them.

Who said anything about force? You don't have the right to even have an audience available. Go back to basics. What is the purpose of the speech clause of the First Amendment, and what does it stop government from doing?

Well, if you want to go that route.

Infringement upon free speech can only happen by the government.

Do you understand that aspect of the First Amendment? If I kick you off My property because I don't like what you are saying, I have not violated your First Amendment rights because I am not the government.

So, in that regard, the SCOTUS ruling was such that they said if government said that a company could not purchase advertising time with another company, that would violate the companies right.

Conversely, if the company that was selling advertising time refused to take the money of the first company and refused to run the ad, there is no violation of the first amendment.

Again, nothing here about the message. Only the size of the megaphone, which is not addressed in the First.

But you didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy, it's a two parter. What was the purpose of the First Amendment? And, what does it prohibit the government from doing?

It's not a trick question. If you've read it, you'd know it.

 

[Darkwind]

Who said anything about force? You don't have the right to even have an audience available. Go back to basics. What is the purpose of the speech clause of the First Amendment, and what does it stop government from doing?

Well, if you want to go that route.

Infringement upon free speech can only happen by the government.

Do you understand that aspect of the First Amendment? If I kick you off My property because I don't like what you are saying, I have not violated your First Amendment rights because I am not the government.

So, in that regard, the SCOTUS ruling was such that they said if government said that a company could not purchase advertising time with another company, that would violate the companies right.

Conversely, if the company that was selling advertising time refused to take the money of the first company and refused to run the ad, there is no violation of the first amendment.

Again, nothing here about the message. Only the size of the megaphone, which is not addressed in the First.

But you didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy, it's a two parter. What was the purpose of the First Amendment? And, what does it prohibit the government from doing?

It's not a trick question. If you've read it, you'd know it.

The message is immaterial. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech above all.

But you didn't even acknowledge the fact only the government can violate free speech.

 

[Darkwind]

BTW, my followup question will be why PR departments, marketing departments, lobbyists, lawyers, advertisers and other assorted agents were so substandard from a Constitutional point of view that organizations MUST be allowed to pump unlimited amounts of cash into the system to take a political message directly to the consumer in order to be able to "speak".

You are actually going to argue that a company does not have the right to free speech because in the past they were inept?

 

[goldcatt]

Well, if you want to go that route.

Infringement upon free speech can only happen by the government.

Do you understand that aspect of the First Amendment? If I kick you off My property because I don't like what you are saying, I have not violated your First Amendment rights because I am not the government.

So, in that regard, the SCOTUS ruling was such that they said if government said that a company could not purchase advertising time with another company, that would violate the companies right.

Conversely, if the company that was selling advertising time refused to take the money of the first company and refused to run the ad, there is no violation of the first amendment.

Again, nothing here about the message. Only the size of the megaphone, which is not addressed in the First.

But you didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy, it's a two parter. What was the purpose of the First Amendment? And, what does it prohibit the government from doing?

It's not a trick question. If you've read it, you'd know it.

The message is immaterial. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech above all.

But you didn't even acknowledge the fact only the government can violate free speech.

I didn't acknowledge it because I made it clear in both posts you responded to. I even bolded it this time for you, so you can't miss it this time.

All right, you're still looking at the trees but you're getting more than on ein the field of vision at a time. What is unpopular speech?

 

[Darkwind]

Again, nothing here about the message. Only the size of the megaphone, which is not addressed in the First.

But you didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy, it's a two parter. What was the purpose of the First Amendment? And, what does it prohibit the government from doing?

It's not a trick question. If you've read it, you'd know it.

The message is immaterial. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech above all.

But you didn't even acknowledge the fact only the government can violate free speech.

I didn't acknowledge it because I made it clear in both posts you responded to. I even bolded it this time for you, so you can't miss it this time.

All right, you're still looking at the trees but you're getting more than on ein the field of vision at a time. What is unpopular speech?

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.

 

[goldcatt]

BTW, my followup question will be why PR departments, marketing departments, lobbyists, lawyers, advertisers and other assorted agents were so substandard from a Constitutional point of view that organizations MUST be allowed to pump unlimited amounts of cash into the system to take a political message directly to the consumer in order to be able to "speak".

You are actually going to argue that a company does not have the right to free speech because in the past they were inept?

Who said anything about inept? Go back and read it again, slowly. What from a Constitutional point of view makes political advertising directed at the consumer deserving of protection when the companies already had the right to speak for their interests through lobbying, PR, advertising, legal means, and so on and so on ad nauseum?

Why is guaranteeing this particular megaphone necessary when there are so many obvious compelling reasons to regulate it? (Corruption, foreign involvement, etc.)

 

[Zona]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

Now that's scary.

They're not opposed to free speech. They're opposed to corporate takeover of our government.

Who is the idiot who started this thread anyway?

 

[Darkwind]

BTW, my followup question will be why PR departments, marketing departments, lobbyists, lawyers, advertisers and other assorted agents were so substandard from a Constitutional point of view that organizations MUST be allowed to pump unlimited amounts of cash into the system to take a political message directly to the consumer in order to be able to "speak".

You are actually going to argue that a company does not have the right to free speech because in the past they were inept?

Who said anything about inept? Go back and read it again, slowly. What from a Constitutional point of view makes political advertising directed at the consumer deserving of protection when the companies already had the right to speak for their interests through lobbying, PR, advertising, legal means, and so on and so on ad nauseum?

Why is guaranteeing this particular megaphone necessary when there are so many obvious compelling reasons to regulate it? (Corruption, foreign involvement, etc.)

Okay. One last time.

Simply because they have other avenues of getting their message out does not preclude them from making, purchasing and airing political advertisement. Now read this slowly (you see, I can be condescending as well).

The government has no right to prevent a company from purchasing air time (something that the courts have ruled as belonging to the people) to advocate for a candidate, a candidates policy or a specific policy of the government. To do so violates the rights of the company (Something that only the government can do) as guaranteed under the Constitution.

I find it interesting that a group of people (kind of like a corporation) are advocating the government to restrict the free speech rights of another group based wholly upon disagreeing with the message.

Oh, and to answer you question. Unpopular speech is speech that is contrary to the government's majority position.

 

[goldcatt]

The message is immaterial. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech above all.

But you didn't even acknowledge the fact only the government can violate free speech.

I didn't acknowledge it because I made it clear in both posts you responded to. I even bolded it this time for you, so you can't miss it this time.

All right, you're still looking at the trees but you're getting more than on ein the field of vision at a time. What is unpopular speech?

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.

 

[goldcatt]

You are actually going to argue that a company does not have the right to free speech because in the past they were inept?

Who said anything about inept? Go back and read it again, slowly. What from a Constitutional point of view makes political advertising directed at the consumer deserving of protection when the companies already had the right to speak for their interests through lobbying, PR, advertising, legal means, and so on and so on ad nauseum?

Why is guaranteeing this particular megaphone necessary when there are so many obvious compelling reasons to regulate it? (Corruption, foreign involvement, etc.)

Okay. One last time.

Simply because they have other avenues of getting their message out does not preclude them from making, purchasing and airing political advertisement. Now read this slowly (you see, I can be condescending as well).

The government has no right to prevent a company from purchasing air time (something that the courts have ruled as belonging to the people) to advocate for a candidate, a candidates policy or a specific policy of the government. To do so violates the rights of the company (Something that only the government can do) as guaranteed under the Constitution.

I find it interesting that a group of people (kind of like a corporation) are advocating the government to restrict the free speech rights of another group based wholly upon disagreeing with the message.

Oh, and to answer you question. Unpopular speech is speech that is contrary to the government's majority position.

It has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with the manner and forum. Who says corporations (and you keep forgetting unions) should not be able to speak? These organizations have had protected speech rights since before the Constitution was adopted and so it must remain if they are to be viable - and we do need them. The problem here is the amazing overbreadth of the new guarantee of access to a specific forum and in a specific manner. The guarantee of a megaphone, in other words. It has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with how it is to be communicated - and who is getting bought and who is getting squeezed out in the process.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Money isn't speech. Simple as that.

Putting your money towards something you believe in is a form of expression and that is covered under the First Amendment.

 

[Modbert]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldcatt again

Darn.



In lieu of rep, this picture:

 

[Darkwind]

I didn't acknowledge it because I made it clear in both posts you responded to. I even bolded it this time for you, so you can't miss it this time.

All right, you're still looking at the trees but you're getting more than on ein the field of vision at a time. What is unpopular speech?

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.

 

[Darkwind]

Who said anything about inept? Go back and read it again, slowly. What from a Constitutional point of view makes political advertising directed at the consumer deserving of protection when the companies already had the right to speak for their interests through lobbying, PR, advertising, legal means, and so on and so on ad nauseum?

Why is guaranteeing this particular megaphone necessary when there are so many obvious compelling reasons to regulate it? (Corruption, foreign involvement, etc.)

Okay. One last time.

Simply because they have other avenues of getting their message out does not preclude them from making, purchasing and airing political advertisement. Now read this slowly (you see, I can be condescending as well).

The government has no right to prevent a company from purchasing air time (something that the courts have ruled as belonging to the people) to advocate for a candidate, a candidates policy or a specific policy of the government. To do so violates the rights of the company (Something that only the government can do) as guaranteed under the Constitution.

I find it interesting that a group of people (kind of like a corporation) are advocating the government to restrict the free speech rights of another group based wholly upon disagreeing with the message.

Oh, and to answer you question. Unpopular speech is speech that is contrary to the government's majority position.

It has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with the manner and forum. Who says corporations (and you keep forgetting unions) should not be able to speak? These organizations have had protected speech rights since before the Constitution was adopted and so it must remain if they are to be viable - and we do need them. The problem here is the amazing overbreadth of the new guarantee of access to a specific forum and in a specific manner. The guarantee of a megaphone, in other words. It has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with how it is to be communicated - and who is getting bought and who is getting squeezed out in the process.

Again. You are saying that because Company X can speak on the corner of Main and State Streets, their rights are not being violated when they are prevented from speaking on the Corner of Elm and Maple streets. Patently false.

There is no such guarantee of access to a specific forum to begin with. With the exception of going door to door, no company has been given unfettered access to anything. Any cable company, broadcast network, newspaper, magazine, trade publication has the right to refuse to sell the space to them.