Debate USSC decision on "Free Speech"

[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

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

Section IV of the majority opinion. The one in which they specifically say they arent striking down the disclosure laws and in which the dissent agreed with.

 

[Xenophon]

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).

If you had a half a clue you would wonder why it took so long to start over turning McCain feingold, an disaster if ever there was one.

Add to it the ruling only restores what we had for over 2 centuries and the pattern is clear:

You are either really stupid, completly clueless or trying to distract people.

Pick the one that fits you best.

 

[Contumacious]

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).

They are BOTH protected speech.

.

 

[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

Section IV of the majority opinion. The one in which they specifically say they arent striking down the disclosure laws and in which the dissent agreed with.

Provide a page number.

 

[PixieStix]

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.

I choose not to waste my time on lefty spin.

No one called you a name, just stating that the thread is stupid, does not equate to name calling. But if you want to spin it that way, go for it

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I choose not to waste my time on lefty spin.

No one called you a name, just stating that the thread is stupid, does not equate to name calling. But if you want to spin it that way, go for it

If that's what you believe then I suppose you're stupid and shouldn't be held to account.

 

[Ragnar]

It was a nice win but it did not go far enough IMO. See...
A cautionary note on Citizens United
Power Line - A cautionary note on Citizens United

The best way to counter speech you don't agree with is with more speech. As far as I'm concerned campaign finance should not be regulated at all. (except for required disclosure)

 

[Wry Catcher]

It was a nice win but it did not go far enough IMO. See...
A cautionary note on Citizens United
Power Line - A cautionary note on Citizens United

The best way to counter speech you don't agree with is with more speech. As far as I'm concerned campaign finance should not be regulated at all. (except for required disclosure)

It is not about speech, it's about money. All of us, even those who simply parrot the propaganda of Limbaugh and other Republican demagogues have the right to express their emotions as opinions. To argue it's about freedom of speech is simply a canard; 'speech' is expressed in many different ways, and can be surpressed in many ways too.
To equate the voice of Murdock with that of Wry Catcher is abusrd, one has the power of the press, radio and TV and employs hundreds of persons to do his bidding; the other is one person, limited to the internet and one-on-one debate.
The decision of the USSC, as they have many times, is couched in legalese and demagoguery, for the Justices of the Supreme Court are human beings, and as such are inbued with bias and partisan prejudices as are all of their kind. CU v. FEC is partisanship of the highest order, and there is no greater evidence than this: 5 to 4.

 

[The Rabbi]

It was a nice win but it did not go far enough IMO. See...
A cautionary note on Citizens United
Power Line - A cautionary note on Citizens United

The best way to counter speech you don't agree with is with more speech. As far as I'm concerned campaign finance should not be regulated at all. (except for required disclosure)

It is not about speech, it's about money. All of us, even those who simply parrot the propaganda of Limbaugh and other Republican demagogues have the right to express their emotions as opinions. To argue it's about freedom of speech is simply a canard; 'speech' is expressed in many different ways, and can be surpressed in many ways too.
To equate the voice of Murdock with that of Wry Catcher is abusrd, one has the power of the press, radio and TV and employs hundreds of persons to do his bidding; the other is one person, limited to the internet and one-on-one debate.
The decision of the USSC, as they have many times, is couched in legalese and demagoguery, for the Justices of the Supreme Court are human beings, and as such are inbued with bias and partisan prejudices as are all of their kind. CU v. FEC is partisanship of the highest order, and there is no greater evidence than this: 5 to 4.

You have not only contradicted yourself in your own post, but given excellent reasons why the ruling is correct.
Yes, you are only one person. But if you banded together with others ofa like mind and pitched in some money you could publish a book outlining your views.
Prior to this decision the gov't might have the power to suppress such a book. Now they cannot.
Another victory for freedom!

 

[editec]

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).

This is a diaster for democracy.

But since our masters hate the people, it's a boon for corruption in every capital in this nation.

 

[goldcatt]

It was a nice win but it did not go far enough IMO. See...
A cautionary note on Citizens United
Power Line - A cautionary note on Citizens United

The best way to counter speech you don't agree with is with more speech. As far as I'm concerned campaign finance should not be regulated at all. (except for required disclosure)

It is not about speech, it's about money. All of us, even those who simply parrot the propaganda of Limbaugh and other Republican demagogues have the right to express their emotions as opinions. To argue it's about freedom of speech is simply a canard; 'speech' is expressed in many different ways, and can be surpressed in many ways too.
To equate the voice of Murdock with that of Wry Catcher is abusrd, one has the power of the press, radio and TV and employs hundreds of persons to do his bidding; the other is one person, limited to the internet and one-on-one debate.
The decision of the USSC, as they have many times, is couched in legalese and demagoguery, for the Justices of the Supreme Court are human beings, and as such are inbued with bias and partisan prejudices as are all of their kind. CU v. FEC is partisanship of the highest order, and there is no greater evidence than this: 5 to 4.

You have not only contradicted yourself in your own post, but given excellent reasons why the ruling is correct.
Yes, you are only one person. But if you banded together with others ofa like mind and pitched in some money you could publish a book outlining your views.
Prior to this decision the gov't might have the power to suppress such a book. Now they cannot.
Another victory for freedom!

If the decision ended there, it would not be a problem. Associations of citizens formed for the express purpose of speech have long had a niche carved out for them. So has the corporate right to speak in a commerical sense, as when publishing and distributing a book or film in the ordinary course of business whether political in nature or not. McCain-Feingold was a bad law and needed to be overturned. Not many people in the know are arguing that point. But it could have been overturned on already existing grounds. The Justices in the majority took an overly broad, radical approach where it was neither necessary nor advisable to do so. Principles of Constitutional originalism aside, which this decision violates on every precept BTW, that is what so many have a problem with.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where are corporations mentioned in the Constitution?
I don't understand how the democracy is strengthened by restricting rights of free speech for anyone.

 

[goldcatt]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

Frank, sometimes one small question can refute a whole bunch of bull. That was your question. Thanks. You are one stand up guy.
Take that, Goldcatt

 

[goldcatt]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

You're also resorting to the last refuge of the ignorant and spoon fed, I see. Freedom of the Press is a separate First Amendment clause, right, rationale and jurisprudence from that of speech and if you had done any independent research whatsoever you would know it. And the corporation itself, divorced from its product, is no different from any other and enjoys no special rights. Same goes for News Corp or any other corporate owner of a press or media outlet.

 

[goldcatt]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

Frank, sometimes one small question can refute a whole bunch of bull. That was your question. Thanks. You are one stand up guy.
Take that, Goldcatt

My question still stands unanswered, "bull" or no. Why do you support a decision that counters all four tenets of Originalist interpretation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you include corporations in "We, the People"? Why? I'll tell you why I do not.

The Framers did not view corporations as people nor did they intend free speech to include them (see esp. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson). Neither did the Natural Law philosophers. Nor did the contemporary common law (see esp. Blackstone). Nor does the First Amendment in its plain language restrict Congress from abridging the rights of Associations, only the right of the People to so assemble - nor does the Fourteenth describe a citizen as one "incorporated" or "created", only born or naturalized. By all four accepted measures of Originalism, the decision fails.

So why do you support a decision that states otherwise?

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

You're also resorting to the last refuge of the ignorant and spoon fed, I see. Freedom of the Press is a separate First Amendment clause, right, rationale and jurisprudence from that of speech and if you had done any independent research whatsoever you would know it. And the corporation itself, divorced from its product, is no different from any other and enjoys no special rights. Same goes for News Corp or any other corporate owner of a press or media outlet.

Pathetic. Resorting to your faux "superiority"

The wording of the First Amendment lists Speech first, ahead of Press, which is listed almost as an afterthought so the Amendment reads essentially "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" so, it simply cannot be made any clearer.

Also your premise of divorcing the product from the Company is laughable, do you think that the freedom of speech or press refers only to the Articles of Incorporation or to the neat little book you get with the company seal when you incorporate?

News Corp, GE, Walt Disney and NY Times Company should enjoy their rights NO LESS THAN ANY OTHER COMPANY!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh my God... we now have liberals citing original intent? They have truly become unhinged.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

Frank, sometimes one small question can refute a whole bunch of bull. That was your question. Thanks. You are one stand up guy.
Take that, Goldcatt

My question still stands unanswered, "bull" or no. Why do you support a decision that counters all four tenets of Originalist interpretation?

Because the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." What part of that do you not understand?