Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
The first amendment says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
It does not say only the people have the right to free speech. If the founders only meant for people to have free speech rights they would've clarified like in the second
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
or elsewhere in the first
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
Notice they specify right of the people for those rights and yet they only talk about a general right to free speech.
So the idea that it was only meant for individuals is not backed up by the language of the amendment.
Anyway corporations not having free speech would be a dangerous precedent.
Think about it. Every TV channel and most newspapers either are a corporation or are run by one. What would happen if they didn't have any free speech?
As for the idea that campaign contributions are not speech, I disagree. If I donate money to someone or something that's a show of support, it's saying 'I support you so much I'm willing to give up X dollars to support your cause'.
Besides the law didn't work that well anyway
[youtube]8Pu6cT6ICQQ[/youtube]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
It does not say only the people have the right to free speech. If the founders only meant for people to have free speech rights they would've clarified like in the second
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
or elsewhere in the first
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
Notice they specify right of the people for those rights and yet they only talk about a general right to free speech.
So the idea that it was only meant for individuals is not backed up by the language of the amendment.
Anyway corporations not having free speech would be a dangerous precedent.
Think about it. Every TV channel and most newspapers either are a corporation or are run by one. What would happen if they didn't have any free speech?
As for the idea that campaign contributions are not speech, I disagree. If I donate money to someone or something that's a show of support, it's saying 'I support you so much I'm willing to give up X dollars to support your cause'.
Besides the law didn't work that well anyway
[youtube]8Pu6cT6ICQQ[/youtube]
Last edited:
