How you define us corporations and foreign corporations ?
So called "strict constructionist" will go crazy if "liberal crack heads" want to give "constitutional" rights to foreign citizen living outside the country.
The crack heads blinded by ideology.
What next corporations have "right to bear arms" ? What next corporations have "right to .....blah blah " ?
The straw-child arguments trying to confuse * media organization ( part of free press) with corporations . * organization created with only for political purpose with corporations which has totally different objective and goals.
The court did the right thing. Their job is to uphold the laws of the land, most especially The Constitution, which plainly prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.
Perhaps God only granted inalienable rights to natural persons, but the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause is not written in a way which limits its applicability to any particular type of entity.
-Uwe-
----------
"Corona Virus will come and go, but government will NEVER forget how easy it was to take control of everyone's life; to control every sporting event, classroom, restaurant table, church p
Wis/Min, I know full well corps dont pay taxes. I was saying if corporations want to have individual rights we should give it to them and make them actual people. They can vote their one vote in whatever place they are incorporated, and pay income, payroll, and other taxes on their income just like joe sixpack. Then, if they don't want to be people anymore, they can lobby to get the definition changed so they aren't considered people anymore, and we can all move on. It was an ironic comment not meant to be taken seriously, not an actual call for higher taxes.
----------
The free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself
I think we are getting lost on this. You can see that Scalia was referencing that the corporation is a tool and that only certain tools were favored by Congress.
----------
Diversity + proximity = WAR
-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.
I have found myself disagreeing with a SCOTUS opinion in the past, only to read Scalia's opinion and suddenly realize my first assessment was obviously wrong.
One has to ask, despite the wrangling about corporations vs individuals, what did we really 'lose' here? McCain-Feingold didn't work. Period.
Corporations just circumvented the law, and in reality, made more efficient means of acquiring campaign funds with PACs and Committees and such and distributing the money amongst their anointed officials. All this did was obfuscate where the money was really coming from. The whole point of the legislation was therefore defeated....as is typical of what normally happens when rights are infringed. People have a way of finding a way around the infringement.
----------
"Obama is the dark-center of the anal fissure of a chancre infested, hemorrhoid laden asshole preparing to pucker and spew endless jets of diarrhea."--Chthonic
That was meant in a general sense, whether collectively or individually - people will find a way to circumvent infringements on freedom. It's human nature - and humans do run corporations.
----------
"Obama is the dark-center of the anal fissure of a chancre infested, hemorrhoid laden asshole preparing to pucker and spew endless jets of diarrhea."--Chthonic
Democrats are going to attempt to mitigate the effects of this decision via legislation.
There was an organized internet campaign yesterday to enlist Tea Party people, constitutionalists, independents and Republicans in the effort. Never seen anything like it. I post and monitor several dozen forums. Every single one was spammed by those expressing great alarm over the decision.
Genesis....I was surprised by your lead sentence in which you said you expected to get some flack for supporting SCOTUS. But you were right. You did.
To me, this decision was a no-brainer. No one loses their right to political speech because they incorporate. The right to assemble covers it.
How can you not like this scotus verdict? So ONLY the (documented ~80%) liberal media corporations should be able to give their political opinions in the final countdown days before an election, and no others?
Fuck, if a corporation has a lot of money, than it must be supported by a lot of people, one way or another (commerce, donations, etc.)...therefore I have no problem if their speech is "amplified" by those peoples' dollars, so to speak.
THE PROBLEM IS (1) WHEN GOV'T INTERFERES and (2) people are complacent.
Regarding (1), when people decide a corporation isn't worthy of their support ($$$), then that corp's loud voice gets quieted or shut-off alltogether...unless gov't interferes and props it up...cough-cough remember talks of gov't bailouts of certain newspapers? THAT'S complete bullshit and is a prime example of this problem.
(2) People get complacent, and ignore where their dollars are going (because, for example, they collectively allowed themselves to become smothered with the 2-income trap in the '70s and '80s, among other reasons)...and simply don't give much of a damn. But guess what. Eventually, when it just becomes TOO fucking much, they actually do give a damn -- and they do something about it...witness Massachusetts the other day. So, the "system" does work so long as it isn't fucked with (gov't bailouts), but maybe not on a timescale that everyone particularly likes.
I can't believe there's 12 fucking pages about this. TFers should know better.
----------
"I am a doofus and Belgium is my ultimate utopia. I hope to move there as soon as I can get the funds together. I will get along great with the elbow-rubbers of world government officials. Oh, and b
Here is Scalia's concurrence and rebuttal of the dissent:
But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today's opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion.
We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation.
Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the "inherent worth of the speech" and "its capacity for informing the public," First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
Democrats are going to attempt to mitigate the effects of this decision via legislation. There was an organized internet campaign yesterday to enlist Tea Party people, constitutionalists, independents and Republicans in the effort.
If this is where the Tea Party is headed, I'm done with that group as well.
Karl hit the nail on the head when he observed that to stand up for individual rights requires respect for the exercise of those rights even when the result is repugnant. If the Tea Party is prepared to abandon all principle and to ignore the rule of law in favor of short-term political gain, it's simply more of the same. . .
Originally I was in disagreement with Karl over this issue but after reading some of the arguments and little bit of thinking... unfortunately I have to resign myself in agreement.
But I still would like to see some corporations be given the death penalty... that's the 'or else' I'm looking for :)
This is not a question of individual free speech. It's about how freely money from corporate treasuries can be spent on political campaigns.
Yep .......Dont be fooled by its disguise as a constitutional issue, which it is definitely NOT. Its a play on straw child type arguments attached to a freedom amendment. Heads you lose, tails ... you also lose (as a citizen).
Were fucked....nothing new really
----------
Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov
It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble
Nothing that can be done about it now... this decision will most likely stand for the rest of our lives... its really about how we comes to term with it and find solutions to the greater issue of campaign finance laws (which Karl does address in the ticker to an extent.)
Scalia is losing his mind. There is a specific clause in the 1st amendment about freedom of the press. There is no specific clause about corporations in general.
If freedom of speech is so sancrosanct, why is it illegal to tell people en masse to take money out of a bank? Aaaaaaah yes, I see, the banks have the gold and the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules, applies here.
Money is now considered protected speech? What, is outdoor fucking on that list too or jerking off on the subway train? If money is free speech, then can I buy a slave or a prostitute? WTF is the logic here? They are essentially mixing up "speech" vs. "action". They are saying a bribe is protected speech.
(Listen up skeezicks, we'll finance your ad campaign since that is our "free speech" and by far the most expensive part of your campaign, you spend your goofy little donations on hookers and crank, just don't get caught ok? And remember who's in charge here. We made you and we can break you just as easy)
----------
Every strength is a weakness, and every weakness a strength. -- Me
Everything I write is my opinion and not to be considered proven fact. Nothing I write should be considered financial a
If freedom of speech is so sancrosanct, why is it illegal to tell people en masse to take money out of a bank? Aaaaaaah yes, I see, the banks have the gold and the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules, applies here.
It is?
Why am I not in jail?
Why is Ariana Huffington not in jail?
It is not illegal to tell people en-masse to take money out of a bank (that is, to boycott a bank or set of banks.) It is, however, illegal to incite a riot - which doing so in the lobby of the bank could reasonably be construed to occur.
I've heard this claim about it being illegal to tell people to take money out of a bank before. I have repeatedly asked for a cite. Nobody has provided me one anywhere in the US Code, and I can't find one either.
Show me.
----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Do you support Michael Moores free speech "documentaries" as legitimate while denying the free speech of the producers of "Hillary the Movie"?
I support neither. I have no opinion on "entertainment". I have the ability to formulate my own opinions on what is spin and what is fact.
Look, life today is no more than one big ass "infomercial" scam and ANYTHING that furthers that deception, Im against.
Your grouping of the "freedom of speech" argument is wasted on me. You can continue to deceive yourself if you want to, but the "Bullshit Flag" has been thrown
----------
Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov
It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble
RSS available
