The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Read Message in The Market Ticker
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie Logout
Page 15 of 16  First111213141516Last
 Freedom Of Speech: How Quaint
Eleua 23k posts, incept 2007-07-05

Let me turn this on its head.


I want to know from those that are all apoplectic about this ruling why this is bad, and why the previous law of certain "favored" corporations having unfettered access to the political debate, while stifling dissent, was good?


----------
Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.
Mrbill 8k posts, incept 2008-10-19

Alcohol ads aren't banned on TV. Also, I don't support the ban on cigarette ads, so as not to be inconsistent. They can advertise on almost every other medium, seems like a lawsuit the smoking companies could win, but can't afford in the realm of public image (rightfully so, come on, they all appeal to kids).

Also, I believe that if Congress repealed or lost a court challenge to that ban, that groups of people would successfully apply boycott-like pressures on TV stations to keep the ads off the air for those stations children watch. Maybe even more broadly, although "do it for the children" would be the strongest motivator.
Widgeon 13k posts, incept 2007-08-30

In my case, opposition to this ruling does not indicate agreement w/ the prior condition.

Uwe 10k posts, incept 2009-01-03

Hugodyson wrote..
The right to free speech is not an absolute principle.


The right to free speech in a political context is an absolute principle.

-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
Eleua 23k posts, incept 2007-07-05

Eleua wrote..

I want to know from those that are all apoplectic about this ruling why this is bad, and why the previous law of certain "favored" corporations having unfettered access to the political debate, while stifling dissent, was good?


----------
Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.
Bozonian 20k posts, incept 2007-09-01

I can't find one either!

But the essential point is, not all forms of speech are protected. And certainly the consequences of your speech are actionable. If you tell people to kill someone, and they do, murder for hire. If you yell "fire" in a movie theater, inciting a riot, and people die, oops.

This is an example where regulation is needed. Like the mortgage brokers who had to commit fraud because no one was prosecuting it and they had to keep up with their competition, Congress members have to continually do back door deals to compete. I would hope that collectively they'd like to remove that aspect of the game and settle down to doing what they are supposed to be doing, making good laws. You need an umpire in the game to prevent it from descending into chaos and the law of the jungle.

What is needed here is a constitutional amendment. Although we've seen in the past how every "solution" brings about new problems. Without corporate support the rabble (who will always vote for free money from the government) will rule.



----------
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

Pabloescobar 6k posts, incept 2008-04-23

I'm with Widge.

The prior condition is/was an obomination. With this ruling, the obomination just went exponential.

I today, cannot run for congress, cannot protest a public policy, cannot declare in an airport my views of TSA without breaking laws and incuring fines and expenses.

Someone please tell me how that is "Free Speech"?

My Ass. Speech isn't free anymore. It costs. Big Bucks.

----------
Sybdragon 412 posts, incept 2008-10-02

to quote MrBill.... *No one can restrain Wal-Mart from offering to buy all the land in the country, but, I believe I have a right to not sell them anything I don't want to. Further, they can own everything, but they still don't vote and can't "rule" anything.*

Not true anymore. Walmart has successfully, along with other corporations, got towns to use Eminent Domain laws to seize the land of people that would not sell to them. Google it. Was a big deal. Up in the Northeast, Penn. or NY that some company got the land taken away by this and that plant is now closed.

The reasoning was that Walmart or whatever corp. would bring in jobs and money and be good for the area. And these few holdouts that were not selling at any price just deserved to get their property stolen, abet legally through the court system. Yep.... Money talked and bullshit walked and the people are the bullshit here.... I know of at least these 2 cases in the last few years and because of the Walmart case... Lots of states tighted up their eminent domain laws.

If we are going back to *intent*... Only property owners can vote. And I mean outright own, not mortgage debt, land...... But that's another angle on this discussion and corporations, being made people and owning property... Well, the vote is next, no amendment needed. smiley

Furthermore... If you don't think Walmart *rules*.... Ask some of their suppliers about them. Or even their workers on the public dole. How nice we are subsidizing them. All known facts... smiley I try to NOT shop walmart at all. Shitty company they are........
Uwe 10k posts, incept 2009-01-03

Quote:
Walmart has successfully, along with other corporations, got towns to use Eminent Domain laws to seize the land of people that would not sell to them.


Although the Kelo decision does unfortunately allow that, after Googling, I cannot find a single case where Walmart ended up with property after said property had been taken by eminent domain. So if you're going to make this claim, please provide substantiation -- at least one specific example.

-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
Sondergaard 722 posts, incept 2007-07-13

People who argue against the SCOTUS decision say that a flood of advertising money from corporations, unions, and foreign governments will unavoidably sway elections against the best interest of the citizenry.

The most common response is to call these people elitists because they seem to regard their fellow citizens as easily manipulated sheep.

Bad news: propaganda works.

Propaganda works because people ARE easily manipulated sheep. Lest someone call me an elitist, I will acknowledge that I too am an easily manipulated sheep. Too much of the time I hear only what I want to hear and believe only what I want to believe. I call this "freedom" but it is in fact bondage, bondage to my own limited mental constructs about the world. Bondage that can easily be leveraged into action by someone who finds the right words to say to me.

The question is not, is it constitutional to regulate political speech. Plainly it is not. The question is rather, how can we as a people combat propaganda without becoming propagandists ourselves? I fear there is no law that can accomplish this.

----------
I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles - such are promises, all lies and jest - still, the man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. --Simon & Garfunkel,
Eaglewwit 6k posts, incept 2007-11-30

Deep, Sondergaard.
Wis/min 5k posts, incept 2009-08-14

Quote:
I today, cannot run for congress, cannot protest a public policy, cannot declare in an airport my views of TSA without breaking laws and incuring fines and expenses.

Someone please tell me how that is "Free Speech"?
Please expand and explain further.

Cite law as well.
Widgeon 13k posts, incept 2007-08-30

Freedom of Political Speech is NOT Absolute ...

Ask Emma Goldman or the Kent State 4.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just that it is historically untrue.
Pabloescobar 6k posts, incept 2008-04-23

Uwe, I googled "walmart eminent domain and found this on the second link"

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles....

Quote:
Cities Use Eminent Domain To Clear Lots for Big-Box Stores
Small business owners often the victims of corporate power

Print-friendly Page By Dean Starkman
First published by the Wall St. Journal, Dec. 8, 2004

Big-box retailers have a message for local landowners: Move.

And the command has the force of law, much to the dismay of Darrell M. Trent, a part-time developer in Pittsburg, Kan. Mr. Trent thought he scored a coup this year when he leased part of a seven-acre parcel his family had owned since the 1960s to a local plumbing supplier.

But the city took the property this spring through its powers of eminent domain and handed it to a developer with a different tenant: Home Depot Inc.

Says Mr. Trent: "After having carried it all this time, for them to step in and take it away from me -- it really denies me my corporate livelihood," Mr. Trent says.

Desperate for tax revenue, cities and towns across the country now routinely take property from unwilling sellers to make way for big-box retailers. Condemnation cases aren't tracked nationally, but even retailers themselves acknowledge that the explosive growth of the format in the 1990s and torrid competition for land has increasingly pushed them into increasingly problematic areas -- including sites owned by other people.

The village of Port Chester, N.Y., is clearing an entire business district -- including a marina, a housewares importer, an antiques store and several other businesses -- to make way for Costco Wholesale Corp., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and others. Costco took over another site after the city of Cypress, Calif., condemned a vacant lot as a "public nuisance" to stop a Christian group from building a religious center there. After a public uproar, the city found another site for the church, which says it is satisfied with the ultimate outcome.

The township of North Bergen, N.J., moved to condemn a store in a shopping center occupied by Kmart Holding Corp. in favor of a developer who plans another Home Depot. When the city of Maplewood, Mo., invited retailers to compete for a chunk of choice land, developers for Costco and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fought a nasty legal and political battle. Wal-Mart's developer won -- and 150 homes and businesses were condemned.

Next spring, Costco will face its second shareholder resolution in two years asking the company to "adopt a policy for land procurement and use that incorporates social and environmental factors," particularly, the wishes of local property owners and community groups. The resolution was brought by Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc., New York, which says its concerns include "reputational risk" from eminent-domain use. "If the company continues to operate in this manner, with the amount of publicity and protests, this could end up impacting shareholder value," says Julie Tanner, a Christian Brothers spokeswoman.

Property-rights advocates say the use of condemnation for big boxes is an abuse of government power that subsidizes big retailers at original landowners' expense. "They're the new generation of robber barons, like the railroads of the 19th century" says Gideon Kanner, a professor emeritus at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. "They look upon this as the new way of doing business."

The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions allow the government to take private property, with compensation, for a "public use." But courts over the years have allowed cities and towns to stretch the definition to include economic-development projects, on the principle that one private owner can better create jobs and increase tax revenue than another.

Retailers say they're doing nothing wrong. Costco, based in Issaquah, Wash., is the most outspoken of the big retailers in defense of the practice. In a candid letter to a concerned shareholder two years ago, the company's senior vice president for legal and administrative affairs, Joel Benoliel, acknowledged that "probably dozens" of its projects involved eminent domain "or the threat of it." He wrote that if Costco didn't do the deals, "our competitors for those sites, like Target, Home Depot, Kmart, Wal-Mart, BJ's, Sam's Club and many others, would ... and our shareholders would be the losers."

Mr. Benoliel says the practice doesn't violate laws or any rules of the free-market economy and rejects as "simplistic" libertarian arguments that condemnations should be confined, as some property-rights advocates argue, to roads, bridges and purely public uses. He says communities, balancing their fiscal needs against the rights of a few, often clamor for a Costco store. "We are viewed as a solution to a problem," he says.

Whether condemnees get full value for their property is a matter of bitter debate. Property owners invariably complain they are strong-armed into accepting low-ball offers. In New York's Port Chester, a working-class city on Long Island Sound, developer Bart Didden says that village redevelopment officials this year offered him $250,000 for a lot that a separate local taxing authority assessed last year at $560,000. He is challenging the village's condemnation in federal court in White Plains, N.Y.

John Watkins, a special counsel for the village, says all offers were based on "highest approved appraisals," as required by state law. He says he understands Mr. Didden's reaction, but adds that tax assessments and appraisals serve different functions -- "apples and oranges," as he puts it.

Also in Port Chester, property owners and tenants alleged in several suits filed since 2000 in state court in White Plains, N.Y., that G&S LLC, the town-appointed developers, tried to prod them into settling pending condemnation suits by, among other things, removing sidewalks in front of a restaurant and filling its parking lot with rubble; tearing out street lights around an antiques store and shearing off the roof of a still-operating coin laundry.

Doug Riley, a partner with closely held G&S, Port Chester, says the allegations are both untrue and "100% frivolous." He says that under its agreement with the town, the firm was required to proceed with the project, while working around certain properties still the subject of litigation. "We were proceeding in due course with the project as we were required to do by the village," he says. Suits involving the restaurant, the antiques store and laundry are pending.

Lately, cities' power to condemn property has come under increased legal scrutiny. In August, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a landmark 1981 ruling, widely cited by other states, that effectively barred condemnations for purely economic purposes in that state.

Then, in September, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a suit brought on behalf of New London, Conn., property owners challenging the city's plan to clear nonblighted homes and businesses to make way for an office-and-research park. The case, brought by Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., property-rights law firm, is the first the high court has heard on economic-development condemnations since the 1950s.

Last year, a federal judge sharply criticized Target Corp. for its role in a condemnation of a St. Louis site. The case began after Target, which was already renting a store on the site, asked its landlord for permission to knock down the store and build a larger one. When the landlord asked for higher rent, Target never called back and turned to a local alderman, who started condemnation proceedings, according to an opinion by Judge Charles A. Shaw in U.S. District Court, St. Louis.

Judge Shaw also found that Target "falsely" threatened the city that it would abandon the store if the condemnation didn't take place. He also found that the Minneapolis retailer and the city commissioned a "blighting study" that found the store's electrical and heating systems had indeed deteriorated -- but failed to note that Target itself was responsible under the lease for keeping the systems up. Finally, the judge found, when the city scheduled a public hearing on the condemnation, in November 2002, it sent notice to Target, but not to the landlord -- a trust representing the Aaron family of New York and others -- which didn't learn of the hearing until a month later.

Judge Shaw issued a temporary order halting the taking. Earlier this year, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the order, ruling the case should have been heard in state court. Edward M. Goldenhersh, a St. Louis lawyer for the landlord said the family was disappointed with the appeals-court ruling because the court "ducked the issue." The two sides settled afterward.

A Target spokeswoman declined to comment. A spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay didn't return telephone calls.

Mr. Trent, the Kansan, had a special hardship fighting his case: When it was filed, he was serving as a U.S. ambassador with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. He says the case began after he rejected a "low-ball" offer from Home Depot's developer, then flew to Baghdad. His lawyer tried to fend off the taking, but a state court in Pittsburg let it go forward this spring. Mr. Trent is challenging the compensation. That case is pending.

Allen Gill, Pittsburg's city manager, says Mr. Trent was well compensated, receiving more than $1 million for his property -- a large sum for rural Kansas. He also says Mr. Trent and another owner's opposition blocked a badly needed project that has already sparked other development in town.

"Does the greater good outweigh the inconvenience to the two?" Mr. Gill asks.

In a statement, Atlanta-based Home Depot said the project would bring "good paying jobs and economic development," adding that "the City of Pittsburg identified this site as an area in need of redevelopment, and the Home Depot was receptive to working with the developer who was negotiating with the city."

2004 Dow Jones and Company

----------
Pabloescobar 6k posts, incept 2008-04-23

Wis/min...

Credit to Bezzle.... Definintely worth the 7 minutes to watch this ABC report

This is the run for congress / have a protest....


----------
Mrbill 8k posts, incept 2008-10-19

Wal-Mart doesn't take the property, the elected officials do, under one of the truly poor Supreme Court rulings. And they did that during the McCain-Feingold era. So, the problem wasn't campaign finance reform, the problem was that the Kelo decision was truly one of the worst ever.

So, protecting property means reversing Kelo, not restoring McCain-Feingold or anything stronger in the same vein.
Mrbill 8k posts, incept 2008-10-19

Pablo, does that video affect the opinion you had a few posts above? I found it convincing.

I ask not expecting a change, but if it did, then I would recommend it to my friends who feel like you did a few posts above.

Pabloescobar 6k posts, incept 2008-04-23

Mr. Bill,

I'm not sure what post you refer to. I believe the SOCTUS was wrong and that congress has been perverted by campaign cash, regardless of source.

SCOTUS could have found that not only corps cannot influence elections, neither can other artificial groups such as unions, non profits, and PACs.

Two wrongs don't make it right. Sometimes, it makes it much much worse.....

The video, in my opinion, proves my point. That the deck is stacked, that freedom of speech is a chimera, and we (the American people) are locked out or influencing the direction of our country.

----------
Mrbill 8k posts, incept 2008-10-19

Sad. I thought the American people just influenced the direction of the country pretty well last week. Eventually people see through the BS, regardless of who pays to spew it.
Widgeon 13k posts, incept 2007-08-30

Oh Great, we get to "influence" the timing of a little decision every few years while the banksters and their friends walk away w/ everything.

I know I said I was done posting here but the "blinders" that people have on are just beyond my comprehension. It is so frustrating the partisanship that leaks out on issues like this. Otherwise intelligent libertarians arguing that speech = money when the Constitution clearly says speech (the this genesis of this "confusion" was Corporatist Propaganda from 130 years ago); confusing Freedom of Speech w/ Freedom of the Press when the Constitution clearly treats each seperately, saying that Freedom of Speech means that the words have freedom but the speaker does not. WTF.

Mrbill 8k posts, incept 2008-10-19

Disclosure >>>> Trying to restrict groups of people. People are the only things that speak, I've never had Washington talk to me from a $1 bill. I just want to know who is speaking.

Who is Ellie Light?

Pabloescobar 6k posts, incept 2008-04-23

Widge, just as I can reconcile myself being a libertarian AND not wanting massive amounts of money to influence .gov.

The problem with a "pure" free speech solution, is that purity assumes an equal distribution of talent and resources. As Gen has pointed out, life is not fair, and there is no such thing as equal distribution.

A good example is monopoly behavior. Should we allow monopolies to exist and flourish for the common good or should their be some sort of collar on such behavior?

Why should we be concerned about a monopoly developing, in say telephones, and not a monopoly developing in say, purchased congressman?

A true "free speech/free market" purist would say Yeah, have at it! It isn't the .gov's responsiblity to police "monopolies".

I say that, without shame as a Libertarian, that sometimes there IS valid reasons for .gov to interrupt and impose. However, as we have all seen, just a little bit of nose under the tent can make the camel try to go all the way.

I find it sad that the level of holding two conflicting belief systems here on TF is possible.

For example, some posters howl at the thought of a .gov monopoly on health care, yet the same poster has no problem with the thought of a .corp monopoly on political discourse.

In reality, the real issues are cloaked by the trees and the forests and the disagreements of where one changes into another.

Complex thoughts and good times!

----------
Uwe 10k posts, incept 2009-01-03

Widgeon wrote..
Freedom of Political Speech is NOT Absolute ...

Ask Emma Goldman or the Kent State 4.


Just because you can find instances where government has violated rights does not mean they don't exist, or even that it wouldn't be recognize by the SCOTUS if it went that high.

-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
Gmf56 207 posts, incept 2008-10-30

Quote:
natural rights are not bestowed


Indeed they are and corporations are not natural entities of any kind, so how do they have any natural rights?
Uwe 10k posts, incept 2009-01-03

Forget the question of natural rights; it is irrelevant. The Constitution can (and in this case does) convey legal rights. Ask yourself whether you want the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution or not. If you do, then then they made the right decision in this case.

If you don't like the fact that the Constitution conveys the right of free speech to artificial entities such as corporations, then you should start a movement to amend it; just like the folks who don't like the fact that it guarantees the right to keep arms to individuals.

-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
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 15 of 16  First111213141516Last