Quote:

If 'they' can reduce it to writing they can say what they want. Broadcast media is not "the Press" as envisaged by the Founders.

If you say it, it's speech. And speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Quote:

Again, the Written Word is Protected ... Broadcast is not.

Maybe the internet isn't either. Afterall, the FF's didn;t "envisage" computers and the internet either, right? The written word envisaged by the FF's was ink to paper, not digital ink, so is ink to paper the only Press that is allowed?

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Widgeon,

Would you also limit the "press" to only the technology of the day and delivery of said "press" by horse drawn cart?

Quote:

"the Press" is referring to material produced by Printing Presses; the written word.

Can the gov't Constitutionally shut down the NY Times website if it disagrees with what they say? Are you saying Freedom of the Press does not apply to Newspapers' websites?

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Good day Gen. Did you wake up with a bit if malaise, due to a wonderful evening meal, and/or a bit of tedium and decide to start and intellectual forest fire?

Joe-Bob wrote:

Quote:

---The question isn't do you believe in free speech, but do you believe that corporate entities should be given the privileges of citizenship (by we the PEOPLE) and therefore the right to free speech.

These entities are autocratic hierarchies. By their very nature, they have no reason to be friendly to democracy or republic.---

Spot on.

From Bear:

Quote:

---The founding fathers would be ashamed of you people, just listen to yourselves freely admitting you have no more freedom of speech rights as a citizen and human being, than a fucking carburetor does......Wake the FUCK up clowns.---

I hear ya.

Prior to 1886 corporations were treated like other forms of human association, churches, small businesses, unions, etc. They had no RIGHTS ONLY PRIVILEGES granted to them by "We The People". The living breathing people were the exclusive holders of human rights. So far so good.

The next point makes me wonder if democracy worked any better 124 years ago than it does today. In 1886 in the case of Santa Clara County vs. So. Pacific RR, a reporter of the SCOTUS, added a specious headnote to the ruling saying that corporations should be considered PERSONS, and have access to the Bill of Rights which the founding fathers payed dearly for so that only humans could have said Rights. From this point on corporations began to act as if the headnote was the ruling and demanded human rights. Incredible.

Quote:

--- Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.---

David Korten

And the following conundrum promulgates further confusion:

Quote:

--- The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders?---

David Korten's THE POST CORPORATE WORLD, LIFE AFTER CAPITALISM

IMHO the corporate structure is a perfect hiding place for the debauchery of its executives, and the intrepid masters of the universe proclaim I did not do it the corporation did, and we will defend the corporation to the fullest extend of the law, and if the corporation is found to have an illegal level of turpitude(despite its human rights)we will pay a fine out of shareholder earnings without an admission of guilt. IMO this a partially why there has been so much looting and so little prosecuting.

As others have so eloquently pointed out if corporate directors, executives, and employees want to provide contributions or express their freedom of speech have at it, but not some malfeasant cacophony coming from some crap Articles of Incorporation.

Having said that apologizes to all for not using this valuable time to rather sit in the office of my non-elected Senator peppering him with the salient/trenchant questions regarding the financial/ debt/job/Fed issues of OUR TIME.

Kudos Bear----we have freedom of speech not some fuc**** carburetor.

----------

Civilization was nice. K. Denninger

Never comply. Never forget. Never forgive.

No ... the Written Word. Your attempts to complicate what is a simple issue evidence the error of your foundational thinking (IMHO).

The Constitution was written to be quickly and easily understood by any citizen. These were simply non-debatable facts that were INSTANTLY recognizeable and understood. Any explanation that requires mental gymnastics to complete ought to be considered (significantly) in doubt.

Quote:

Thus a literal interpretation of the 1st would give states free reign to act as they saw fit to regulate speech.

They already do. I have to get a permit if I want to hold a Tea Party.

----------

@Widgeon,

Do you want to apply that "Broadcast media is not "the Press" as envisaged by the Founders" argument to other parts of the USC?

Careful what you wish for.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.

Newspapers ARE the written word and are EXACTLY Equivalent to "the Press."

IMHO, websites ARE the written word and are functionally equivalent to "the Press" as the Founders would recognize it. However, THAT'S MY OPINION.

Quote:

No ... the Written Word.

I'm reading your "written word"

Quote:

The Constitution was written to be quickly and easily understood by any citizen.

Yes it was and the first amendment is clear as a bell.

"no abridgment of free speech"

Widgeon, I'm not complcating anything. Your interpretation of Freedom of the Press says the FF's didn;t envisage broadcast media, so it's not protected. Well, they didn;t envisage computers either. So how do we extend 1 A. protections to newspapers' websites? You said "envisage," not me.

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Haven't read the posts yet, so maybe this has already been addressed, or maybe I've misunderstood:

I really disagree with the "not being able to contribute to a political campaign if you're not residing in that state".

US Congressmen and women effect us all, no matter where we live.

If people want to pile on to support Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer's, etc. opponents then I am all for it.

I'm pretty sure that's what helped propel Brown into the public eye, donations from outside of MA.

Did I misunderstand the message?

Quote:

They already do. I have to get a permit if I want to hold a Tea Party.

But can states limit corporate speech under thus ruling?

Right on bustedbuck. This all comes back to that fateful 1886 case. They need to address that first and then revisit the current decision. If they are going to continue to treat corps as citizens, then the ruling is correct.

Don't limit free speech of the citizens, just don't treat corps the same.

Eleua,

I don't understand what you're referencing; all aspects of the United States Code w/ regard to "Broadcast Media?" I'm sure you have something specific in mind.

There are many interesting alley's, etc. in this entire discussion ... many of which cannot be given anything close to the attention they deserve on a Message Board.

Quote:

IMHO, websites ARE the written word and are functionally equivalent to "the Press" as the Founders would recognize it. However, THAT'S MY OPINION.

Well thankfully the courts today also have that opinion.

Just b/c the FF's didn't envisage TV or computers doesn't mean the 1st Amend. doesn't protect them. You acknowledge that with regards to websites but not Broadcast TV. Thankfully I think you would be hard-pressed to find any judge, Conservative OR Liberal, that would agree with you on that one.

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Quote:

Don't limit free speech of the citizens, just don't treat corps the same.

So it's fine for George Soros to give billions to attack the right but not the Corps that are under constant attack from the left?

I say stick with what the constitution and amendments say.

Wis/min,

No Abridgement of Free Speech ... which is Self Evidently Referring to Words Spoken by People ... not Corporations ... and is clearly referring to WORDS not Money.



Edit: Not be personal, but by the view you are supporting, King George could have just purchased all the assets in the Nation and ruled as a tyrant "legally" and protected by the "Constitution." Obviously, the Founders wouldn't have gone for that either.

I think we've reached the limits of what can be done on a Message Board.

Wis/min,

Why are obscene and hate speech are regulated then? Why no tobacco ads on radio or tv? "no abridgement of free speech" yet these are regulated. No one can answer this and keep using the absurd arguement you are using. Obviously the amendment is not absolute yet you keep portraying it to be. Utterly ridiculous.

Quote:

Why are obscene and hate speech are regulated then? "no abridgement of free speech" yet these are regulated. No one can answer this and keep using the absurd arguement you are using. Obviously the amendment is not absolute yet you keep portraying it to be. Utterly ridiculous.

You have the absolute right to freedom of speech.

That right does not absolve you for responsibility that flows from your speech.

You are confusing prior restraint with punishment (after the fact) for unlawful conduct.

It is not illegal for me to say "I hate <the N-word>."

If I do so while beating a black man I am subject to an enhanced penalty for my conduct.

I can speak it all I want, but that does not absolve me of the responsibility for my words.

----------

There is no absolute right to freedom of speech if you are going to be punished for saying something or if government forces you to censor certain words, etc. To say otherwise is like saying there is absolute freedom of speech in North Korea. Sure there is as long as you don't get caught.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'm one of the biggest libertarians and I still think this is a mistake and will have consequences down the road.

Quote:

There is no absolute right to freedom of speech if you are going to be punished for saying something or if government forces you to censor certain words, etc.

The government does not force me to censor certain words.

I can say "fuck" all I want. Oops - I just did.

On public airwaves there are some constraints - but that's not a private medium. If I want to print "fuck" in a newspaper I can. Hustler has printed lots of "fuck" (figuratively of course.)

Note that "obscenity laws" are state and local community standards. I disagree with them (and argue that incorporation makes such laws illegal), but they're not Congressional actions in any event.

Again, "hate speech" as mere speech is not punishable - at least not here in the US. Don't try it in most of Europe.

----------

Widge wrote:

Quote:

I Vehemently DENY that Corporations, etc. have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS which I Assert are clearly reserved for Living/Breathing Citizens.

Amen to that and especially the way it happened.

From Eagle:

Quote:

---This all comes back to that fateful 1886 case. They need to address that first and then revisit the current decision. If they are going to continue to treat corps as citizens, then the ruling is correct.---

Yes---this piles on the confusion and creates the dissonance.

----------

Civilization was nice. K. Denninger

Never comply. Never forget. Never forgive.

Quote:

I think we've reached the limits of what can be done on a Message Board

I agree as we are going around the circle for the umpteenth time.

A corporation, although made up of individuals, is a seperate legal enity with a seperate legal identity. One can not be consistent and argue "it is just a group of individuals" when they also acknowledge the benefit of incorporating is to gain advantages a group of unincorporated individuals do not have. Why? B/c the minute they start with the advantages of incorporation, they are ceding their "group of individuals" sought a different identity. Thus taking the stand a corp has the same constitutional rights as a "group of individuals" in one case, the right to free speech, but OTH saying the individuals themselves are shielded in their "group of individuals" when it comes to accountability/taxes/bankruptcy, is hypocrisy.

Second. The intended purpose of all political contributions is to swing/decide representation of the individuals who the constitution affords the right of representation to. Whoever wins the vote and will be the actual constitutional "representation" is solely determined by those who have a constitutional right to vote -- individuals NOT by "a group of individuals" who the courts have granted "personhood" to. Corps currently are not given the right of representation under the constitution. Them NOT qualifying for representation is undebateable as they do not have the right to vote.
Seeings they do not even qualify for representation, why do people argue they even have any constitutional rights let alone the right to seek/sway representation?
If they are not as an entity even granted one of the most basic rights of the constitution, the power to vote, and they are not screaming their "group of individuals" is not being afforded equal protection, why are they as an enity afforded any other constitutional rights at all, ie the right to free speech? How does one pick and choose what individual rights they do have when the individuals are in "group" identity vs personal identity and weigh that against the absence of accountability the individuals have while in "group" legal status? Guns/no guns, speech/no speech, right to privacy/no right to privacy, protected from unreasonable search/not protected, equal protection/no equal protection, vote/no vote?
Why the pick and choose when it comes to constitutional rights?

Thus logic behind a corporation being "a group of individuals" is a hole ridden "have your cake and eat it too" stance. Seriously one is basically arguing "members of a corporation have individual rights right up until the shit hits the fan. Then well, ya see, a corporation is just some legal thingamagiggy went bad. No individual accountability, nothing to see there, move along"
Only one way to resolve what has basically arisen into a constitutional rights loophole is to either give corps full constitutional protection or none at all

I just posted this in fed up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_o....

Apparently big business is growing tired of the shakedown operation.

----------

Once the "Progressive" and the "educated" have completely destroyed the country, the logical, the wise, and the experienced will rebuild it.