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
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info Freedom Of Speech: How Quaint; entered at 2010-01-22 14:33:02
Posts: 530
Registered: 2009-11-10
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?smiley

Joe-Bob wrote:

---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.smiley

From Bear:

---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.smiley

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.

--- 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:

--- 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?---

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 guiltsmiley. 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.

Last modified: 2010-01-22 14:39:54 by bustedbuck69
Reason: edit

2010-01-22 14:33:02