Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:19pm PT
|
Let's drop the pretense we live in a Democracy anymore. It's gone folks. Pick the corporate sponsor for your brand of "patriotism" and wear their logo proudly.
|
|
Reeotch
Trad climber
Kayenta, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
|
"Why are you all so afraid of free speech?"
It is not really a free speech issue when you consider how much $$$ it costs to brodcast your message to the masses. It is something that only big corporations and extremely wealthy individuals will have access to. So, if you want to run for office you will have to sell out to some big corporation in order to finance your "free speech". But, don't worry, they won't tell you what you can or cannot say . . . right???
No, they'll just take away your financing, and thus your "free speech".
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:24pm PT
|
There's should be no such as thing as "speech" for a corporation, regardless of what the dumb ass court ruled. The members of the corporation have no say in what the "corporation" says. It will be decided by a couple dipshits at the top taking in 100 million dollar bonuses. Remember, they are better people than you are. They are smarter and deserving of the fruits of your labor. Be a good serf or lose your job and 2 weeks vacation.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:24pm PT
|
^ ^ ^
Thank you (DMT) for having the guts to admit that you are opposed to Free Speech and that you favor amending the Constitution so that it will be restricted. (We have never had an amendment to remove rights from the Bill of Rights, but there's a first time for everything.)
Thank God the vast majority of Americans disagree with your desire to abridge the Freedom of Speech, but at least you're honest.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:25pm PT
|
^^
So you agree that a corporation has the same rights as an individual?
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
climber
Arkansas, I suppose
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:29pm PT
|
"What is it about
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.
that you don't understand? "
TGT,
So if I get pulled over and attempt to bribe the cop to let me off, that's cool right?
I mean, it's my freedom of speech to speak with my cash eh?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:32pm PT
|
^ ^ ^
If I want to join an activist group (such as the NRA) so together we can afford to publicize our speech (which we may not be able to do individually), I have the right to do it.
So sayeth the United States Constitution, so sayeth the United States Supreme Court.
If I'm a moron, what does that make you?
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:34pm PT
|
You can join the NRA voluntarily, but you can't prohibit the corporation you work for from saying whatever they want using your efforts to do so, even if it is to destroy your beloved NRA. So this INFRINGES on your right to free speech. You are less than the corporation, and it speaks on your behalf, using your labor as its own engine in betraying your values. Nice system.
Not only this, it grants this right implicitly to foreign corporations. Say hello to your new Chinese corporate masters. They can buy the elections now too.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:41pm PT
|
You're welcome, ma'am.
I assume you think I'm a man, and calling me a woman is your idea of an insult? If I'm wrong, care to explain?
Nice job your using "free speech" so show what a sexist prick you are, as well as would-be abridger of Constitutional Rights.
|
|
Shimanilami
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:54pm PT
|
I don't think anyone is opposed to free speech. Let's just throw that strawman out.
The concern that Dingus et al have is that for profit corporations have more resources to get their message out than any other entity. Exxon Mobile, for example, spent more money last year in advertising than the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns spent combined. It will be very difficult for any non-profit organization or individual citizen to be heard if political "megaphones" are only sold to the highest bidder. And let's face it, corporations do not act in the interest of the American public. They are about profit, even if it means selling you cigarettes, soft drinks, casinos, etc. ... items almost all of us would deem "not good for you", if not worse.
The question is how do we guarantee free speech while ensuring some sort of balance? I think it may be shortsighted to ask the government to manage this. Rather, I like to think that we will figure out a way to bring informed political discourse back to the election process. Is the internet the key? Probably. One thing is sure, however. If, moving forward, you expect to find unbiased political discourse on TV, you are a fool who will get what he deserves.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
|
This issue is very similar to the overall tendency of the right to want things both ways - similar to their innate instinct to privatize profits and socialize losses. In this case, they want corporations to have the rights of living individuals and none of the responsibilities. The gross hypocrisy involved is also breathtakingly apparent - highly activist decisions for their own issues such as this one and Gore v. Bush, the model of restraint on issues they oppose.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
|
This all goes back to the US supreme court case from the 1870s that declared that incorporated bodies are persons, which was based on English common law. Which led to the so-called Gilded Age of the 1880s onward, in which corporations essentially owned the government, right until the Roosevelt revolution of the early 20th century.
Perhaps the next step will be state laws requiring that the true sources of all political financing, direct or indirect, be publicly disclosed. Both at the giving and the receiving end. Or perhaps a national law to that effect. That is, real and real-time disclosure - even for the astroturf (a la "Swift Boat Veterans for Lies") and false front bunch. Maybe even requiring disclosure of the intended target or beneficiary. It's doubtful that would infringe on any constitutional right, as the public interest clearly outweighs any right of privacy. If the public knows exactly where the money comes from, that will at least help.
Remembering that the US is a republic, which sometimes is also democratic, in which economic rights often trump others.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
|
I've tried to clear up what "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" mean in other posts. Haven't had much luck yet--anyone who is interested should read the Wikipedia article for a good overview.
But in brief, enforcing the Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, is not "judicial activism." The Constitution doesn't say speech by any particular entity, therefore it applies to all entities. And it says "no law." That's pretty simple stuff. The Supreme Court properly found that the law was, therefore, violative of the Constitution. There is no "judicial activism" that occurred in this instance.
A good example of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, which has no clear textual support in the Constitution. When the judges "found" a right to an abortion, they were not interpreting and applying the Constitution, they were doing "something else." That "something else" is called judicial activism. Bush v. Gore was probably a good example of judicial activism, but not in the way you suspect--it was the Florida Supreme Court that was engaged in judicial activism. (If you remember, the trial court, a Democrat, ruled in Bush's favor.)
Hope I cleared this up a bit for some of you--it can be a difficult subject and there is an element of subjectivity to this.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
|
Actually, most previous law over the last 100 years had held that corporations did not have the same free speech rights guaranteed to individuals in the constitution.
So the court was actively overturning ground that had previously been covered. Hard for me to see that as anything but "judicial activism".
Not that I think "judicial activism" is such a horribly bad thing.
While I respect Scalia's intellect, if not his politics, I'd don't agree that we can determine all the intent of the Framers. Nor do I think those folks would have wanted interpretations to remain static in the face of a changing world.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:13pm PT
|
"I don't think anyone is opposed to free speech. Let's just throw that strawman out."
Sorry, I disagree with that statement, Shimanalami. Free speech is precisely the issue. Opponents of the decision believe that restricting political speech paid for by corporations does not abridge free speech. Supporters of the decision believe those restrictions strike at the heart of free speech.
It saddens me to see how completely those on the left have swallowed the Newspeak of the proponents of the politically correct, in this case "restriction is freedom." Its a rather good demonstration of how restriction of speech restricts thought, and is utterly inconsistent with American democracy.
John
Edit:
Stevep, your post wasn't up when I posted mine. The distinction wasn't between corporate speech and individual speech, it was between "commercial speech" and all other speech. The Warren Court had no trouble finding all speech protected as long as it wasn't trying to sell something. Otherwise, decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan would have come out differently. The Burger and Rehnquist courts showed incresaing hostility to that distinction.
I'm unaware of any trend in First Amendment jurisprudence that gave political speech less protection because someone else paid for it until the Rehnquist Court failed to strike down McCain-Feingold initially, as it should have.
John
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:17pm PT
|
It is an ingenious argument to recast campaign finance issues as freedom of speech. But why is "freedom of speech" a foundational tenet of our country? It is to ensure that small voices can be heard in dissent of oppressive government. What is it at its root? What are ALL of the amendments and the constitution about? At it's root, all of these vision statements work to restrict the aggregation of power controlling our government. It is to help make a more perfect union, of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.
By interpreting the vision statement of our country (our constitution), the supreme court judges are a terribly important line of defense in support of artificial systems to counter the natural tendencies for aggregation of power. This recent decision is a serious setback in that struggle.
In terms of free speech, we need to get more granular to address advances in technology. We need to talk about CREATION of ideas (creation, formulation, and stating ideas publicly) versus DISTRIBUTION of those ideas to a broader audience. "The right to assemble" was addressing this concept at the then-state-of-the-art level of someone standing on a soap box and a crowd of people listening. There was no fundamental difference between a rich or a poor person to stand on a given soap box, though some venues certainly cost more and inured more benefits to rich folks. But in our present society with TVs and Internet and advertising costs, there is a major discontinuity between the capability of a rich person and a poor person in terms of distribution and forcing "eyeball" hits on your idea.
Let's brainstorm about threats to our national vision and the aggregation of power that arise when corporations can't spend as much as they'd like. Perhaps the perspective of people is advanced, labor unions are stronger, environmental restrictions are greater, and in general it is a harder business climate and US-based companies can't be as competitive on a global scale, thus reducing employment opportunities and hurting the economy and thereby most US families in a "globalized" world. This is a serious issue that needs a solution. But the cure can't create more problems than the disease....
Now let's look at some threat scenarios of corporations getting to spend whatever they want to promote their political perspective:
 Halliburton invests $10B to get officials elected in all branches of government, and said officials are sympathetic to wars that earn Halliburton $1000B during rebuilding phases. Thousands of (poor non-collegbound) Americans and many more folks from other countries die in said wars.
Bank XYZ invests $1B to get folks elected who in turn authorize $100B bank relief from taxpayer funds
These two scenarios alone should scare the bujeesus out of anyone regardless of Democratic or Republican affiliation. The folks who are trying to aggregating power to control our government, resources, and finances recognize this, and probably promote the distraction of Republicans being aligned with "good family values" and Christianity, and fundamental things that many people in the population like. It's just another example of recasting an important issue in terms of another issue that many people will easily support.
It's not republican, it's not democrat, it's not green. This is all about aggregation of power. And power is winning.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
|
No, nutjob. Freedom of speech is about all voices being heard. From your post, it appears that you are very comfortable with the idea that views you dislike should be restricted so that society will be more the way you like it. The founders knew better.
John
|
|
Matthew Moore
Trad climber
davis, ca.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:20pm PT
|
Sheesh....
You'd think that conservative's have been jonesing for this decision for years; all the while suffering because multi-national corporations didn't enjoy the "free speech" rights that little people had.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
|
Corporations are just groups of people.
People in America have constitutionally guaranted freedom of speech. Individuals don't surrender individual rights just because they banded together with other individuals.
Speech isn't free when one is prohibited from spending money to spread the message.
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 05:24pm PT
|
If people can spend whatever they want to promote their views, then why do we bother registering voters?
Why not just set up swiss bank accounts for each candidate and make unlimited anonymous deposits; whichever account is biggest in the end is the winner?
They actually did that in the town where I grew up... tin coffee cans in all the stores in town collected change, and the candidate with the most change was declared mayor.
In India, folks go around giving money to poor, uneducated, and otherwise non-voting people to vote for their preferences.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!