Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 06:11pm PT
|
The fear that has been generated in Liberals hearts by
our Supreme Court
upholding Free Speech will now fester for the next 9 months
until the midterms.
Stock market tip: buy drug stocks because the Lib's are already
in need of lots pain med's.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 06:51pm PT
|
Apogee,
Is your example an argument for or against McCain-Feingold? Fox News, Dow Jones, CBS, ABC, New York Times Corp. and all the rest of the corporations that own media outlets are exampt from its reach. Why should these corporations be allowed unfettered ability to disseminate their views, but no other one corporation? Would you find extending the law to prevent all corporations from publishing, broadcasting or otherwise disseminating any political content within 30/60 days of a federal election consistent with the First Amendment guaranties of freedom of speech and of the press?
If not, how do you make a defensible distinction? Restricting freedom of speech and of the press to individuals muzzles virtually every outlet of modern mass communication. Adding protection only for non-profit entities muzzles the entire press. All of the arguments I've read about how speech isn't "speech" unless the right people utter it would destroy the freedom of political discourse upon which the First Amendment rights rest. I find it particularly absurd that someone can argue with a straight face that political messages have less protection under the First Amendment than pornography, burning crosses, Ku Klux Klan and Nazi marches, or any of the other exotic forms of expression recognized as subject to First Amendment protection.
John
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 25, 2010 - 07:01pm PT
|
Justice Stevens’ dissent was unusually weak and full of obvious holes.
Show me ONE. Bet you can't.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 07:04pm PT
|
Stevens' argument that the only thing that changed was the composition of the court would apply equally to comparing Brown v. Board of Education to Plessy v. Ferguson. That looks like a hole to me.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
|
JE, I take the position that corporate funding of elections and political issues skews the democratic process. M-F was a rather poorly planned and implemented way to deal with that, though I did appreciate it's intent. (In that respect, I find it eerily similar to the recent healthcare reform bill.)
Whatever the legal underpinnings, I say that corporations are not individuals with the same rights as individual citizens. The citizens that comprise those corporations have every right to express their views in whatever manner they choose. The idea that corporations are somehow democratic is ludicrous- they are an entity that holds a singular goal, which is to make a profit for their shareholders. None of the employees have a vote in management decisions, aside from their decision to work elsewhere if they do not approve. That's not a democratic system at work, and it is a capitalistic stretch of the imagination to say that it is some kind of outgrowth of democracy.
Further, many of the corporations that will now be able to spend freely in the US political system are foreign-based corporations with operations in this country. How anyone can find that this supports the concept of an empowered US citizenry is beyond me.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 07:19pm PT
|
So you're saying that the New York Times Corporation, Fox News, Dow Jones, and The Nation, for example have no right to publish political opinions under the First Amendment? If they have that right, how do you get there, since each are corporations?
John
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 07:47pm PT
|
Given the Declaration of Independence stated:
...that all men are created equal.
the case for overturning Plessy was pretty solid. I missed the part where it said:
...that all men and juristic persons are created equal.
Does that mean you're with Renquist in his 1952 memo stating:
I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.
"To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 08:56pm PT
|
Of course I don't agree with Rehnquist's 1952 memo, nor, of course, with Plessy. I've always considered Rehnquist too unwilling to vindicate the Bill of Rights against majoritarian attack.
John
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:17pm PT
|
do you mean like denying workers the right to vote PRIVATELY on union membership?
I've yet tp participate in a union election, whether it be of officers or organizing a workplace that was not secret ballot.
Let me guess, you heard that from El Rushbo?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:41pm PT
|
The troika of BHO, Pelosi and Reid have been pushing "Card Check" since long before the election.
It removes the secret ballot requirement for union elections.
What rock have you been hiding under?
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:48pm PT
|
Do you understand what "card check" is? I think you have a skewed idea.
By the way, out of curiosity, how many corporate elections have you taken part in?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:51pm PT
|
I took part in one, at Empire Bowl Inc.
We voted down the union because the guys who were sent to represent the union were thugs.
I'll name names too.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 25, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
|
Stevens' argument that the only thing that changed was the composition of the court would apply equally to comparing Brown v. Board of Education to Plessy v. Ferguson. That looks like a hole to me.
No, that's just a tacit recognition that the right wing of the court is more focus on the holding than the underlying facts, law or policy, in other words, the opposite of what a jurist should be considering.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 11:31pm PT
|
No, that's just a tacit recognition that the right wing of the court is more focus [sic] on the holding than the underlying facts, law or policy, in other words, the opposite of what a jurist should be considering.
Huh? How does a Supreme Court holding differ from law? Appellate courts always consider policy. Considering that the facts of this case involved a not-for-profit group seeking to air a clearly political film, just which side is ignoring the facts? Surely this case had facts at least as compelling for vindicating free speech as New York Times v. Sullivan.
I truly fear for the future of freedom of thought in this country if so large a number of self-styled free-thinkers have more comfort with the idea of the government censoring the content of political speech than with the idea that political speech is sacrosanct.
John
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
Across Town From Easy Street
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 11:38pm PT
|
Let's not forget the worst ruling the Courts has ever made, that made the second worst (this ruling) possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
"Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations..."
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:38am PT
|
"So you're saying that the New York Times Corporation, Fox News, Dow Jones, and The Nation, for example have no right to publish political opinions under the First Amendment?"
Uh, no, John, I'm not suggesting that at all. There's a big difference between making your corporation's political opinions known via an editorial in a newspaper (i.e. the Whole Foods CEO who came out against healthcare reform), and influencing the entire political system with campaign funds that completely overwhelm those of the citizenry with far less funding sources.
Generally speaking, corporations are savvy enough to know that disclosing and clearly advertising their political positions is a great way to polarize and repel many of their potential customers. You might be able to glean their position from their website, or the occasional media piece, but they sure as hell won't be forthcoming about the campaigns they support- you'll have to do some digging on your own (not in their websites) to figure that out.
John, do you believe that there is a problem with the level of influence that corporations (or labor groups) have on the US political system?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:57am PT
|
I'll bet you can't cite any examples of corporations acting as you describe.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:58am PT
|
I'll bet it wouldn't matter to you if I did, Chaz.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:10am PT
|
No, but it matters that you can't.
That's the whole point.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:13am PT
|
Chaz........
Awwwww, f*ck it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!