There were any number of things Mr Paine deemed worthy of correction. Your point being…?
No, it’s not and no we’re not.
Minorities, whenever we’ve protested about this country allowing demagogues to engage in hate speech which leads to discrimination and persecution of us have repeatedly been told by white liberals to shut the fuck up because “the First Amendment protects that sort of behavior”.
In fact, a few years prior to the Citizens United case the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Virginia law which forbade the KKK from burning crosses. Justice Souter flat out stated that the First Amendment even protected speech that was clearly designed to intimidate and all the Justices who argued in Citizens United that the First Amendment didn’t prevent the US government from effectively banning movies insisted the First Amendment prevented the government from prohibiting the KKK from burning crosses and engaging in hate speech, with the exception of Sotomayor who wasn’t serving on the courts at the time of the Virginia case.
Opponents of hate speech laws have never had to somehow demonstrate that such laws would cause harm, they’ve simply had to show that the behavior is protected by the Constitution.
When confronted with the effects of allowing hate speech they simply reply, in the words of law professor John Turley “the First Amendment protects people’s right to speak it does not and should not protect ‘us’ from the after effects of such speech”.
To his credit, Turley, like the ACLU is consistent and supported Citizens United.
From my point of view, if spending money to encourage hatred of minorities(I.E. publishing books, leaflets etc) is considered protected speech then why the fuck is the exact same type of behavior not protected when it comes to criticizing or supporting political candidates.
Sorry, but if Muslims have to put up with Rush Limbaugh than Hillary Clinton can put up with a negative documentary when she was running for President.
Was that one of them?
There is no mention, at least none that I could see, in the Citizens United decision of any “corporations are persons” or “corporate personhood”. The decision has nothing to do with it, and shouldn’t, since the first amendment protects speech regardless of its origin.
This statement is response to this comment.
I’m sorry but your statement doesn’t inspire confidence in your knowledge or understanding of Tom Paine.
Paine complained about many things but he never once complained that the owners of the newspapers or the publishers of pamphlets.
Beyond that, the most logical explanation for your above response is that you genuinely do think it’s wrong and the government should do something to correct the imbalance that allows newspapermen to have vastly more influence based on the size of their megaphone than ordinary people.
In fact, based on your logic, it’s outrageous that Paul Krugman has vastly more ability to influence an election than a homeless person begging for quarters outside of the New York Times building and the government should restrict Krugman’s ability to dissemenate(sp) his opinion so that he’s no more influential than the guy making sandwiches at Subway next door.
Yes, this whole “corporate personhood” thing here is a red herring. The issue was whether or not the movie about Hillary was political speech and whether the courts could distinguish between media and other corporations.
And note that the 1st amendment doesn’t say anything about “persons” anyway. It doesn’t reserve the right of free speech to “persons”, but rather is a prohibition on action by Congress to limit free speech, period.
I don’t have a problem as long as there is good disclosure. You don’t think money played into politics back then?
The case was not decided in a vaccuum that allows you to apply whatever meaning you want to the words in the constitution. The constitution has been interpreted over the last few centuries and the meanings of the words in the constitution are not examined de novo every time a new case is presented. Citizens United overturned prior supreme court decisions (in fact a whole line of legal history and theory) when it removed the distinction between limits we can place on money in exercising political speech and the limits we can place on money when exercising commercial speech.
Just as you cannot read the tenth amendment in a vaccuum when it comes to teh federal power, you cannot read the first amendment in a vaccuum when it comes to political speech (well, i guess you can, because the Supreme Court did).
Actually, historically the courts have allowed dramatically tighter regulations regarding “commercial speech” than what might be deemed “political speech.”
For example, cigarette companies aren’t allowed to advertise on TV or(I believe) the radio, and for a time it looked like similar impositions would be placed on alcohol companies. Also, companies selling their products are regularly required in their ads and literature to divulge vastly more information than political candidates are.
Also, not only are political ads not bound by the FEC regulations regarding obscenity and libel that commercial ads are, but TV and radio stations can’t refuse to air them. For example, in the early 90s, some pro-life fanatics would run for high office just so they could air ads that contrasted aborted fetuses with scenes from Auschwitz that TV stations would not have been allowed to show for fear of fines had they not been political ads.
Finally, any private company that regularly gave out in their ads the kind of misleading if not outright false information provided by political candidates about either themselves or their opponents would have been destroyed for engaging in libel or false advertising long, long ago.
This was not a case of first impression. This issue had been addressed by the supreme court on prior occasion. In issuing the Citizens United opinion, the court took the rare step of overturning prior caselaw to reach a conclusion opposite to what current caselaw would have required. A concurring opinion justified this departure citing the court’s reversal on “separate but equal” segregation, minimum wage laws.
I don’t see the analogy between segregation and rules that prohibit corporate spending in politics or frankly any rules that limit spending in in the political arena.
I shouldn’t have said commercial. I was thinking of another point about how we limit commercial speech and dropped point before I submitted it because it is not a limitation on corporations.
We have long recognized different rules for political speech. Otherwise, how can you justify limiting my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on my own campaign but limit my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on your campaign.
Frankly I think we should limit all federal campaign finance by giving every citizen $X to donate to a congressional race they can vote in, $Y to a senatorial race they can vote in and $Z to a presidential candidate and try to limit all other spending to issue advocacy. I find the argument that newspapers are indistinguishable from other corporations to be flawed because we have well developed caselaw on freedom of the press and we have some idea to whom this freedom applies.
Did you type this wrong?
Did you mean “Otherwise, how can you justify limiting my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on my own campaign but **not **limit my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on your campaign.”
or
“Otherwise, how can you justify not limiting my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on my own campaign but limiting [/**B]my ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on your campaign.”
Because as written you’re saying “why is it ok to limit my ability to spend money on my own campaign as well as limiting my ability to contribute to someone else’s campaign.”
But the decision was not based on any kind of “corporate personhood”. If you think it was, please cite the language that you think supports that contention.
Just say “frankly, I think we should repeal the first amendment”. It would be a shorter sentence and would accomplish the same thing.
Here is a scenario. I am a US citizen. I put up a poster for my favorite candidate on my house. Please show me how you could stop me from doing this without trashing the first amendment completely.
Expand this. I am a US citizen. I own several houses. I put up a poster for my favorite candidate on each one of those houses. Please show me how you could stop me from doing this without trashing the first amendment completely.
Expand this. I own a billboard company. I decide to spend a few million of my money to put up rotating ads for my favorite candidate on all those billboards, for a year prior to elections. Please show me how you could stop me from doing this without trashing the first amendment completely.
Expand this to someone who is not a billboard company owner leasing those billboards and putting up the ads. Please show me how you could stop me from doing this without trashing the first amendment completely.
Why, yes, its all so simple when you explain it that way! If one dollar gives me an edge over my fellow citizens in the political arena, then a million dollars may be a much larger advantage, but in principle its the same thing! In a similar vein, a policeman whacks you with a nightstick, that is unwarranted assault. If he spends six days, taking shifts and breaks, in order to deliver one hundred thousand whacks, and turns your body into hamburger jello, why, that’s precisely the same thing! In principle!
That’s not remotely what he said at all.
What he asked was how you can do the things that are proposed without trashing the First Amendment.
Furthermore, he suggested that Damuri would be better off just saying that he favored abolishing the First Amendment.
Others on this thread seem to have implied strongly that they would not have any such qualms about doing so and you yourself in your statements regarding Paine seemed to imply that you’d support laws which would trash the First Amendment.
If you do believe that the public good warrants using the Constitution as toilet paper just say so.
If not, please explain how preventing the actions Terr suggested wouldn’t violate the First Amendment.
Once again, my own personal feeling is that if Muslims like myself have to put up with demagogues whipping up hate speech against us leading to discrimination and possible death rather than violate the First Amendment then I don’t see why white people get to argue for setting aside the First Amendment in order to clamp down on people agitating for or against political candidates.
I certainly don’t see why a documentary on Hillary Clinton is such a greater threat to public order that we need to use the Constitution as toilet paper than demagogues encouraging hate against minorities but perhaps you disagree.
So how often are the board holding votes with shareholders to determine policy? I would totally support a law suggesting what you posted as a compromise.
So children are not persons? If you’re under 18, you can’t sign a contract, with some exceptions. And stop trying to derail the point. Whatever legal definition of a person is irrelevant. I’m talking about an actual flesh and blood person, the biological definition, to put it one way. A corporation is not one of those and thus, cannot have its rights violated. It deserves none of those rights upon creation as well
Prior caselaw had distinguished free speech based on the speaker in the past. That was the second part of your statement.
You do agree then that the decision does not mention and was not based in any way on “corporate personhood”?
Are you saying you think some people do and should have greater free speech rights than you and I?
If so who and why?
Furthermore, would you mind answering post 71 because I wasn’t sure what you meant?
Thanks
That’s a whole lot of words and I don’t see how it addresses what I posted-- the “corporate personhood” issue is a red herring when discussing this case.
Corporations are still forbidden from spending any money on your campaign. Citizens United did not affect that part of the law.