The problem with stating that corporations don’t have free speech is that nearly all of the mass consumed speech, from movies, to music, to books, is produced by corporations. Stating that corporations do not have full 1st amendment protection is to imply that the government has censorship powers over media unless the media is self-published.
Indeed it is. This isn’t a matter of definition, it’s a subjective interpretation. A bunch of people got together and wrote a short document full of brief idealistic blurbs. Then generations of politicians and judges got together and tried to interpret that meaning through the context of history and the societies of their contemporaries. A supreme court decision is simply a majority collection of such opinions given by a certain court in a time period; that decision can later be changed by a different set of opinions.
You are saying you think the drafters of the Constitution meant one thing. Five then-current justices agreed with you. Four did not. Some regular people agree with you. Some people don’t. I’m not sure what your point is; it sounds like you’re saying the truth inherent in the Constitution is absolute, self-evident, and not subject to interpretation, but I would have to disagree.
Going by that logic, does it follow that Congress shall make no law affecting the habitat of any other species capable of vocalizations or the symbolic transmission of thoughts for fear of scaring them into silence, shall never regulate radio frequencies out of respect for the rights of broadcasting equipment, etc.?
I hope I’m misunderstanding you.
Yes, indeed. As a leftie myself, that part of the proposal troubles me a lot. I live 15 minutes away from that campaign’s headquarters and argue with their staff (some of whom are my friends) about this.
Their answer (my paraphrase): It would indeed strip organizations of First Amendment protections. You would then selectively grant voice back to them, but with the ability for government to regulate that speech. It is vulnerable to corruption and censorship, but at the end of the day you can be squelched by government or outshouted by megacorporations.
My friends tend to trust government more than corporations. You don’t have to agree. I don’t know if I do.
By your logic, Congress should make no law affecting the “habitat” of humans either.
Trusting government. Founding fathers are turning in their graves.
But that’s just the thing, if rights are selectively granted, they aren’t rights. They are privileges, which can be revoked by simple majority vote in Congress and the signature of the President. There would even be plenty of avenues for Presidents to unilaterally censor for non-national security purposes.
They wouldn’t if the Constitution were followed literally. But it’s not. Generations of justices, lawyers, politicians, and citizens (read: interpreters) have created exemptions to the Constitution for everything from black people to “time, place, manner” restraints.
Presupposing that free speech is universal, there would have to be many, many more such restrictions. It’d just be a waste of time for little gain.
I have a seriously hard time believing that the drafters of the Constitution thought “Hmm. EVERYTHING deserves free speech!”
I can believe that they would’ve considered groupings of humans, not just individuals, deserving of free speech.
As for “money equals speech”? I don’t know, but there’s no easy way to separate the two.
Anyway, this definition game is not interesting to me and I hope we can just agree to disagree.
I’d rather talk about how to improve campaign financing without chilling political speech, which (IMO) ought to be the focus of this whole corporate personhood shebang. Of course they don’t phrase it that way because nobody finds that sexy 
Indeed.
However, if multinational corporations had as much power back then as they do now, part of me would like to believe that the founding fathers would’ve taken care to write them into the Constitution as well.
I don’t know that they would’ve necessarily expected a world where private businesses control most of the world’s food, communications, arms manufacture, medical supplies, etc., and where government itself is routinely steered by an army of lobbyists. It’s hard to see that being the kind of republic they would’ve liked, but hey, I’m just a student and maybe they knew better.
Yeah, which is at least slightly terrifying to me. I would prefer a more narrow restriction on political advertising, rather than opening up any grouping of people to potential censorship.
If Move to Amend passes, are we going to see an overnight 1984? I doubt it. But will important speech be more vulnerable to eventual corruption and censorship? Certainly.
That’s a pretty big cost for doing something pretty small. As we’ve seen in this cycle, rich individuals, whose rights are undisputed being actual people and all, are the ones putting millions into electioneering.
You’d have a situation where the NY Times was threatened with censorship if they got on the wrong side of powerful politicians, but Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs could do whatever they wanted.
No. They thought “free speech is to be protected, wherever it comes from”. It’s not people that are protected. It’s the speech.
It’s part and parcel of the left trying to make US more like Europe. You know, Europe, the place where you can be jailed for saying something the law doesn’t approve of.
Or australia, where a radio host got sent to “Factual Accuracy Training” for questioning climate change.
Yeah. Which is why it’s unfortunate that campaign finance reform is being conflated with corporate personhood.
I appreciate that Move to Amend and its elk are bringing the topic into the public eye, but I don’t think they are offering the best solution.
I’m not too worried about it, though, because I don’t think legislators and justices will actually support the amendment even with enough public support. Between the chilling effect on donations and the Supreme Court’s so-far healthy respect for the First Amendment, there’s just no way this is going to happen even if greenies stormed the White House on the shoulders of liberated baboons.
What it DOES do, however, is raise enough of a public stink that maybe somebody running for office, somewhere, eventually, might come up with a saner response that’s not quite so panic-driven and a little safer towards free speech while still helping with the whole wealth in politics issue. Or maybe the next batch of supremes will reconsider their ruling.
I’ve always thought that a ban on all political TV advertising would withstand court scrutiny. Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision seemed to object mostly to corporations being divided into “favored” and “disfavored” speakers.
OK. That’s fine if you want to define it as that.
Now I hope we can move on to the more interesting question of how to make it so that democratic governments aren’t overrun by the wealthy.
Different cultures (or at least their leaders) decide where they want to be on the liberty vs equality continuum, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that one choice is indisputably better than another except perhaps at the extremes.
For a somewhat quantifiable look at the question, you can look at the (admittedly left-leaning, somewhat fluffy) happiness surveys and indices or the somewhat less fluffy UN Human Development Index. European countries typically do pretty well in those. They have different degrees of free speech.
Anyway, this suggests that 100% absolute freedom of speech (which even the US does not have) – or perhaps extreme libertarianism overall – isn’t the only path to a happy, productive populace.
As an American myself (and wannabe journalist), I tend to hold the First Amendment rather sacrosanct. But I also realize that money in politics results in a less powerful citizenry, and IMO the answer isn’t quite as simple as “Oh well, I guess they’re protected, time to suck it up and let the Koch Bros run my country while I go cry into my recycled handkerchief.”
America limits free speech too: false advertising, child pornography, defamation, etc. There are always nuances. I find it bizarre that false advertising which hurts the wallet is prohibited while false advertising which hurts the ballot is protected. 
How do you figure? A ban of political advertising across one of the most important mediums… why would that survive court scrutiny?
Problem is, who defines truth? While it’s true that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to global warming being real, it’s not something that can be demonstrated in a lab or with equations. The scientific community could be wrong. What Australia is basically doing is enforcing the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is also that GM foods are safe. Should Australia also reeducate opponents of GM food? Are they doing it already? and if not, why is some scientific consensus enforceable and some not? Or could it be that silencing climate change deniers has everything to do with politics and isn’t motivated by science at all?
Because the government controls the airwaves and a total ban would not cause equal protection problems. Especially if it was only limited to ads.
1st amendment precedent allows for restrictions on “time, place, and manner”, so long as the restrictions serve a public purpose and aren’t discriminatory. Saying that some corporations can advertise while others can’t is discriminatory. Saying that anyone can engage in electioneering communications, but no one can do it by buying ad time is not, and it is only a restriction on time, place, and manner.