Fuck the First Amendment, then

[RickJay]

@BigT

That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

Where in those amendments does it refer to the legal concept of a person?

A human being is a natural person. A corporation is a legal person. They are not the same thing. Neither the First nor Thirteenth say otherwise.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BigT

That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

So then if you’re arguing that “corporations” aren’t protected by the First Amendment and don’t have constitutional protections, doesn’t that apply to all the other amendments.

For example, doesn’t that mean that corporations aren’t protected from having their property searched or seized without warrant or just compensation.

By your logic, doesn’t this mean that the town of Warwick, Rhode Island, without even obtaining a warrant could send the local police into an Olive Garden, declare it to be seized and order everyone in it to vacate the premises forthwith?

[gamerunknown]

@Measure for Measure

Still, a serious compare and contrast of US vs UK would be illuminating.

The public owns the airwaves and has determined that paid campaign advertising is illegal and that there should be party political broadcasts (our head of government is selected by the majority party, so there are no presidential elections).

Advertising expenditure on posters and whatnot are paltry compared to the US.

[Terr]

@gamerunknown

The public owns the airwaves

Does public own the cablewaves too?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Ibn_Warraq

And by those standards, Michael Moore was using his “product” Fahrenheit 911 as “a transparent front for running political ads against” George Bush.

Sigh. For the third time, no. Not unless you can show that Michael Moore pitched a huge and bogus televised ad campaign for Fahrenheit 911, complete with a link to the You-Tube vid. That is what Citizen’s United was about, not their actual documentary which nobody watched.

@John Mace

So, it’s perfectly OK in your world for the New Koch Times or Koch News to “offer a product” that also advocates for political causes? Sort of like what the New York Times and FoxNews does now. Ditto for The Soros Times and Soros News.

Thank you for grasping the heart of the matter.

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn’t ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

2. Not just my world: the UK has highly partisan newspapers owned by publishers who use them as a megaphone. Often said publishers make their fortune elsewhere, then decide that they’d really like to own a newspaper. That’s what happens when you put a clamp on campaign expenditures: the money flows elsewhere. I maintain that such circumstances are imperfect, but nonetheless relatively less corrupt than what we have in the US. And I can hold up the UK as an empirical example.

3. Koch News, Soros News: bingo. Something like that would happen. In the case of Koch though it happens anyway: observe the Cato foundation etc. They just haven’t achieved full vertical integration yet.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Here’s another monkey wrench. As a matter of policy I would treat written political advertising different than radio or TV advertising. While all are bogus, temporally limited ad pitches discourage critical thinking of the underlying claims. So for example I wouldn’t tax newspaper ads or even mailed political flyers, only radio and TV ads. We’ll see how web ads develop over time.

[Bricker]

@LeeshaJoy

Point me to where it says that the thirteenth amendment only applies to “natural persons.” The amendment makes no attempt to define slavery, let alone who can be subject to it.

Point me to where it says it applies to “persons.”

It just says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States. I guess it would be for the courts to decide if “slavery” includes stock ownership.

Has any court so decided?

No?

Guess you’re out of luck.

[Bricker]

@Measure_for_Measure

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn’t ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

New York Times presidential endorsements:
Lyndon Johnson (D) over Barry Goldwater (R) in 1964
Hubert Humphrey (D) over Richard Nixon (R) in 1968
George McGovern (D) over Richard Nixon (R) in 1972
Jimmy Carter (D) over Gerald Ford (R) in 1976
Jimmy Carter (D) over Ronald Reagan (R) in 1980
Walter Mondale (D) over Ronald Reagan (R) in 1984
Michael Dukakis (D) over George H. W. Bush (R) in 1988
Bill Clinton (D) over George H. W. Bush (R) in 1992
Bill Clinton (D) over Bob Dole (R) in 1996
Al Gore (D) over George W. Bush (R) in 2000
John Kerry (D) over George W. Bush (R) in 2004
Barack Obama (D) over John McCain (R) in 2008
Barack Obama (D) over Mitt Romney (R) in 2012 (a certainty)
And Whoever (D) over Whoever (R) in 2016, right?

[John_Mace]

@Measure_for_Measure

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn’t ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

It doesn’t matter if they are left or right. They advocate for political causes and endorse candidates for election. How dare a corporation do that!

2. Not just my world: the UK has highly partisan newspapers owned by publishers who use them as a megaphone. Often said publishers make their fortune elsewhere, then decide that they’d really like to own a newspaper. That’s what happens when you put a clamp on campaign expenditures: the money flows elsewhere. I maintain that such circumstances are imperfect, but nonetheless relatively less corrupt than what we have in the US. And I can hold up the UK as an empirical example.

3. Koch News, Soros News: bingo. Something like that would happen. In the case of Koch though it happens anyway: observe the Cato foundation etc. They just haven’t achieved full vertical integration yet.

Point being, you can’t silence “corporation” without silencing newspapers.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Measure_for_Measure

Sigh. For the third time, no. Not unless you can show that Michael Moore pitched a huge and bogus televised ad campaign for Fahrenheit 911, complete with a link to the You-Tube vid. That is what Citizen’s United was about, not their actual documentary which nobody watched.

I have to admit that I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.

I apologize, I didn’t realize just how little you knew about this argument.

I certainly assumed that you knew that Fahrenheit 911 was supported by a massive ad campaign sponsored by Miramax.

In fact, Citizens United made the documentary, Hillary: the Movie, in part to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those advocating campaign finance reform.

That said, obviously you should not be included in that since you’ve made it clear that you think the FEC was wrong not to ban all TV ads promoting* Fahrenheit 911* and are outraged that they didn’t sanction Miramax for doing so.

If of course, you are so stupid, intellectually inconsistent and hypocritical that you still think that the FEC was right in not banning ads for the movie* Fahrenheit 911*, then I’m interested in hearing what passes for logical arguments from you defending this position.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John_Mace

Point being, you can’t silence “corporation” without silencing newspapers.

No, you can’t silence “Corporation” without silencing “Editorial page”. Unless you want to say that the editorial page reflects the views of the editors, not the publishers. I don’t buy that either.

ibn Fahrenheit 911 was the highest grossing documentary of all time. The ad campaign was demonstrably, factually not a shill. That said, Citizens United was correct to investigate the matter in 2004.

The 30 second CU ad only mentioned the film at the very end: it was a Trojan Horse for a conventional negative advertisement. Cite: http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
I see that their 10 second ads were pretty conventional though.

According to wikipedia: The movie was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, with the District Court describing the movie as an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot. In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the television advertisements for Hillary: The Movie violated the BCRA restrictions of “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary. Though the political action committee claimed that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan, the lower court found that the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton’s candidacy for president.[9] Judging from the trailers, I believe the lower court. Now SOCUS could have over-ruled them on narrow grounds of course. Or they could have agreed, and laid down some kind of guidance. Instead they decided to advance their pet theories of corporate personhood.

Bricker: All sound decisions by the what is possibly the world’s finest newspaper. Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times’ business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John_Mace

Point being, you can’t silence “corporation” without silencing newspapers.

Then again: c’mon. You don’t think a first year law student couldn’t craft a bright-line principle regarding editorials? That’s rather naive. Heck, I would think Bricker could do it in about 30 seconds.

[2sense]

@Bricker

This is simply another cry for, “I don’t care what the text says, do it my way!” (Option 1)

Options 2 and 3 are absolutely honest and consistent with our notions of self-government.

@XT

The thing is, we have a process by which the Constitution can be changed, and Amendments added, modified or even struck down.

Um, Option 1 (reinterpreting) is the main process we have for changing the Constitution. The formal amendment process is simply too cumbersome to address the needs of our nation. If only Options 2 or 3 were legitimate then it would have been “Burn the Constitution!!!” long ago when the national bank was disallowed, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the American System, or the annexation of Texas, or Reconstruction, or the New Deal. To support the Constitution is to support the legitimacy of Option 1. Without it there is no Constitution.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Measure_for_Measure

ibn Fahrenheit 911 was the highest grossing documentary of all time. The ad campaign was demonstrably, factually not a shill. That said, Citizens United was correct to investigate the matter in 2004.

Er… you previously said that had there been an ad campaign promoting Fahrenheit 911 then it should have been sanctioned, but now you’re saying it shouldn’t have been after it was pointed out that it had a much more expensive and wider done ad campaign then Hillary the Movie.

At this point all I can do is laugh at the stupidity and the hypocrisy.

So, according to the logic of Measure for Measure, documentaries criticizing Republican candidates are kosher while documentaries criticizing Democratic candidates should be sanctioned.

Reasoning like that is why we should all celebrate the Citizens United ruling giving the finger to the book burners.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Measure_for_Measure

Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times’ business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

Endorsing every Democrat probably is, though.

[Bricker]

@Measure_for_Measure

Bricker: All sound decisions by the what is possibly the world’s finest newspaper. Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times’ business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

Endorsing every single Democratic presidential since 1964? All sound decisions? No evidence of bias towards the Democrats in that?

Well, then, I think you’ve shown how your personal analytic process works insofar as judging left-wing vs. right wing.

[Bricker]

@2sense

Um, Option 1 (reinterpreting) is the main process we have for changing the Constitution. The formal amendment process is simply too cumbersome to address the needs of our nation. If only Options 2 or 3 were legitimate then it would have been “Burn the Constitution!!!” long ago when the national bank was disallowed, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the American System, or the annexation of Texas, or Reconstruction, or the New Deal. To support the Constitution is to support the legitimacy of Option 1. Without it there is no Constitution.

I absolutely disagree. And you will, too, when I get five like-minded justices on the Court and they discover a right to life in the Fourteenth Amendment for unborn children.

[dngnb8]

Freedom of Speech. I think they should amend the First Amendment to say
You are Free to say whatever you wish as long as I agree with it.

After all, that is how most people interpret it.

[Mijin]

Well no-one interprets it as “The unrestricted right to say anything in any situation” because that clearly would be unworkable.

[Max_Torque]

@Bricker

I absolutely disagree. And you will, too, when I get five like-minded justices on the Court and they discover a right to life in the Fourteenth Amendment for unborn children.

Well, first they’d have to declare the unborn child a “person”, which full-circles us back to the “personhood” argument again! Oh, the symmetry of it all…