So the freedom of the press applies to corporations, but freedom of speech does not? To be consistent, shouldn’t you only want to apply freedom of the press to individual publishers, not corporate publishers?
We could also apply the same same analysis to movies. Can the government block showing a Disney movie and force movies to be produced and distributed by an individual?
It is what it is; it says the press, which is a collective term. If you wish to construe it as special dispensation for press corporations but not other corporations, so be it.
Can the government block NBC from showing a Tony Blair speech? In that situation we have a corporation and a foreign speaker. Can the government block AMC from showing a french movie? Who is the individual American speaker there? Could the government block CBS from reporting a statement that was released by BP? No individual speaker there.
Would it be a good thing if the government could do these things?
And it says “speech,” not “individual speakers.” There is no reason to believe that the only speech that government cannot infringe is the speech of individuals.
No to all of the above, because the press is specifically protected. It has nothing to do with individual v. corporation.
Clearly not, that’s why the founders specifically protected the press.
How is an entertainment movie “the press”?
The press includes all forms of publishing, in all media.
Could the federal government prevent the National Organization for Woman (NOW) from holding a rally where former Irish president Mary Robinson was the speaker?
And that was founder’s view?
Read the 1st amendment again (bolding mine obviously):
“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.”
Scalia extended 1st amendment protections to corporations.
That make corporation equivalent to “the people”.
People = persons.
Thus Scalia gave corporations “personhood” status.
More, he established a precedent. Corporations can now cite Citizens United to claim other protections.
You can do a semantic dance that Scalia never used “the words” but that is what we are left with.
Where is she appearing? If she is on private property, I should think so.
Yes.
I would also note that the US can and does stop foreigners from “free speech”.
The US does not have to let a foreigner into the country and they do stop people from coming in.
Can that person spout their views while in China or Great Britain? Sure. US cannot stop that but the US need not allow them access to our country to say what they want to say.
As a US citizen the US cannot deny you access to US soil because they do not like what you are saying.
Now, because of Scalia, China can directly affect US elections. All they need is a company incorporated in the US. Nevermind if it is wholly owned by Chinese (or whoever) interests. They can now funnel all the money they want to affect any election they want.
That makes sense to you? A Chinese national should be allowed to sway elections in the US as they see fit? (And not to pick on the Chinese…just an example…take your pick).
I am pretty sure politicians are restricted from taking foreign money. This neatly sidesteps that.
Again, free speech can and does have restrictions on it. Not allowing foreign money in our elections would be one such. This gets around that completely.
You are ok with that Pierrot Le Fou?
First, the Supreme Court established corporate personhood long before Citizens, in 1886 to be exact, meaning Scalia could not have established a precedent of corporate personhood even if he made a ruling respecting corporate personhood, which he did not. Second, you bolded a part of the first amendment a part of the first amendment that applies to assembly not speech. Third, Scalia’s analysis does not argue for or rely on corporate personhood. Scalia’s position is that the government cannot restrict speech whether it is made by an individual acting alone or individuals acting in a group. Scalia’s position is that by allowing the government to infringe on corporate speech, the Court would be allowing the government to infringe on the right of individuals to speak as part of a group. After all, a corporation is nothing but a bunch of individuals.
Do you have cite on the founders views of movies? How about one on recorded music?
Why would that be necessary?
I don’t let try a few different situations:
In a public park and NOW got the proper permit from the local authorities. Robinson in the country with a proper visa.
Same situation but on private land owned by NOW.
Back in a park, but Robinson will not appear in person but will instead be shown by teleconference.
Back on NOW’s private property, but teleconference again.
Which of these can the federal government shut down?
It seems to me the whole US constitution was a document to spell out the rights of the people and the restrictions of government.
Please point to anywhere in the constitution where “corporations” are mentioned.
To grant corporations constitutional protections on par with the people is to grant corporations personhood. There is no way around that because the cosntitution never ever ever ever mentions corporations. Not once.
The rights in the constitution is a covenant between the people and the government.
Because you claimed that the “press” as the founder understood it included movies and all forms of media. I would like to see some authority for this view.
What does NOW have to do with corporate speech? I think you are just jerking us around now.