5 ms·

You are right. They will be affected. It is not practical to try to limit speech/ads etc. It's not one of the values we have traditionally had. What does this

You are right. They will be affected. It is not practical to try to limit speech/ads etc. It's not one of the values we have traditionally had. What does this leave us with? Power will always attract money so let's have less power.

locopati 17y ago
I would begin with a constitutional amendment redefining a corporation such that it does not have personhood (as was given in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). It is that personhood which provides the basis of a corporation's 'free speech' argument. That personhood obscures the fact that a corporation, as a profitable entity, has access to far greater resources than almost any single person, and does not suffer the same consequences of their actions as a single person. For example, if a person kills, the person is tried for murder and punished according to the nature of the crime; if a corporation kills, they are at best assigned a monetary fine which is often hardly a drop in the bucket and subject to a lengthy court process.
- hga 17y ago
  That's silly on several levels. See my comment on how the death penalty is easily applied or more often threatened to corporations. Plus you are forgetting that this case is about a non-profit corporation that was blocked in promoting a movie about Hillary Clinton for the 2008 election (the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). You're promoting trampling on freedom of association as well, preventing a group of like minded people combining to have a voice in the political process (note that for this ruling, unions have also been freed from that appalling 1990 decision as well as McCain-Fiengold's censorship). Bottom line for me: the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not outright censorship of core political speech. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the Congress can't ban core political speech.
  - hga 17y ago
    Ah, here's Kennedy from the decision saying the same thing: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

locopati 17y ago

I would begin with a constitutional amendment redefining a corporation such that it does not have personhood (as was given in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). It is that personhood which provides the basis of a corporation's 'free speech' argument. That personhood obscures the fact that a corporation, as a profitable entity, has access to far greater resources than almost any single person, and does not suffer the same consequences of their actions as a single person. For example, if a person kills, the person is tried for murder and punished according to the nature of the crime; if a corporation kills, they are at best assigned a monetary fine which is often hardly a drop in the bucket and subject to a lengthy court process.

hga 17y ago
That's silly on several levels. See my comment on how the death penalty is easily applied or more often threatened to corporations. Plus you are forgetting that this case is about a non-profit corporation that was blocked in promoting a movie about Hillary Clinton for the 2008 election (the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). You're promoting trampling on freedom of association as well, preventing a group of like minded people combining to have a voice in the political process (note that for this ruling, unions have also been freed from that appalling 1990 decision as well as McCain-Fiengold's censorship). Bottom line for me: the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not outright censorship of core political speech. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the Congress can't ban core political speech.
- hga 17y ago
  Ah, here's Kennedy from the decision saying the same thing: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."