3 ms·
I meant Citizens United as a reference to the Supreme Court case not to the specific entity in that case. The effect of the cas was that corporations in the U.
by skh 8y ago
I meant Citizens United as a reference to the Supreme Court case not to the specific entity in that case. The effect of the cas was that corporations in the U.S. have free speech rights.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoCitizens United overturned a recent law. People were calling the law unconstitutional when it passed. And nobody serious says the New York Times doesn’t have free speech rights. That has been protected by previous rulings.
- skh 8y agoMost people did not have a problem with McCain-Feingold. Some people did. The effect of Citizens United is that corporations have the same free speech rights as humans. This despite the fact that Citizens United (the entity) is not a for-profit corporation. One has to look at the effect of the ruling since it’s effect is quite broad in scope and not just at the specifics of the case. Most free societies have limits on what corporations and organizations can spend on political campaigns. This was true of the U.S. too until recently. Until recently the belief that a nonhuman should have the same free speech rights as a human was bizarre. It’s still considered bizarre in just about every other nation in the world. I suppose this is another example of American Exceptionalism. What other people could have been brave enough to grant the same free speech rights humans have to non humans! There are serious people who believe that the New York Times has rights when it comes to printing news. Many of these same serious people believe that the New York Times should not have the right to spend its profits as they see fit on whatever political campaigns/parties/candidates it wants to.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoThe New York Times has spent the last two years of its front page on a political campaign.