4 ms·

I wish people would think through citizen's united instead of just spouting off the 'corporations are people' platitude (convenient no one seems to mention that

I wish people would think through citizen's united instead of just spouting off the 'corporations are people' platitude (convenient no one seems to mention that unions are also people now). Why should a group of persons not have the same rights to speech as a single person? What about it being a group makes it so scary? It's not like the barrier to entry on pooling your money is any higher than protesting is it? The argument in this piece seems to boil down to "I am afraid of what conservative people with money might say, and I don't want them to be able to use their money to say it." Is there even any evidence that corporations are using their wealth to influence politics through political ads? Because that's what this is really about isn't it? Corporations buying elections through ads. This article is full of vague notions, but there's no real evidence to support the narrative that this is a problem that's even happening.

Karunamon 12y ago
Even if we accept the partisan hackery you've dropped on us here, the idea that it's not "a problem" is insane. The answer to a lawsuit about something like false advertising is not "freedom of speech". The limits on the first amendment right for individuals has been thoroughly explored in the last century or so - the recent cases, less so. And I feel that there's value in asking why this sudden change in many years of jurisprudence. None of the answers I can conceive reflect very well on the legal or regulatory systems.
- marcoperaza 12y ago
  First amendment cases concerning private individuals aren't as common anymore because it's largely settled law. Welcome to America, you have nearly-unlimited freedom of speech. People don't get arrested for political opinions, or for posting racist tweets (unlike Europe), or for saying something hateful things in public (unlike Europe), or for publicly supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS, or for wearing a swastika and having a Nazi march through a town inhabited by aging Holocaust survivors (see Skokie). In fact, if a CIA agent walked up to you and gave you thousands of seriously embarrassing classified documents, he'd go to jail for a long time but it would be almost impossible for the government to get a court order stopping you or punishing you for publishing. Every so often, some local cops overstep their authority and the district courts take care of it. The Supreme Court is interested in clarifying existing law, resolving circuit splits, and deciding landmark cases, not in deciding the same issue repeatedly. If you say hateful or stupid things, your punishment is that people won't like you. Amazingly, it works.

Karunamon 12y ago

Even if we accept the partisan hackery you've dropped on us here, the idea that it's not "a problem" is insane. The answer to a lawsuit about something like false advertising is not "freedom of speech". The limits on the first amendment right for individuals has been thoroughly explored in the last century or so - the recent cases, less so. And I feel that there's value in asking why this sudden change in many years of jurisprudence. None of the answers I can conceive reflect very well on the legal or regulatory systems.

marcoperaza 12y ago
First amendment cases concerning private individuals aren't as common anymore because it's largely settled law. Welcome to America, you have nearly-unlimited freedom of speech. People don't get arrested for political opinions, or for posting racist tweets (unlike Europe), or for saying something hateful things in public (unlike Europe), or for publicly supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS, or for wearing a swastika and having a Nazi march through a town inhabited by aging Holocaust survivors (see Skokie). In fact, if a CIA agent walked up to you and gave you thousands of seriously embarrassing classified documents, he'd go to jail for a long time but it would be almost impossible for the government to get a court order stopping you or punishing you for publishing. Every so often, some local cops overstep their authority and the district courts take care of it. The Supreme Court is interested in clarifying existing law, resolving circuit splits, and deciding landmark cases, not in deciding the same issue repeatedly. If you say hateful or stupid things, your punishment is that people won't like you. Amazingly, it works.