NoJingoLingo
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 325
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What purpose did those people gather for? To create a corporation, once they do so they are no longer an assembly of people. Again, you're trying to use an adulterated definition of "assembly".A gathering of people to form a corporation isn't a gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose? Your argument is dying and it's dying fast.
That's completely ridiculous. If that were true then if groups didn't exist, people wouldn't exist. See how ignorant that is?
OK, I can see my mistake. Here's the solution. The individuals all still have their individual rights in tact. The "group" never had any rights to begin with and any rights gained are given by the government and can be removed. Assuming of course the group is not simply an assembling of people.No, that's a different argument.
He is saying that a group, comprised of X number of persons, while not having rights of it's own, is, obviously, comprised of persons who DO have rights.
Thus, restricting the rights of a group restricts the rights of the people who make it up.
But ANY group is an assembling of people.OK, I can see my mistake. Here's the solution. The individuals all still have their individual rights in tact. The "group" never had any rights to begin with and any rights gained are given by the government and can be removed. Assuming of course the group is not simply an assembling of people.
Let's not be quite so loose with our definitions just to shoe horn our opinions.
If a person joins the A.A.R.P. or the N.R.A. they do so because they agree with the N.R.A/ AARP 's lobbying positions.But ANY group is an assembling of people.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that many of them join because they agree with most of those organizations lobbying positions. Not all. Probably a few join who don't agree at all, however odd that might be.If a person joins the A.A.R.P. or the N.R.A. they do so because they agree with the N.R.A/ AARP 's lobbying positions.
Not necessarily. Some employees may agree entirely with the political positions of the corporation they work for.That is completely untrue of a corporation. Who is even "speaking" when a corporation pays for an ad to support or attack a candidate? The employee? Certainly not. The Shareholder? Doubtful. Even the C.E.O. or board of directors may well consent to buy ads that run contrary to their personal views and preferences because they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. The Corporations is an artificial legal construct and "political expression' has nothing to do with individuals gathering to express themselves.
Yes there is. The Constitution.
Again you ignore the Constitution. Try reading it.
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations". :roll:
Only for people who can't read the constitution... like the 5 republican judges on the SCOTUS.
Is that supposed to be some kind of intelligent argument or are you simply exercising your right?
1) it was an analogy and a poor one as I noted.
2) It's not opinion it's FACT. When a sperm fuses with an egg it creates a zygote. A zygote is a single-cell that contains two copies of chromosomes—one copy from each parent. In the week following fertilization, the zygote undergoes rapid cell division and becomes a mass of cells known as a blastocyst. After more cell division, the blastocyst splits in half.
Now you are aware of the fact.
Then dispute it instead of just barking.
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations". :roll:
No, you prove it, becuse you are the one making the factual assertion.
But you won't be able to, because you pulled it out of thin air.
There is no inconsistency with my view. I didn't say the NYT was a group. "The Press" (in 1776) was the vehicle (print media) responsible for gathering and publishing news.
"Freedom of the press" is not "freedom of a form a media." It's a freedom of anyone to publish, to create and distribute words on a page. It's an action, not a thing.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you?
I don't really know what else to say, because you're simply wrong on this. A quote from a layman's explanation of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means does not trump the actual text of the Constitution and years of jurisprudence. The first amendment applies to more than just individuals. If you don't want to take my word for it, take the Supreme Court's:
From First Nat Bank v. Bellotti:
This is well settled law.
Where are you getting this from?
Again, this doesn't make any sense. The Catholic church is the one paying the salaries of priests. If government passed a law forbidding the expenditure of money on priests, that would be analogous to government passing a law forbidding corporations to spend money on advertising. Using your framework, because neither one is technically a person, they have no rights and those laws would be fine. If you want to say that the individual members of the catholic church are having their freedom of religion infringed by such a law, then you would have to say that the individual members of a corporation would be having their freedom of speech infringed by such a law.
And as explained above, this is incorrect.
So your theory is that because you think it would be inefficient, that somehow means they shouldn't be allowed to do it?
I always thought it was "freedom of the press".
As in, the actual "press" which was used to print the news sheets.
:mrgreen:
Yeah, those printing presses work all night for no pay. Free the press!
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.
I wonder...
Is anyone out there arguing that "Freedom of the Press" referred only to newspapers, and thus all TV, Radio, and Internet media formats are not protected by it?
Where do you get the idea that it was never "meant" to protect people exercising their rights as a group?
You're making a positive statement about intent, which means you have to show it.
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.
Because very few, if any, groups have the exact same unified beliefs.
Every human is different in beliefs, even if it is a matter of degree.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Nothing about individuals in there. In fact, there's a specific reference to groups - the press. Are newspapers individuals? Most are corporations, by the way.
Why does that change anything?
Do individuals have to be 100% certain of their own opinions to express them too?
Actually, I would hazard a guess that many of them join because they agree with most of those organizations lobbying positions. Not all. Probably a few join who don't agree at all, however odd that might be.
But, essentially, you are correct.
Not necessarily. Some employees may agree entirely with the political positions of the corporation they work for.
But also essentially correct.
However, I would argue that as both the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A take political positions which benefit their members, so also do corporations take political positions which benefit their members.
"The press" is a generalization referring to many different individuals who publish the great variety of stories, broadcasts etc.
They do not share a unified political view, "the press" is made up of individuals expressing different opinions, beliefs and facts.
Newspapers are not individuals, they are sheets of paper combined with ink to covey information in the form of words.
Corporations have owners and each of these owners can express the right to free speech in any way they want as individuals.
The Bill of Rights was meant for individual liberties, not group rights.
Who in the group, owns the gun, is allowed a trail by jury, can exercise in their freedom of religion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?