NoJingoLingo
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 325
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:doh:doh:doh
Oh nonsense. I made it quite clear that I am talking about quantity not type of advertisements ("speech" if you can really call it that). We are talking about drowning the T.V. viewing audience with advertisements representing one point of view- the point of view of corporations.
So I guess you're not against the Christmas day bomber having his miranda rights read to him, right? Because everything and everyone in the universe is covered by our constitution, right? I mean, that's your argument at least.
Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong. :2razz:Yes. Of course - if he's being charged with a crime.
Would you want to skip a trial altogether and just take him out back to be shot?
Our system has worked so far without compromising our own principles, we can do it now.
Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.I am curious.
If you, NoJingoLingo (or whatever your real name is), were part of writing a new constitution for the USA, what type of free speech protections would you place in it?
Screw what the founders think, would think, or whatever, what would YOU do?
Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong. :2razz:
But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.
Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)How do you know that though?
Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)
Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.
But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.
EvCorporations are liability shields and nothing more.
Agreed. A shield, thus no need for human rights as it isn't human but a legal shield.
Nobody gave them human rights. The people running the corporations have human rights already. This decision just says the fact that they run a corporation doesn't mean they lose those rights.
Owners never did lose their individual human rights. As a INDIVIDUAL. Some want to treat a Corp as if it was them or as if it was a real person. Its not....With ownership comes responsibilties...
Owners never did lose their individual human rights. As a INDIVIDUAL.
Yes they did. The law said they couldn't say certain things, just because they wanted to pay for it with a check from a different bank account.
They can say things as a Individual....
Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)
How do you know that though?
The idea that corporations are somehow different is silly. They are just bank accounts. Corporations can't speak, as many have noted - they are run by people who do.
Try rereading. I didn't say religion was an entity."religion" is an entity? Not in the First Amendment. It's a practice, a verb not a noun. Just like speech. It applies to everyone and everything. Individuals AND groups (churches etc.) both have freedom of religion, even though churches and other religious groups aren't mentioned. The same principle applies to speech.
Nobody gave them human rights. The people running the corporations have human rights already. This decision just says the fact that they run a corporation doesn't mean they lose those rights.
you said corporations aren't people and can't speak yet the SCOTUS gives corporations free speech. So who's wrong, you or the SCOTUS?They can say things.
You're wrong, it said that the corporation can use its money, not the money of the people who work there but corporate funds.
I guess you just can't see the inconsistency of your view coupled with the SCOTUS view.
Because they weren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The idea that corporations are somehow the same as a person is just silly.
But corporate funds ARE the funds of the people who work there.
They are one and the same.
Through their work, they generated those funds.
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?