No, it means THOSE "groups" (which aren't groups but ideas as you well noted in this very thread)
are protected by the first amendment. I truly don't understand how you can continually dismiss this.
Yeah, do you need me to provide the source?
Please quote where I said that. Nothing in what you quoted and then responded to has the word government nor implies it, yet you created a statement that I didn't say.
Says 100+ years of detailed caselaw.
No, YOU brought up Constitional rights. Freedom of religion is one of those. YOU are evading.
And your views clearly aren't reflected in reality.
So churches don't have freedom of religion, only people? And newspapers don't have freedom of speech, only people? And the government could confiscate corporate property without compensation?
You dodged these questions once, you'll do it again.
Duuuhhhh, isn't dey da ownerz?[/sarcasm]So, in your universe stockholders are what, robots, or dogs?
Oh you must mean laissez faire economics. Please name one country that has such? If it's so great then surely some other nation must be using that ideal... I'll wait.In a free market, no one has "control" over the economy.
We should get back to being free.
No, corporate control of the government is the problem. There is a tug-o-war going on between the "people" and the "corporate interests" which leads to half-assed or completely stupid legislation. This is because the politicians have to try and please both in order to get and stay elected. They should only be trying to please "the people".Government control of the economy has been proven, 100% of every case in history, to suck. Right now the Messiah has control of the economy, and his ignorant ass doesn't blink at the notion of 1500 billion dollar deficits.
That is basically your argument.Bla bla bla.
:spin:Too bad for you, "Reaganomics" didn't fail.
Guy in crowded movie theater yelling FIRE. Anything else you need proven?What legal responsibilities come with freedom of speech? What exactly are you legally required to do in order to have it? If you don't live up to those responsibilities, can your freedom of speech be taken away too?
No, it's an argument for not allowing corporations to have free speech.That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
We were not discussing religion. YOU brought that up... as a dodge tactic.
The freedoms belong to the PEOPLE ... NOT THE ORGANIZATIONS.
No, it's an argument for not allowing corporations to have free speech.
Please don't force me to go back through the thread looking for that post where you acknowledged that the press and religion are ideas.No, they are groups. Many are also corporations too!
In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.Yes. So the founding fathers clearly saw that freedom was no conditional on acting only as an individual.
Please don't force me to go back through the thread looking for that post where you acknowledged that the press and religion are ideas.
In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.
I know there are different sorts of incorporation, but all of them limit liability for those who invest and operate them.Religion and the Press aren't groups either, they are ideals. "We the People" wanted those ideals protected so that the government could not destroy or control them. You are also conflating the different forms of business ownership. An LLC is not the same as being an S Corp or plainly Incorporated etc.
But you're on the right track!
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaYes. Where did they say literally that money = speech?
Oh, I get it, I simply disagree based on the Constitution. You agree based on judicial activism. But I notice you did not quote me as I asked. See, I don't believe the government is or was restricting free speech because corporations don't qualify as persons.Of course it's the government - who else is going to restrict speech? This decision overturned a law passed by the government that restricted corporate speech. You don't get that?
Right, but they can never lose more than they are worth.Didn't see these coming.
Yes, there are in some limited circumstances. And corporations are subject to those too. They can be sued for libel for instance.
And the problem with this really comes down to equating money with speech. As I see it, the whole point of the First Amendment is to create greater equality among the people in terms of political power by making sure that one powerful group cannot make another less-powerful group shut up. This ruling allows some people to magnify their power to speak out of all proportion with others. And they'll do this not to further the commonweal but to enhance their own profitability.But there are no conditions whatsoever on political speech.
Obviously, I disagree. Fortunately, we're allowed to criticize the SCOTUS and suggest they got it wrong.Doesn't matter if you think it's a bad idea. It's not for you to decide. The Constitution says no.
Actually, it's an arguement for restricting the speech of those rich and powerful enough to drown out everyone else, regardless of the issue.That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
No, as proof that the Constitution protects more than individual rights.
Wrong.
Churches and other religious groups have freedom of religion. Newspapers (most of them corporations too!) have freedom of the press. Not just the individuals involved in those groups, the groups themselves. To say otherwise is absurd. And corporations also have rights, the courts have said so over and over for 100+ years.
Clearly groups can have constitutional rights. If you want to argue that speech is only an individual right, you have to do more than just say it loudly over and over. You need an actual argument.
Again you make a strawman argument. Running an ad for toothpaste (a product the company makes or markets) is very different than running an ad that says something political.Or anyone else.
The argument basically says that people are too stupid to handle advertising. We can't be trusted with it. We need the government to protect us from it.
This is a good point but, the government already does limit political speech from said groups and parties. BTW, political groups are simply people who are politically minded the same. I don't think they should have any additional free speech rights than they already possess as citizens. Political parties are, well, political parties. We the people make an exception for them so that we can understand their candidates and platform so that we can make an educated choice on where to place our vote. This is dealing with the body politic directly as opposed to a corporation that wants to run a political ad.Why couldn't the government turn around and then say we should keep certain political groups, or parties, from advertising? What's the difference?
Then we are back to you not really understanding the Constitution. "Religion" and "the Press" are ideas.I don't recall that, maybe you misunderstood me. But it doesn't matter. Religious groups and news media companies are groups, and they have constitutional rights. That's what I'm saying now.
Currently yes. I'm saying it is wrong though.So it is possible for a group to have rights.
Again you are misinterpreting, not only the Constitution but the 1st amendment. "religion" and "the press" are ideas.So you can't just assume that a right is only for an individual, since the constitution does recognize group rights too. Groups were contemplated as having rights right there in the same amendment, and there is no reason to think they can't have the right of speech. Groups even have rights to written speech (the press).
For people, the press and religion. Nothing else is listed, period.The First Amendment clearly states that there will be no laws restricting speech.
Period.
Then we are back to you not really understanding the Constitution. "Religion" and "the Press" are ideas.
If you worked for the NYT and someone asked who you worked for, would you say "I work for the press" or would you say "I work for the NYT"?
If they asked you what industry you worked in would you say "the press" (or today we would probably say the media) or would you say "the NYT"?
Can you see the difference? One is an idea the other is a corporation.
For people, the press and religion. Nothing else is listed, period.
Again you make a strawman argument. Running an ad for toothpaste (a product the company makes or markets) is very different than running an ad that says something political.
This is a good point but, the government already does limit political speech from said groups and parties.
BTW, political groups are simply people who are politically minded the same. I don't think they should have any additional free speech rights than they already possess as citizens.
Political parties are, well, political parties. We the people make an exception for them so that we can understand their candidates and platform so that we can make an educated choice on where to place our vote.
This is dealing with the body politic directly as opposed to a corporation that wants to run a political ad.
OK, well you're just being obtuse so I see no reason to try to educate you. You skip all the things you get nailed on like the money=speech thing, etc., so you're not really interested in honest debate on this subject any more.
It doesn't have to say it--the fact that it never mentions corporations should be enough. Conservatives regularly insist that the Constitution be read strictly, and they chastise people on the left for reading in to that document meanings that don't appear. The Court had done precisely this in the most recent case.Also waiting for you to tell me what law or section of the constitution says that "we the people" made an exception to normal constitutional rights by excluding corporations.
It doesn't have to say it--the fact that it never mentions corporations should be enough.
Conservatives regularly insist that the Constitution be read strictly, and they chastise people on the left for reading in to that document meanings that don't appear. The Court had done precisely this in the most recent case.
"Normal constitutional rights" are not granted to corporations--mostly because corporations didn't exist at the time it was written.
No one anticipated the growth of corporations. "Combinations" (the term commonly used then) were considered dubious and even dangerous at the time. There's no reason to assume that where the Constitution says "persons" it also means "combinations of persons." That's inventing out of whole cloth.
You have a point, though I would still argue that corporations have morphed into a shape and status that would leave any 18th century lawmaker appalled.Well, no, that's not enough - especially since it doesn't really leave any room for interepretation in that regard. It simply says Congress shall make NO law...abridging freedom of speech.
It's an interesting question, but let's start with the fact that rights are not granted by law. They are granted by the Constitution, which does not mention the word "corporation."But my question was aimed at Jingo's claim that "we the people" had decided to exclude corporations from having rights. I asked where that was stated anywhere in law.
You're right. I would argue this case is not so much about speech but about how money can be used to further speech. The Founders lived in a world where the ability to speak was not differentiated by wealth nearly so much as it is today. The mass media have complicated the question of speech well beyond the imagination of our founders. We've done the best we can with it, but I'd say we've made some errors. This is one.No, you're the one reading into it. You're reading an exception to the words "NO LAW."
Really? What rights do they have? Which rights are they denied? Corporations exist in the forms prescribed by law and are completely the spawn of law. It's my opinion that they have grown to an inconvenient shape and should be reigned in. The corporation should be our servant but it has become our master.This is false. Corporations have many constitutional rights, as the courts have held for over a century.
I'd say none of those things has rights, though the individuals within them do.No it's not. You wouldn't say a combination of persons in the form of a newspaper (incorporated most likely) or a church or other religious group has no constitutional rights (the press and religion respectively) would you? Or political parties?
How have the anti-corporate arguments here suggested that any individual lose his/her rights? I just don't think that individuals should have INCREASED political rights through their participation in combinations.There is no reason to think the Founding Fathers thought that groups of people, in whatever legal form, would somehow lose their rights because they join together as a group. Just the opposite.
It's an interesting question, but let's start with the fact that rights are not granted by law. They are granted by the Constitution, which does not mention the word "corporation."
You're right. I would argue this case is not so much about speech but about how money can be used to further speech. The Founders lived in a world where the ability to speak was not differentiated by wealth nearly so much as it is today. The mass media have complicated the question of speech well beyond the imagination of our founders. We've done the best we can with it, but I'd say we've made some errors. This is one.
Really? What rights do they have? Which rights are they denied?
The corporation should be our servant but it has become our master.
I'd say none of those things has rights, though the individuals within them do.
But religious and press groups have those freedoms.
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?