possible solution to supreme court decision about corporations

[NoJingoLingo]

Well, not really, but fine, let's go with this.

No, not "not really". The answer you can't bring yourself to admit is YES we do limit speech for the common good.

What are all the criteria you think are reasonable exemptions, and how does corporate speech fit into any of them?

Your question is invalid. There is no need to list exemptions in this case because corporations are not people.
There is no such thing as corporate speech. Corporations can't speak. Some person or people in a position to access corporate funds may spend money but money doesn't equal speech, therefore corporations have no speech.

Before you answer, I'll tell you what you simply can't do, based on both the logic of freedom of speech and a long history in the courts - you can't base your exemption on simply not liking the content or source of the speech. Which is what you're going to do.

meaningless.

You have no argument that doesn't amount to "I think people shouldn't hear certain messages from certain sources/I think speech should be rationed so it's more fair." Both go right to the heart of freedom of speech, and must be rejected.

My argument is that corporations are not people and money doesn't equal speech. No need to try and suit up a strawman.

Money isn't speech. Spending money on speech is speech. A political contribution is a contribution, not an expense on speech.

So by contributing to a politician I'm not voicing my choice?

 

[misterman]

Your question is invalid. There is no need to list exemptions in this case because corporations are not people.

It was YOUR argument that there are exceptions.

There is no such thing as corporate speech. Corporations can't speak. Some person or people in a position to access corporate funds may spend money but money doesn't equal speech, therefore corporations have no speech.

This is hilarious. Corporations can't speak, yet it's okay to limit their right to speak, which they can't exercise? Make up your mind.

If corporations can't speak, then who is speaking in the ads in question? Whoever it is, that's who has the freedom of speech. Voila.

My argument is that corporations are not people and money doesn't equal speech. No need to try and suit up a strawman.

No strawman.

I agree that money isn't speech. And corporations aren't people. Neither are relevant.

So by contributing to a politician I'm not voicing my choice?

Oh, no. Please, please don't start playing games with the word "voice" now.

No, you're not - because like you said, money isn't speech.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

It was YOUR argument that there are exceptions.

And you're can't deny it so... *shrug*

This is hilarious. Corporations can't speak, yet it's okay to limit their right to speak, which they can't exercise? Make up your mind.

How do you limit something that doesn't exist? You're trying to change the focus. The 5 of 4 SCOTUS and you, believe that corporations have the right to free speech. I don't believe they do because they have no ability to speak. The people who work at a corporation have their right protected regardless if they work or not.

If corporations can't speak, then who is speaking in the ads in question? Whoever it is, that's who has the freedom of speech. Voila.

A person. The problem is that we have NOW allowed that person to use the funds of a corporation for this purpose.

I agree that money isn't speech. And corporations aren't people. Neither are relevant.

FINALLY!

Oh, no. Please, please don't start playing games with the word "voice" now.

No, you're not - because like you said, money isn't speech.

Voicing/speaking... no semantic games. That's right, money isn't speech. I could get that ad by barter, or coercion if that's how I work it out with the seller of ad space, no money needed necessarily.

 

[misterman]

And you're can't deny it so... *shrug*

If you want to play that game, I'm ready. Just let me know.

How do you limit something that doesn't exist?

Yes, exactly! You tell me.

You're trying to change the focus. The 5 of 4 SCOTUS and you, believe that corporations have the right to free speech. I don't believe they do because they have no ability to speak. The people who work at a corporation have their right protected regardless if they work or not.

So what exactly was this case about? Why did it exist.

A person. The problem is that we have NOW allowed that person to use the funds of a corporation for this purpose.

And why is that a problem?

Voicing/speaking... no semantic games. That's right, money isn't speech. I could get that ad by barter, or coercion if that's how I work it out with the seller of ad space, no money needed necessarily.

Barter? Coerce? Wow, that's desperation.

You realize that you're giving the government the authority to ban all advertising, billboards, fliers, circulars, banners, brochures, PA systems, megaphones - any way of communicating that costs money. Yet you think that amounts to freedom of speech? Really?

 

[Coronado]

You realize that you're giving the government the authority to ban all advertising, billboards, fliers, circulars, banners, brochures, PA systems, megaphones - any way of communicating that costs money.

Of course he does! Gubment = good, corporations = bad.

You see, government always has your best interests at heart. Just ask the Native Americans. :doh

 

[NoJingoLingo]

If you want to play that game, I'm ready. Just let me know.

I think we've been there already.

Yes, exactly! You tell me.

You don't, therefore corporations should not have speech protected as if they are persons.

So what exactly was this case about? Why did it exist.

It's about allowing corporations to use company funds to influence elections. It exists because the SCOTUS has previously, effectively said money=speech.

And why is that a problem?

Because it's bad for a society where the people are supposed to have control over government. Currently our system is controlled by corporate interests instead of societies interests.

Barter? Coerce? Wow, that's desperation.

No it's proving to you that money is not the only way to achieve free speech in the manner you proffered, via an ad.

You realize that you're giving the government the authority to ban all advertising, billboards, fliers, circulars, banners, brochures, PA systems, megaphones - any way of communicating that costs money. Yet you think that amounts to freedom of speech? Really?

No I'm giving (notice the structure of that) the government the ability to do what I want which is to not harm society by allowing corporate money to influence our elections. You see, when you are in control of the government you can say things like 'X is bad for society as a whole and we will legislate'. Since corporations exist solely at the pleasure of the State, anything they can or cannot do is put into effect by law NOT by pretending they are persons and them protecting them under the constitution. Just because it's the way we have allowed our government to do it does not mean it is reasonable.

You seem to be oddly absolutist in your view on this.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

Of course he does! Gubment = good, corporations = bad.

As usual you miss the mark. Government controlled by corporations = bad.

You see, government always has your best interests at heart. Just ask the Native Americans. :doh

Government is never your best friend when you don't control it, ask the Native Americans. :doh

 

[misterman]

It's about allowing corporations to use company funds to influence elections.

And how do they do that, exactly?

Because it's bad for a society where the people are supposed to have control over government. Currently our system is controlled by corporate interests instead of societies interests.

Well, people do have 100% control over government. But back up a minute. You're saying the government should have the power to decide that certain interests are bad, and shouldn't influence government, and therefore certain kinds of speech should be banned because those interests paid for them?

Do I really have to spell out just how completely wrong that is, and how many absurd possibilities it allows?

No it's proving to you that money is not the only way to achieve free speech in the manner you proffered, via an ad.

So do you think the government has, or should have, the power to take away any or all spending on speech? Yes or no?

No I'm giving (notice the structure of that) the government the ability to do what I want which is to not harm society by allowing corporate money to influence our elections. You see, when you are in control of the government you can say things like 'X is bad for society as a whole and we will legislate'. Since corporations exist solely at the pleasure of the State, anything they can or cannot do is put into effect by law NOT by pretending they are persons and them protecting them under the constitution. Just because it's the way we have allowed our government to do it does not mean it is reasonable.

The voters are 100% in control. Why do you think you need to substitute your judgement about what they can hear? Why don't you trust them? Are they too stupid to make a responsible decision without you to protect them? Should we ban other harmful speech too? Should we just stop having elections?

Seriously, think about it.

You seem to be oddly absolutist in your view on this.

It's not odd to be in favor of freedom of speech.

 

[Coronado]

As usual you miss the mark. Government controlled by corporations = bad.

No, you missed it. Since that is evidently your M.O., I'll not waste my time explaining it to you.

 

[misterman]

As usual you miss the mark. Government controlled by corporations = bad.

Government is controlled by voters. They are 100% responsible for their choices. They don't need you to tell them what they can and can't hear.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

And how do they do that, exactly?

By allowing corporations to use their corporate bank account to purchase political ads. have you not been following or are you trying to lead me?

Well, people do have 100% control over government.

If you're just going to try and be obtuse then we are finished here. You know very well that control and possession are quite different. People are in possession of the government, but society as a whole does not control our government as was intended. Corporate interests have control. But yes, they are people too. :roll:

But back up a minute. You're saying the government should have the power to decide that certain interests are bad, and shouldn't influence government, and therefore certain kinds of speech should be banned because those interests paid for them?

No you're saying that.

Do I really have to spell out just how completely wrong that is, and how many absurd possibilities it allows?

I'm certain you could build a nice little strawman to tear down.

So do you think the government has, or should have, the power to take away any or all spending on speech? Yes or no?

That one has a nice jacket, did you make that yourself or did it come with it?

The voters are 100% in control.

Sure, the same way a person with MS has control over their muscles. Corporate interests would be like MS. We the people are unable to get the signals through to get done the things we want done.

Why do you think you need to substitute your judgement about what they can hear? Why don't you trust them? Are they too stupid to make a responsible decision without you to protect them? Should we ban other harmful speech too? Should we just stop having elections?

Seriously, think about it.

You always go for the absolute. :roll:
Dude: let's make a law that you can't go more than 55mph. It'll save gas and lives.
You: SPEED LIMITS ZOMG, no one can drive anymore, is that what you want, no more driving?!?!?

Can you see an ad for Marlboro's on TV? Why not? CAn you smoke a Marlboro if you want?

 

[misterman]

By allowing corporations to use their corporate bank account to purchase political ads. have you not been following or are you trying to lead me?

So corporations don't do anything - people do it with corporate funds. Is that right?

If you're just going to try and be obtuse then we are finished here. You know very well that control and possession are quite different. People are in possession of the government, but society as a whole does not control our government as was intended. Corporate interests have control. But yes, they are people too. :roll:

I'm not being obtuse. I'm dead serious. If you can't handle reality, fine. Voters have 100% possession and control of who is elected.

You always go for the absolute. :roll:
Dude: let's make a law that you can't go more than 55mph. It'll save gas and lives.
You: SPEED LIMITS ZOMG, no one can drive anymore, is that what you want, no more driving?!?!?

Some things are absolute.

Can you see an ad for Marlboro's on TV? Why not? CAn you smoke a Marlboro if you want?

This just shows how woefully uninformed you are about the law in this area. I just don't have time to explain this to you.

Look, no matter what your impulses are to suppress freedom of speech, they aren't any different from any other dicator's who thinks he knows best what the people should and shouldn't hear, and what's good or bad speech. You can't do it. Sorry.

 

[misterman]

No, you missed it. Since that is evidently your M.O., I'll not waste my time explaining it to you.

Certain kinds of speech from certain sources is bad, because the voters can't handle it. They need the government to help them form their opinions by shielding them from certain messages. They can't be trusted. So sayeth JingoLingo. And every other speech-suppressing totalitarian regime.

 

[Groucho]

Certain kinds of speech from certain sources is bad, because the voters can't handle it. They need the government to help them form their opinions by shielding them from certain messages. They can't be trusted. So sayeth JingoLingo. And every other speech-suppressing totalitarian regime.

Except, of course, that the law the Supreme Court stuck down did not differentiate between the contents of the speech. ALL monetary contributions were limited, whether from left leaning groups or right leaning groups. Your statement that "certain kinds of speech" were being censored while others were not just doesn't make sense.

 

[misterman]

Except, of course, that the law the Supreme Court stuck down did not differentiate between the contents of the speech. ALL monetary contributions were limited, whether from left leaning groups or right leaning groups. Your statement that "certain kinds of speech" were being censored while others were not just doesn't make sense.

Certain kinds of speech = corporations. Somehow they are evil.

But the point is that JingoLingo's position is that the government could indeed pick a liberal or conservative source and declare it evil if it chose to.

 

[Groucho]

Certain kinds of speech = corporations. Somehow they are evil.

But the point is that JingoLingo's position is that the government could indeed pick a liberal or conservative source and declare it evil if it chose to.

Jingolingo is wrong.

 

[misterman]

Jingolingo is wrong.

Meaning you agree that no restrictions on speech based on the source of that speech are allowable?

 

[Groucho]

Meaning you agree that no restrictions on speech based on the source of that speech are allowable?

Yes.

Limitations on all speech are allowed under certain exceptions, but they can never be based on what is said. You can't allow a pro-life parade and deny a gay rights parade, for instance -- you either have to allow both or deny both.

(That is a VERY simplified explanation of the law, so please don't come after me with all the exceptions and clarifications, of which I am aware.)

 

[NoJingoLingo]

So corporations don't do anything - people do it with corporate funds. Is that right?

No, that's not what I said.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm dead serious. If you can't handle reality, fine. Voters have 100% possession and control of who is elected.

So now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you'd like to move the goal post. You originally said: "Well, people do have 100% control over government."
You neatly added to that in order to change from a bad position to something you think is better.

Some things are absolute.

We could also debate that but why bother, you'll just parade strawman arguments around until I'm tired of trying to help you.

This just shows how woefully uninformed you are about the law in this area. I just don't have time to explain this to you.

I don't think so but why don't you go ahead and explain it using my example of cigarette commercials.

Look, no matter what your impulses are to suppress freedom of speech, they aren't any different from any other dicator's who thinks he knows best what the people should and shouldn't hear, and what's good or bad speech. You can't do it. Sorry.

Ad hominem's to light your strawmen I see.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

Certain kinds of speech from certain sources is bad, because the voters can't handle it. They need the government to help them form their opinions by shielding them from certain messages. They can't be trusted. So sayeth JingoLingo. And every other speech-suppressing totalitarian regime.

My username is NOjingolingo, if you have trouble reading or typing then maybe I won't report you for doing it continuously. Which problem do you suffer from?

 

[NoJingoLingo]

Certain kinds of speech = corporations. Somehow they are evil.

"evil" is simply ridiculous but you've been getting more and more ridiculous in your posts so it comes as no surprise that you don't know an inanimate object cannot be attributed actions or thoughts that we would consider "evil". But then you think a piece of paper that allows a corporation to exist is entitled to personhood.

But the point is that JingoLingo's position is that the government could indeed pick a liberal or conservative source and declare it evil if it chose to.

Strawman. Please quote my post saying the underlined. Otherwise we'll assume you are now simply trolling.

Work on that spelling problem you have in the emboldened word.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

Jingolingo is wrong.

That's right, it is NoJingoLingo and not Jingolingo. :2wave:

 

[misterman]

No, that's not what I said.

Sounds like it to me, but you can explain why not if you like.

So now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you'd like to move the goal post. You originally said: "Well, people do have 100% control over government."
You neatly added to that in order to change from a bad position to something you think is better.

Huh?

People have 100% control of the government. I stand by that statement, and I didn't contradict it.

I don't think so but why don't you go ahead and explain it using my example of cigarette commercials.

Political speech and commercial speech are treated quite differently under the law. No content or source related restrictions on political speech are allowed, period. That's the purpose of the First Amendment. Commercial speech is like all your other exceptions - relating to the action, not the speech. In this case, selling cigarettes. The fact that it involves speech is irrelevant, it's just like restrictions on where you put cigarette vending machines, etc. Look it up.

Ad hominem's to light your strawmen I see.

That was not an ad hominem. It was an observation, a comparison.

 

[misterman]

"evil" is simply ridiculous but you've been getting more and more ridiculous in your posts so it comes as no surprise that you don't know an inanimate object cannot be attributed actions or thoughts that we would consider "evil".

Then why do you do it?

You tell me in your words why then. Why should we stop corporations from paying for political ads, exactly? What makes it wrong? No strawman, just tell me in your words.

But then you think a piece of paper that allows a corporation to exist is entitled to personhood.

And you complain about strawmen. I never said any such thing.

Strawman. Please quote my post saying the underlined. Otherwise we'll assume you are now simply trolling.

If you can decide that corporate speech is someone bad because of where it comes from or how it is paid for, anyone can.

Work on that spelling problem you have in the emboldened word.[/QUOTE]