Debate USSC decision on "Free Speech"

[The Rabbi]

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

"Clear and present danger" was overturned about 30 years ago.

But even using that standard, I fail to see how funneling unlimited amounts of money from anonymous sources through corporate shells and into the (already corrupt) political process can be seen as anything other than a danger. McCain-Feingold had to go, but this is not the answer.

No, actually it wasn't. Please show which case overturned Schenck.
Sorry you fail to see that. I fail to see how allowing the gov't to ban books can achieve anything other than despotism.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

So, I take it that you disagree with Britain for stifling the radical muslim clerics calling for jihad against the west, right?

Laws in Britain are different. So I can't comment on it.
If it were America I would be against any laws that stifled such speech, odious as it is.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

"Clear and present danger" was overturned about 30 years ago.

But even using that standard, I fail to see how funneling unlimited amounts of money from anonymous sources through corporate shells and into the (already corrupt) political process can be seen as anything other than a danger. McCain-Feingold had to go, but this is not the answer.

No, actually it wasn't. Please show which case overturned Schenck.
Sorry you fail to see that. I fail to see how allowing the gov't to ban books can achieve anything other than despotism.

Government already cannot ban books, that's my point.

If a corporation publishes a book or makes a film in its normal course of business, it was already protected under commercial speech doctrine even if it is political in nature. The government lawyers were wrong, and the law was bad. I thought I made that clear. BUT if they'd simply left it there, nobody (or only the real nutters) would have batted an eyelash. It's the radical expansion of political rights and its implications that has people worried, as the Framers themselves pointed out for good reason.

And FYI the "Clear and present danger" standard was overturned in Brandenburg.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See Justice Douglass' concurrence for the history and evolution from Schenck to Whitney - the case that was specifically overturned in the majority holding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My jaw hits the desk every time I read some of these stupid fucking "reasons" for putting a cap on the amount of money that can be spend in order to gain control of an enterprise that spends $3.5 TRILLION ANNUALLY AND HAS ISSUED $12.2 TRILLION IN DEBT.

 

[goldcatt]

You really think it's about the money, Frank? Go back and read what the Founders had to say. I happen to agree with them.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Clear and present danger" was overturned about 30 years ago.

But even using that standard, I fail to see how funneling unlimited amounts of money from anonymous sources through corporate shells and into the (already corrupt) political process can be seen as anything other than a danger. McCain-Feingold had to go, but this is not the answer.

No, actually it wasn't. Please show which case overturned Schenck.
Sorry you fail to see that. I fail to see how allowing the gov't to ban books can achieve anything other than despotism.

Government already cannot ban books, that's my point.

If a corporation publishes a book or makes a film in its normal course of business, it was already protected under commercial speech doctrine even if it is political in nature. The government lawyers were wrong, and the law was bad. I thought I made that clear. BUT if they'd simply left it there, nobody (or only the real nutters) would have batted an eyelash. It's the radical expansion of political rights and its implications that has people worried, as the Framers themselves pointed out for good reason.

And FYI the "Clear and present danger" standard was overturned in Brandenburg.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See Justice Douglass' concurrence for the history and evolution from Schenck to Whitney - the case that was specifically overturned in the majority holding.

From the decision:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled.

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

 

[goldcatt]

No, actually it wasn't. Please show which case overturned Schenck.
Sorry you fail to see that. I fail to see how allowing the gov't to ban books can achieve anything other than despotism.

Government already cannot ban books, that's my point.

If a corporation publishes a book or makes a film in its normal course of business, it was already protected under commercial speech doctrine even if it is political in nature. The government lawyers were wrong, and the law was bad. I thought I made that clear. BUT if they'd simply left it there, nobody (or only the real nutters) would have batted an eyelash. It's the radical expansion of political rights and its implications that has people worried, as the Framers themselves pointed out for good reason.

And FYI the "Clear and present danger" standard was overturned in Brandenburg.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See Justice Douglass' concurrence for the history and evolution from Schenck to Whitney - the case that was specifically overturned in the majority holding.

From the decision:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled.

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

 

[dilloduck]

Government already cannot ban books, that's my point.

If a corporation publishes a book or makes a film in its normal course of business, it was already protected under commercial speech doctrine even if it is political in nature. The government lawyers were wrong, and the law was bad. I thought I made that clear. BUT if they'd simply left it there, nobody (or only the real nutters) would have batted an eyelash. It's the radical expansion of political rights and its implications that has people worried, as the Framers themselves pointed out for good reason.

And FYI the "Clear and present danger" standard was overturned in Brandenburg.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See Justice Douglass' concurrence for the history and evolution from Schenck to Whitney - the case that was specifically overturned in the majority holding.

From the decision:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled.

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

Eots and Terrel can explain it.

 

[goldcatt]

From the decision:

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

Eots and Terrel can explain it.

I'm sure they can. But I'm all out of tinfoil.

 

[The Rabbi]

Government already cannot ban books, that's my point.

If a corporation publishes a book or makes a film in its normal course of business, it was already protected under commercial speech doctrine even if it is political in nature. The government lawyers were wrong, and the law was bad. I thought I made that clear. BUT if they'd simply left it there, nobody (or only the real nutters) would have batted an eyelash. It's the radical expansion of political rights and its implications that has people worried, as the Framers themselves pointed out for good reason.

And FYI the "Clear and present danger" standard was overturned in Brandenburg.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See Justice Douglass' concurrence for the history and evolution from Schenck to Whitney - the case that was specifically overturned in the majority holding.

From the decision:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled.

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

Somehow I tend to believe the solicitor general of the united states has a better grasp of what is allowed under any given law than a random poster on a message board. The justices didn't say "oh btw Mr Solicitor General, you are wrong about that." In fact, I dont think they mentioned it.
There was a need to make the decision they did. When freedom is in jeopardy no move is too radical.

 

[Avatar4321]

You really think it's about the money, Frank? Go back and read what the Founders had to say. I happen to agree with them.

Not if you oppose the right of the people to speak

 

[Avatar4321]

Another nice straw man, but the answer is NO.

The Framers were specific. The original intent was to reserve speech, particularly political speech, for individuals alone. In fact, Madison and Jefferson especially addressed the dangers of extending the freedom of political speech to corporations. I personally would add labor unions, which did not formally exist at the time but would seem to fall under their rationale. They spoke of the dangers of allowing exactly what the Court allowed with this decision and the imbalance of power that would result. I also can't imagine reading their arguments that they would have intended for any foreign agent to be able to incorporate and have full and free political protections.

I support any individual's right to speak no matter what the content or point of view. But while I'm not normally an Originalist but rather a pragmatist, in this instance the Originalist view is correct. Certain rights must be reserved for individuals or they beciome so diluted as to be meaningless.

Why is a corporation different from any other group of people wishing to speak?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

If the Constitution were to be amended, why allow $100?
Make it zero. Each candidate can campaign in person and on their own web site, and real debates conducted on line where answers are written and may be compared to questions submitted by citizens and jounalists.

 

[goldcatt]

From the decision:

So whatever the technical term, speech can be banned but only under extreme circumstances.
And the comment by the gov't lawyer was the very trigger that decided the case. The idea that the gov't has the power to ban books is odious.

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

Somehow I tend to believe the solicitor general of the united states has a better grasp of what is allowed under any given law than a random poster on a message board. The justices didn't say "oh btw Mr Solicitor General, you are wrong about that." In fact, I dont think they mentioned it.
There was a need to make the decision they did. When freedom is in jeopardy no move is too radical.

They didn't?

Just like "Clear and present danger" is still the law of the land.

I think we have very different ideas of what "freedom" means. For some of us that means zealously guarding individual rights, for others it means diluting them in favor of partisan interests. So be it.

All I can say is, I never, ever want to hear any of the hacks applauding this decision but unable to make a coherent argument in its favor complaining about how politicians are bought and sold by special interests.

 

[logical4u]

It was a nice win but it did not go far enough IMO. See...
A cautionary note on Citizens United
Power Line - A cautionary note on Citizens United

The best way to counter speech you don't agree with is with more speech. As far as I'm concerned campaign finance should not be regulated at all. (except for required disclosure)

It is not about speech, it's about money. All of us, even those who simply parrot the propaganda of Limbaugh and other Republican demagogues have the right to express their emotions as opinions. To argue it's about freedom of speech is simply a canard; 'speech' is expressed in many different ways, and can be surpressed in many ways too.
To equate the voice of Murdock with that of Wry Catcher is abusrd, one has the power of the press, radio and TV and employs hundreds of persons to do his bidding; the other is one person, limited to the internet and one-on-one debate.
The decision of the USSC, as they have many times, is couched in legalese and demagoguery, for the Justices of the Supreme Court are human beings, and as such are inbued with bias and partisan prejudices as are all of their kind. CU v. FEC is partisanship of the highest order, and there is no greater evidence than this: 5 to 4.

I don't recall any problems the libs had with foreigners contributing to 'their' canidates, or against republican canidates. George Soros gave money to any group that would be his puppet, after he ruined UK's economy (implying his motives could be similar here). Wonder why those libs think it is okay to have 'foreign dictators' (a type of corporation) 'buy' politicians, but have a problem allowing a company that does business here to speak up about the regulations the gov is pushing onto us (that would be the customers 'paying' all the taxes, fees, and charges leveled on corporations by the gov).
Just asking, what's up with that?

 

[The Rabbi]

And as I ALREADY POSTED, twice, the government attorney was wrong, the law was bad, and the government already did not have the right to ban a book published and distributed in the normal course of business even if the topic was political and dealt with an election within the time limit imposed by McCain-Feingold. That was infringing already protected commercial speech. Period.

There was no need to overrule Austin to reach their decision on McCain-Feingold. There was no need to ignore original intent to reach the same decision. There was no need to write such a broad, sweeping, radical decision to do what they set out to do. And the potential for abuse is staggering. So why?

Somehow I tend to believe the solicitor general of the united states has a better grasp of what is allowed under any given law than a random poster on a message board. The justices didn't say "oh btw Mr Solicitor General, you are wrong about that." In fact, I dont think they mentioned it.
There was a need to make the decision they did. When freedom is in jeopardy no move is too radical.

They didn't?

Just like "Clear and present danger" is still the law of the land.

I think we have very different ideas of what "freedom" means. For some of us that means zealously guarding individual rights, for others it means diluting them in favor of partisan interests. So be it.

All I can say is, I never, ever want to hear any of the hacks applauding this decision but unable to make a coherent argument in its favor complaining about how politicians are bought and sold by special interests.

If so, please show it.
You wont hear it from me. "Special interests" is a liberal talking point. Special interests are nothing more than groups of citizens banded around a particular issue. How many people work in construction? There is a lobbying group concerned with construction. How many in medicine? There are lobbying groups for that. Firearms? For that too. Everyone of them represent American citizens of one kind or another. And that's fine.
What I oppose are certain special interests, like trial lawyers.

 

[Darkwind]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

If the Constitution were to be amended, why allow $100?
Make it zero. Each candidate can campaign in person and on their own web site, and real debates conducted on line where answers are written and may be compared to questions submitted by citizens and jounalists.

Nothing in life is free.

But everyone can afford a hundred bucks. So it becomes the lowest denominator.

But hey. It isn't My amendment. I don't have controlling power in all three branches of government.

You want the corrupting influence of money out of politics. Make it so that no one and nothing can donate more then anyone or anything else.

It is a simple formula.

BUT! You level the playing field for EVERYONE.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

If the Constitution were to be amended, why allow $100?
Make it zero. Each candidate can campaign in person and on their own web site, and real debates conducted on line where answers are written and may be compared to questions submitted by citizens and jounalists.

Nothing in life is free.

But everyone can afford a hundred bucks. So it becomes the lowest denominator.

But hey. It isn't My amendment. I don't have controlling power in all three branches of government.

You want the corrupting influence of money out of politics. Make it so that no one and nothing can donate more then anyone or anything else.

It is a simple formula.

BUT! You level the playing field for EVERYONE.

Exactly.

 

[goldcatt]

Somehow I tend to believe the solicitor general of the united states has a better grasp of what is allowed under any given law than a random poster on a message board. The justices didn't say "oh btw Mr Solicitor General, you are wrong about that." In fact, I dont think they mentioned it.
There was a need to make the decision they did. When freedom is in jeopardy no move is too radical.

They didn't?

Just like "Clear and present danger" is still the law of the land.

I think we have very different ideas of what "freedom" means. For some of us that means zealously guarding individual rights, for others it means diluting them in favor of partisan interests. So be it.

All I can say is, I never, ever want to hear any of the hacks applauding this decision but unable to make a coherent argument in its favor complaining about how politicians are bought and sold by special interests.

If so, please show it.
You wont hear it from me. "Special interests" is a liberal talking point. Special interests are nothing more than groups of citizens banded around a particular issue. How many people work in construction? There is a lobbying group concerned with construction. How many in medicine? There are lobbying groups for that. Firearms? For that too. Everyone of them represent American citizens of one kind or another. And that's fine.
What I oppose are certain special interests, like trial lawyers.

So you're all for free speech for some groups but not others.

The irony here is priceless.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh, and Rabbi? I never got around to asking you why you want to equate political contributions to incitement of violence and hold it to the same standard re: Schenck to Whitney OR Brandenberg. It's an interesting tactic, but if that's the standard you want to use you'll need to show what one has to do with the other.