Debate USSC decision on "Free Speech"

[The Rabbi]

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.

Did I say I wanted their rights of free speech curtailed? Please show it. WHile your showing how the gov'ts lawyer was wrong.
You can't/ You have nothing but empty verbiage.
No, I am for free speech in the original meaning of the first amendment. You are for censorship. No way to spin that one.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Did I say I wanted their rights of free speech curtailed? Please show it. WHile your showing how the gov'ts lawyer was wrong.
You can't/ You have nothing but empty verbiage.
No, I am for free speech in the original meaning of the first amendment. You are for censorship. No way to spin that one.

Yep, you're busted. Nice try at a save though. Can't understand let alone defend your own position, so create a diversion, go on the attack, claim victory and drop your own points instead of engaging in topical argument. "E" for effort.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

The irony here is priceless.

Did I say I wanted their rights of free speech curtailed? Please show it. WHile your showing how the gov'ts lawyer was wrong.
You can't/ You have nothing but empty verbiage.
No, I am for free speech in the original meaning of the first amendment. You are for censorship. No way to spin that one.

Yep, you're busted. Nice try at a save though. Can't understand let alone defend your own position, so create a diversion, go on the attack, claim victory and drop your own points instead of engaging in topical argument. "E" for effort.

Let's review:
You claimed the gov't does not have the power to ban books. You have never substantiated that.
You claimed the justices never contradicted the gov't. You have never substantiated that.
You claimed that I am in favor of limiting speech rights. You have never substantiated that.
Looks like one of us is a liar and a loser. And it ain't me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From where does the money originate, to whom does the money go and what is purchased in the exchange?
Isn't that question the issue?
Senators need to 'get' (best guess) $20,000 a day to run for reelection; candidates for the same seat need to obtain more.
What promises are made, to whom and at what 'cost' to the American people?
Do YOU ever wonder who are the 'real' people behind ad brought to you by the "American people for baseball, apple pie and motherhood"? Could it be one person? A cartel? Or, maybe the dear leader of N.K. using a phony name?
Does anyone doubt that quid pro quo is rampant on both sides of the aisle?

Has anyone read the entire opinion of the Court, as well as the concurring and dissenting ones? Only a Constitutional scholar or a current clerk for a SC Justice can fully understand the legal reasoning behind CU v. FEC.; yet many on this message board defend it as if they do. What is disturbingly funny is how many believe the opinion 'just' who clearly have no background in the law or understand the process of legal research [rhetorically I ask CFrank and other parisan defenders of this 5-4 decision, what is "to shepardize a case"?].

What a lay person can conceivably do, is to ponder the consequences of this decision - not in the abstract. What I fear is five members of the USSC engaged in and successfully completed a bloodless coup. The balance of power has shifted from the people to to the few - the few who control the boardrooms of America, and Japan, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, et al.

 

[Freedomlover]

Do you feel the same way about Big Labor being able to donate millions to Democrats to push their agenda? Or, do you not count them as a special interest group? At least now the playing field is more level.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh shit.. the unions OWN Obama.. but that's ok.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you feel the same way about Big Labor being able to donate millions to Democrats to push their agenda? Or, do you not count them as a special interest group? At least now the playing field is more level.

Of course "Big Labor" is a special interest. That's not the issue. The issue is who is giving the money, who benefits and are we - thje voter - informed of the consequences of our vote.
Is there any doubt where the money from big labor goes, or from where the money originated, and who hopes to benefit?
Ads by labor always (at least in my experience) report that the ad was payed for by the (example) the American Auto Workers or the Steam Fitters of America, etc. That's pretty transparent.
Watch and listen carefully this election cycle - see if you can figure out where the money for a particular ad came from and who will benefit. Of course all ads appeal to the emotions of the voter, so it takes a bit of critical thinking to really understand who benefits.

 

[logical4u]

Dumbest decision in my lifetime. Corporations are not people. People are recognized by the first amendment, not inanimate objects.

If they are "inamimate" objects, why are they "taxed"? Isn't that taxation without representation?

 

[logical4u]

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?

Question: if the law is bad and the lawyers were wrong, why do you have a problem with the court eliminating it? If their is a better way (law), do that and do not leave a "bad" law in place.

 

[dipshitliberal]

you can always count on liberal justices to ignore the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you feel the same way about Big Labor being able to donate millions to Democrats to push their agenda? Or, do you not count them as a special interest group? At least now the playing field is more level.

I think as long as everyone is clear as to where the money is coming from anyone should be able to donate anywhere in any amount.
So we know the unions own Obama. So everything he says and does that might be influenced by union interests is.
Do you want someone in the unions' pockets being President? Not me. I'll vote against him. (Not that I think he'll be running in the next election).

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I think the "groups of citizens" is a critical point. I don't have a major concern for corporations that are wholly owned by US citizens to engage in politics. Any corporation that is foreign ( like in the Cayman Islands) or is wholly or partially owned by foreigners should be excluded.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? Do foreign nationals lose First Amendment rights when they step on our shores?
We aren't talking about foreign companies making donations to campaigns. That's already illegal. We are talking about funding publication of books or other media.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why? Do foreign nationals lose First Amendment rights when they step on our shores?
We aren't talking about foreign companies making donations to campaigns. That's already illegal. We are talking about funding publication of books or other media.

Is it legal (or a good idea) for foreigners to meddle in our elections?

 

[Maple]

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).

Definition of a corporation- ( Webster's Dictionary)-" Legal creation with the rights and liabilities of a person."

Many corporations are made up of ONE person, a small business. Many corporations are made up of many people. The fact remains that they are made up of PEOPLE and you can not deny people freedom of speech.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? Do foreign nationals lose First Amendment rights when they step on our shores?
We aren't talking about foreign companies making donations to campaigns. That's already illegal. We are talking about funding publication of books or other media.

Is it legal (or a good idea) for foreigners to meddle in our elections?

I'm asking the questions here, wetbrain.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why? Do foreign nationals lose First Amendment rights when they step on our shores?
We aren't talking about foreign companies making donations to campaigns. That's already illegal. We are talking about funding publication of books or other media.

Is it legal (or a good idea) for foreigners to meddle in our elections?

I'm asking the questions here, wetbrain.

That's good because you surely do not have any answers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is it legal (or a good idea) for foreigners to meddle in our elections?

I'm asking the questions here, wetbrain.

That's good because you surely do not have any answers.

I actually have answered all of this.