The 28th amendment

[Father Time]

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So there should be no laws that proscribe slander or libel. Perjury, fuck that shit, I can say what I want to. Any commercial speech should obviously be impervious to any kind of regulation or laws. I can see it now; Viagra: Get a hard on and cure cancer at the same time!!! And there should be no law against the whole yelling fire in a movie theater scenario or threatening language.

Yeah, I do believe that there are some forms of speech that can be regulated.

So it's not absolute but do you really think this would fall under any exception?

The speech you're censoring is concerning speaking favorably (or unfavorably) about people running for elected office. I don't see how anyone can say free speech doesn't cover that.

 

[Darkwind]

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So there should be no laws that proscribe slander or libel. Perjury, fuck that shit, I can say what I want to. Any commercial speech should obviously be impervious to any kind of regulation or laws. I can see it now; Viagra: Get a hard on and cure cancer at the same time!!! And there should be no law against the whole yelling fire in a movie theater scenario or threatening language.

Yeah, I do believe that there are some forms of speech that can be regulated.

So you don't know the difference between speech that is considered directly and deliberately harmful and the most protected speech of all, political speech?

 

[beowolfe]

What makes me seriously laugh is the idea that somehow it was the original intent of our founders to not want everyone to have free speech and that's why we should pass this amendment. What kind of stupid person could possibly believe that?

The operative word being 'everybody'. Have you people been brainwashed to the point that you truly believe a coporation has the same constitutional rights as a person/citizen??????

 

[beowolfe]

It sure would match the founders intentions

I'm sure if the founders wanted it to only apply to individuals they would've said it was a right of the people not a general right.

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So, you think a coporation is the constitutionally is the equivalent of a person/citizen (just to cover that whole illegal alien thing)?

 

[Avatar4321]

What makes me seriously laugh is the idea that somehow it was the original intent of our founders to not want everyone to have free speech and that's why we should pass this amendment. What kind of stupid person could possibly believe that?

The operative word being 'everybody'. Have you people been brainwashed to the point that you truly believe a coporation has the same constitutional rights as a person/citizen??????

Have you been brainwashed to the point that you truly believe a corporation isnt just a group of people who associate together for business purposes? Could you explain how something without a voice can speak?

 

[Avatar4321]

It sure would match the founders intentions

I'm sure if the founders wanted it to only apply to individuals they would've said it was a right of the people not a general right.

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So, you think a coporation is the constitutionally is the equivalent of a person/citizen (just to cover that whole illegal alien thing)?

No. I think a corporation is a group of people joined together for a common cause. Just as any honest person would agree. And as groups of people have a right to speak.

See, unlike you, i dont see corporations as evil soulless entitites. I see them as groups of individuals working together to provide goods or services to others. I see a father providing for his family. I see a single mother struggling to keep food on her table. I see young college graduates filled with hopes and dreams trying to make their marks in the world.

 

[LuckyDan]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

I think you just outlawed eveything but sole proprietorship.

 

[Father Time]

It sure would match the founders intentions

I'm sure if the founders wanted it to only apply to individuals they would've said it was a right of the people not a general right.

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So, you think a coporation is the constitutionally is the equivalent of a person/citizen (just to cover that whole illegal alien thing)?

No I'm saying the right to free speech also covers corporations. There are times when the Constitution specifys the right of the people to do x (like say keep and bear arms) free speech isn't one of those times it only talks about the general right.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Is this the left's version of the Defense of Marriage Amendment?

 

[Father Time]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Is this the left's version of the Defense of Marriage Amendment?

How are they similar?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I worry more about the 5th amendment on Takings. Supposed to be for the public good, not so friends of the powerful can rip folks off.

And the rule on Ex Post Facto laws. That no longer seems to apply to taxes.

I don't think we should go to the idea that Government should have the right to shut down any entity from speaking because they don't like that entity. My side today, your side tomorrow. Going down that path is just plain dangerous.