Law-Forums.org

[mate]

If federal government can pass laws restricting election-affecting speech of corporations, isn't it reasonable to expect powerful liberal elitists will someday restrict the speech of newspaper corporations?


Barack Obama and Elena Kagan have led an effort to impose federal laws imposing restrictions on the speech of corporations----specifically election-affecting speech. They have tried to cast aspersions with rhetorical allusions that corporations can twist people's minds into voting against people's will.....

But last I checked, New York Times Corporation was a CORPORATION. Once the precedent is set that the First Amendment no longer protects the speech of corporations, what protections are left to prevent losing our free press?

What is to stop that next? Will Obama's Kagan appointment result in the nullification of the constsitution?

Do we or don't we citizens have an unlimited right to pool our monetary resources for effective conveyance of a political message, specifically to affect elections and/or policy decisions?

Isn't that what USA's freedom is all about?

[motega]

'Speech' in this case is perilously close to corruption. Money is not speech. Corporations are limited liability entities that get to have their cake and eat it too. They exist through law, and have no natural rights. To pretend otherwise when it comes to the protections of the people in our constitution is ludicrous. That said, it makes sense for the law to treat corporations as people where it is a benefit to society to do so. But corporations have no natural rights to protect, especially to the detriment of the people. The people owning and running the corporations, as private citizens, have all the rights that are necessary to protect.

[alburt]

Not unless the newspaper corporation is conservative. I thought the courts dealt with corporations as individuals?

[wal49]

The New York times does not spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence the outcome of an election.

Are you a libertarian? Even Ron Paul says the recent Supreme Court ruling granting corporations further personage was a travesty of justice and undermines our democracy.

[cuartio52]

You friggin moron!


<<
Does the constitition distinguish between free speech of corporations & free speech of newspaper corporations?
>>
LOL!

If you cared about america and not corporations you might have heard of something called FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!


Did you drop out first grade?

The press is explicitly mentioned in the first amendment as protected, corporate speech is not explicitly mentioned.

[wal49]

you not homophobic are you,,,,,anyway my answer is no...

[bergh39]

Free speech from a newspaper is expressed from editorials. Can you really be this naive? "They have tried to cast aspersions with rhetorical allusions..." blah blah. wtf wrote that drivel? It doesn't even make any sense. OHHHH rhetorical allusions, be afraid, be very afraid.

[tanishia]

There is a century of established law restricting Corporate money from influencing elections - that the current 5 member right wing portion of the Supreme Court - with a unanimous 4 justices dissenting opinion - just threw out.

There is an even longer duration of law establishing the freedom of the press. They are not just a 'corporation'.

Our founding fathers did NOT establish rights for corporations.
One of the most powerful, monopolistic Corporations of all time, the East India Company was involved in the Boston Tea party - they are the ones who had been given monopoly over the American Tea trade that Parliament attempted to tax as it moved from England to America.

[lawly1]

the bill of rights applys to citizens. the individuals who make up the corporation have the right to free speech, not the corporations themselves.