It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by CyberStray
The assertion that foreign corporations will be picking government officials is just another fallacious argument, unless you are admitting by your own post that you can not make your own decisions and will automatically fall prey to any money spent on political campaigns by corporations. If you are afraid of being so swayed by the political campaigns of corporations then don't pay attention to them, that is, after all, you right.
As to me dragging behind, I have been well aware of this thread and others in regard to this issue, but now is the first chance I've had to post, as I have responsibilities in the real world that take up a good portion of my time. If you read the entire thread then you know full well there have been many posts that have showed quite a bit of emotion and expressed quite a bit of outrage. Conversely, I took the time to quote the ruling itself and to speak directly to what was held in that ruling.
You are responsible for your own actions and insisting that you need a nanny state that protects you from the speech of others does not bode well for your own ability to handle consequences.
Originally posted by CyberStray
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by CyberStray
The assertion that foreign corporations will be picking government officials is just another fallacious argument, unless you are admitting by your own post that you can not make your own decisions and will automatically fall prey to any money spent on political campaigns by corporations. If you are afraid of being so swayed by the political campaigns of corporations then don't pay attention to them, that is, after all, you right.
As to me dragging behind, I have been well aware of this thread and others in regard to this issue, but now is the first chance I've had to post, as I have responsibilities in the real world that take up a good portion of my time. If you read the entire thread then you know full well there have been many posts that have showed quite a bit of emotion and expressed quite a bit of outrage. Conversely, I took the time to quote the ruling itself and to speak directly to what was held in that ruling.
You are responsible for your own actions and insisting that you need a nanny state that protects you from the speech of others does not bode well for your own ability to handle consequences.
I'm no genius but any idiot can tell that this decision opens the door to a flood of foreign money into political campaigns.
What kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations?
I don't care how well you did in English, or Comparative Lit, you have an anger issue and should see a Doctor.
Where did you crawl out from dude, you are one twisted cookie.
Cyberstray
Originally posted by CyberStray
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You
Again with the anger thing, and yet it is you using words like "moron" to express your own rage. You ask what kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations and I say; exactly! Will you be controlled by corporations simply because they have the freedom to
speech? Do you currently buy Coke because their advertising campaigns tell you too? Do you run out to McDonald's as often as often as you can because their advertising campaigns tell you too? What kind of person would do that?
Me
Moron is not an angry word, you are confusing yourself.
You try to turn the tables by telling me I should be able to not be controlled, when I am controlled? I'm not controlled by their speech but the money spent by other countries to elect my representatives controls the process. What is wrong with you?
You are either confused or making crazy rationalizations with good grammar, but your metaphors are ridiculous.
You are saying advertising does not influence people.
Where did you get this illusion? Some Buddhist retreat?
"If you do nothing, you ruin nothing" should be your motto.
You are a creepy, and very frustrated confused person.
Cyberstray
Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by winston37
Heartfelt post but when you have a corporation lets say Wal Mart and they employ lets say 50k people and you give it the death penalty then it only hurts the employees.
The Court dismissed these sort of dubious waivers as non-binding when what is being waived is an unalienable right. This was a great win for freedom and for the rights of the individual as well as groups including those groups or persons who have incorporated.
This ruling is about freedom of speech not about empowering corporations.
Originally posted by winston37
The Court dismissed these sort of dubious waivers as non-binding when what is being waived is an unalienable right. This was a great win for freedom and for the rights of the individual as well as groups including those groups or persons who have incorporated.
This ruling is about freedom of speech not about empowering corporations.
I understand that this case is not explicitly about whether or not a corporation is entitled to the same rights afforded to human beings. It does, however, raise the question in a profound way.
Can you explain why you believe that a corporation should be entitled to these rights?
Can you explain how something without a mouth with which to speak or hands with which to write has the freedom of speech?
I apologize if my question is one that stems from ignorance of the legal system. I've not spent much time studying legalese and as such it is Greek to me. I'm just a lowly musician looking for answers to questions that arise from time to time.
Alright; enough of this. Time to get back to the Superlocrian mode.
Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak."
Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.
In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office.
I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government?
Read More...
But "Hillary: The Movie" never became a blockbuster. The Federal Election Commission restricted Citizens United's ability to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season, a decision that Bossie and other conservative activists saw as a threat to their freedom of speech.
"The marketplace for my movie was completely and totally shut down by the Federal Election Commission," Bossie said in an interview Thursday.
So he sued -- and thus was born Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the legal drama that resulted in Thursday's dramatic Supreme Court decision to overturn restrictions on corporate spending on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.
Critics said Citizens United created the withering movie knowing that it would fall under the tangle of broadcast and advertising restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
"Hillary: The Movie" was dedicated to his wife, Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator who was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
She was a longtime Clinton critic, working with Bossie in the trenches on Capitol Hill through the 1990s investigations, and wrote the book "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton."
"Very, very few people in the world knew as much about Hillary and Bill Clinton as Barbara Olson did," Bossie said, adding that Ted Olson "had an emotional connection" to fighting this case.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
The free-speech question elicits uncommon agreement across party lines. More than 6 in 10 Republicans and Democrats believe campaign donations are a protected form of free speech, but fewer than half of independents (48%) agree.
Originally posted by Carseller4
This is the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now that you have read it....What don't you understand?
The ruling was caused because companies with media arms like GE or News Corp could spend unlimited money with journalism (bias)...while other corporations could not advertise within 30 days of an election;