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.

 

Libertarian Take On Supreme Court Free Speech Ruling

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
(linkable article I authored on Fascist Soup)

I see a lot of people commenting on the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of removing all restrictions on corporate political advertising and equating this to giving corporations the same rights as people.

If you take a moment to step back, you'll realize that you're only angry at this decision because subconsciously you understand that corporations will work to install politicians who give them favors and kickbacks.

People, wake up.

The solution is not to restrict the speech of corporations, union, individuals, or renegade film makers.

The solution is to reduce the power of government.

If politicians were restricted to performing their constitutional roles and only allowed to legislate on those specific areas granted to them in the constitution, it wouldn't matter one way or the other what corporate ads were being run.

Ask yourself this question: If politicians were restricted to the constitution, would corporations even bother to send lobbyists to Washington or sponsor political campaigns?

NO!!!!

THEY WOULD NOT!!!

Corporations only sponsor politicians because they know a small investment of a few million in campaign contributions can result in billions from government contracts, bailouts, kickbacks, subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable regulations.

DO NOT BE MAD AT FREE SPEECH! Be mad at the system behind your anger.


John Lott explains why the ruling upheld the rights of citizens.


Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed. On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.




[edit on 22-1-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Wow. A voice of reason from a fellow libertarian. The way business is done in Washington will not change a whit as long as the two major parties remain in place. All I've read on those other threads is the same tired liberal vs conservative bashing that always happens on ATS. It all degenerates into name calling and partisan back slapping. Myself, I'm taking a wait and see on this. They found a law unconstitutional. So now it's back to the drawing board.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Are you bloody serious.

Health insurance corporations care about making money and could give a rats ass about people.

Military industrial complex wants war and lots of it.

Energy companies want zero innovation and no green clean technologies.

All corporations want low wage immigrant workers paid in scraps with no benefits whatsoever.

...and you think that this decision will somehow empower corporations to take over the Government and make this country a better place by giving themselves free reign to do what ever they want?...and you are ok with that.

Are you bloody serious!

Jesus Man, wake the hell up. When have the corporations done anything for the common good. By their very nature ..they don't care about human NATURE! only profits.

Good God where do you people come from!


[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


You wouldn't have a computer in front of you if it wasn't for a corporation with a profit motive. Biting the hand?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


I see.

So, if you were an independent film maker that had just produced a documentary about all the evil Bush did during his first term and were planning on releasing your film just before election night in 2004 - you feel the federal government should intervene to stop you from doing so.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Are you bloody serious.

Health insurance corporations care about making money and could give a rats ass about people.

Military industrial complex wants war and lots of it.

Energy companies want zero innovation and no green clean technologies.

All corporations want low wage immigrant workers paid in scraps with no benefits whatsoever.

...and you think that this decision will somehow empower corporations to take over the Government and make this country a better place by giving themselves free reign to do what ever they want?...and you are ok with that.

Are you bloody serious!

Jesus Man, wake the hell up. When have the corporations done anything for the common good. By their very nature ..they don't care about human NATURE! only profits.

Good God where do you people come from!


[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]


You don't believe in the freedom of speech? Under the freedom of speech, if you can say something as an individual you can also say it as a collective.

Can you claim that American's have not specifically been voting for fascism every time they vote for someone getting huge corporate donations? If people didn't like their politicians getting huge corporate donations the obvious solution, and its really effective, is to not vote for them?

I think maybe you need to wake up to the fact American's have been getting exactly what they vote for, which is fascism. They do have an easy choice of voting against people who get big fat corporate donations.

The supreme court very rightfully recognized the freedom of speech in this case. Its about time they made a correct decision. If someone under the US constitution does not like it they can amend it or replace it... but not ignore it. Again, the judges decision was correct and if you disagree then you don't get to just throw a fit you have to say how their decision was against the facts of the case.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by civilchallenger]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
You don't believe in the freedom of speech? Under the freedom of speech, if you can say something as an individual you can also say it as a collective.


“What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.”

–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
All you people applauding what can only be described a corporate coup d'etat on our country make me sick. Not only are you dancing on the tombstone of American democracy, but you're also dancing on the selling America off to foreign powers, which I thought was what you libertarians always opposed. Avenginggecko created an excellent thread entitled America for Sale: The Rise of Foreign Powers and the Death of the Citizen, which details that the majority of industry is owned by foreign powers. Through the rigid and convoluted hierarchy of corporatism, the conservative justices just allowed companies that may have foreign parent companies or owners to buy out American elections. It also lets the giants of industry and their respective 'complexes' (military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, surveillance industrial complex, big pharma, etc) cast aside the "iron triangle" for direct interference within the political realm.


The solution is not to restrict the speech of corporations, union, individuals, or renegade film makers.


Why should a non-entity such as a corporation have the same rights as the individual?


an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.


Dictionary.com: Corporation


The solution is to reduce the power of government.


What we need to do is shatter these corporations into a thousand pieces, return the money to the America people, place strict regulations on banking and industry to prevent companies from every reaching this size again and instituting a clear transparency and watchdog organizations to keep corruption in check. Then we can go about reducing the government.


DO NOT BE MAD AT FREE SPEECH! Be mad at the system behind your anger.


We will be mad at however we damn well please. Corporations should not have the right to free speech - as they are not living entities.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Funny how you don't see folks complaining about how UNIONS can already give and do whatever they please when it comes to advertsing etc.

We the people have a right to all the infomation we desire to seek when choosing a canidate. Both good and bad stuff.

I am sure we are smart enough to figure this all out.

Also, I find it amusing how you think all politicians will/can be destroyed by advertisements from companies. I bet you won't be bitc-ing if/when companies like Ben & Jerry's run ads that you like against a canidate.

Face it. The playing field just got leveled-in favor of the Republicans.

The Supreme Court did its job. It defeated a poorly written bill. Now, let the politicians do a better job writing ta new law.... They best do it quick before they come under the control of Wal-mart and McDonalds. lol

I thank God for our Constitution and the S/C-the only thing keeping Obama and the other nimrods from a total socialist take over. Thank you Mr. Kennedy for the seat.....



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by koolerthanjesus
 


Yes, but there are alternatives to those corporate systems.

second line.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I would rather know the face of a corporation that supports a candidate rather than that corporation hiding behind a political action committee.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger


You don't believe in the freedom of speech? Under the freedom of speech, if you can say something as an individual you can also say it as a collective.


The right of the people, not the corporations, not the unions, not anything other than the people.

The bill of rights does not enumerate the rights of organizations, they have none. Except those given by we, the people. I know religion, not necessarily an organization. Besides if these rights apply across the board to entities other than individuals why arent churches allowed to endorse candidates for office?

If a union or corporation wants someone elected they have every right to tell you at the workplace who they think is a good candidate. Same for churches.

The constitution is in place for our protection, the people. Not for corporations, banks, or unions. Allowing them to contribute through proxies such as lobbyists or even directly amounts to nothing less than prostitution of public office.

What the supreme court recently did was nothing short of turning DC into an open red light district.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The outright ignorance of people is staggering.

This decision was a BLOODY EXTENSION of the 1886 ruling that corporations (who already had 14th Admendment rights) be given ADDITIONAL 1st Admendments rights. They have had only 14th Admendments rights for the past 124 years.

Wow do you people just soak up this right wing garbage. This decision had little to nothing to do with McCain Feingold.

Moreover that quote from Jefferson PROVES MY BLOODY POINT. Individual human F-ing beings have the ability of political speech but collectively they have DOUBLE REPRESENTATION which IS NOT ALLOWED.

For example a human being can donate to a representative but they should not gather together additionally and pool their mass resources to make one completely new entity to donate even more.

Especially when individuals are locked in spending amounts and now corporations are not!

For F-ks Sake Jefferson WARNED ABOUT THIS VERY THING HAPPENING.



For crying out loud will you please F-ing educate yourselves.





[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you for your sanity. It is amazing that folks think this is the END of DEMOCRACY! Why should other pressure groups be treated any differently than corporations.

How about these folks go all day without using anything not made by a corporation and donating all of their 401K and pension assets held in mutual funds, or pension accounts to charity.

For all of the "lets all go live in the woods and live off the land" crowd. Its amazing that after spouting that rubbish for years we can still see their posts. I don't know of an internet cafe in the sticks, so they must still be at home, right? If you feel so strongly about that movement, why aren't you living it? Oh, I sure there is some excuse and I'm sure its the fault of some corporation.

To paraphrase a quote by William F. Buckley:

I would sooner be led by the CEOs of the entire Fortune 500 than the combined legislative and executive branches of the United States Government.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Individuals have free speech.

Do groups have such a right? The problem with corporate speech
is that it becomes anonymous without individual responsibility.

Someone once said a corporation as a person functions on the level
of a sociopath. Doesn't society have a duty to limit the rights of
habitual criminals?

Corporation use stolen power derived from the shareholders or members
for the ends of those who control them.

If a Labor Union spoke with the collective majority voice of its members,
that would be protected speech IMHO. But when its leadership can't be
voted out or can a rogue union be disbanded and the workers must join(or
pay dues) to get a job, giving labor unions the same free speech rights as
individuals destroys the first amendment.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


As a renegade film-maker and someone who's made his living in the entertainment industry for the last 24 years... what the # are you talking about?

If anything independent and small-time filmmakers will get even more drowned out with this.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





The solution is to reduce the power of government.


You don't get it.

Do you honestly think INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS....entities that do not live by any nation's laws....will actually REDUCE it's power in our government?

Have you lost your mind?

Not only does this decision silence the middle class and the poor....it destroys our nation's sovereignty and democracy.

Do you want Chinese corporations WRITING OUR LAWS?

Is this what it has come to?

PLEASE rethink what you are stating!

All candidates from now on will be corporate owned...many internationally owned. Candidates will be chosen by corporations...not by people. Corporations control all of our media.

GEEZUS MAN.

For someone that is supposed to be a Libertarian...you don't seem to care much for our Constitution, Sovereignty, or individual liberty.

This is disastrous for our Democratic Republic. People are already hurting yet it's ok to give unlimited power to Corporations who have sent MILLIONS and MILLIONS of jobs overseas? It's ok to give power to Wall Street that is completely responsible for the downfall of our economy?

PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR THINKING.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by David9176]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by UMayBRite!
 





Do groups have such a right? The problem with corporate speech is that it becomes anonymous without individual responsibility.


Free Speech is now determined by wealth....which means individual liberty...each person's HUMAN RIGHTS....are irrelevant unless they have MILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Funny how you don't see folks complaining about how UNIONS can already give and do whatever they please when it comes to advertsing etc.


No, they can't - prior to the Supreme Courts decision to turn over 103 years of law limiting how corporation AND unions could influence an election, UNIONS were also given the same exact limitations as any corporation or special interest group.

Now, all bets are off, and corporations have far more money and control over media to influence and outright buy an election as they see fit.


[edit on 22-1-2010 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


It has always been driven from wealth. It is totally concentrated today with the Skull & Bones crowd, Goldman Sachs, Harvard Club and the like. Not only is it concentrated it is almost totally opaque. It will never not be concentrated by wealth. At least in this system, however difficult it may be, the average individual does have some control over the speach of a corporation. Shareholders have rights. Can a single shareholder impact the actions of a corporation? No. Can a movement of shareholders? Yes they can. I'll give you an example. Were all of the members of public sector unions ban together and drive their institutional pension plans out of, say Apple, the fund would drop Apple. I have seen this happen personally. Corporations are kept afloat by shareholders, most of which own the shares through pension assets and mutual funds. No sin funds (no alcohol, tobacco, gambling etc) funds are now in the $billions. Environmentally friendly funds are also mega billion funds. In the Islamic world, Shiria funds have amassed massive assets.

Will this require individuals to get more informed? Yes. Will this require individuals to become more activist? Yes. Will this enable individuals to insist on things like "freedom funds" or "US jobs/no off-shoring" funds, yes it will. I believe that if the folks can get their s+$& together it actually gives them more of a voice in the long run.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join