Libertarian Take On Supreme Court Free Speech Ruling

reply to post by dolphinfan

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.

People are losing everything. Their homes and jobs are disappearing and we are suddenly smacked in the face with this ruling.

There is not enough time for what you are stating to happen. We either submit...or we revolt.

Time and time again...throughout history...when the poor becomes to large...and the wealthy become TOO wealthy...revolution happens.

If this tide is not turned....it will happen again.

The same type of people applauding this decision were heralding the rise of the Nazi party in the late 1930s. If ever there was a clear line demarcating those who want American democracy to succeed vs. those who want fascism, this is it. Only this time, who will save the world?? If they want, now China can own our debt and buy our elections. Yeah, this increases freedom of speech my ass.

Remember when Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine? Ever since our media as turned into infotainment preaching a message from whoever is paying the bills?

This is the exact same thing, only now we're selling politicians instead of airtime.

This is a monumental gun shot to the face of American liberty. This is going to take decades to reverse and repair if it's even possible at all.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


I remember. We need to bring back some kind of equal time/access back into the fold. The only question is how.

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
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.

Under the old rules, it was illegal to run a political documentary just before an election, as you would be considered "lobbying" as a film production corporation.

Have you read the actual majority opinion?


Lott fills us in:

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.

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]

All made possible because there are enough conquered 2-party clones out there who think voting GOP or DNC is still a good idea.

Boycott the war mongering parties and vote 3rd party.. render this ruling meaningless.

I like this ruling btw, its gonna be hilariousness... DC will become into even a bigger cesspool circus of failure, hypocrisy, death, fascism and lies which will hopefully, finally, cause the barbarians to storm the gates. Yea I get that it will be "bad" for the people.. but this is a good thing, the more the people get kicked by DC, the likelier they are going to feel it and wake the F up...

Bring on the misery DC!, take away guns, start another war, make RFID chips mandatory.. bring on ALL that s#!!! the sooner the better.

The behind the scenes elite, who own the DC mafia GOP/DNC anyway, might reveal themselves.. they already surreptitiously grease the mafioso under the table, they'll be easier to see if the money is on the record.

reply to post by mnemeth1


My guess is that if Ron Paul quit politics and produced a movie that hammered the government, demanded the disolution of the FED and slammed the US foreign policy and CIA over the past many years and someone came in and stopped that movie from being aired prior to an election, many of the opinions on this and other threads would be a bit different.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

My guess is that if Ron Paul quit politics and produced a movie that hammered the government, demanded the disolution of the FED and slammed the US foreign policy and CIA over the past many years and someone came in and stopped that movie from being aired prior to an election, many of the opinions on this and other threads would be a bit different.

why?

I'm a Ron Paul fan and I support this ruling.

This ruling STOPS the government from coming in and shutting down the movie.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Why, because folks assume that who will influence the national debate will never be folks like Ron Paul. I'm a Paul supporter too and I'm thinking that many of the folks who are railing against this ruling are too. I'm simply suggesting that were he or a like minded voice shut down by the recently overturned restrictions they might view this issue a bit differently.

Originally posted by skunknuts
The same type of people applauding this decision were heralding the rise of the Nazi party in the late 1930s. If ever there was a clear line demarcating those who want American democracy to succeed vs. those who want fascism, this is it. Only this time, who will save the world?? If they want, now China can own our debt and buy our elections. Yeah, this increases freedom of speech my ass.

I agree, but lets just face it: put a fork in the USA Titanic, this place is done. We're sinking, yet people still vote the 2 partys who are driving the ship into power... as both parties keep the band playing happy tunes.

Just like their nazi brethren of years past, the DC mafia GOP/DNC will delve into unapologetic fascism... this move just about guarantees it. The american people will wake up and revolt somehow.. hopefully peacefully, but lets face it.. the PTB won't give up power without fing things up and breaking stuff... big-time. Lets just hope the GOP/DNC gangsters can be dealt some just deserts long before we're reduced to post wwii germany.

This is just another nail in the empires coffin, enjoy your life while you can...govts come and go, its nothing personal.. just history repeating, as it will do.

The other side of this is that the Great Unwashed have to start taking an interest in something other than Americans Idle.

This is precisely why I'm against term limits. We already have term limits: they're enforced at the ballot box. (or used to be)

reply to post by leftystrat


I think term limits serve a good purpose.

I don't think there should be professional politicians.

My friend used to rant that we would be better off not having any democracy at all and instead have random people drafted to serve terms out of the general population.

As wacky as that sounds, I actually think we would be better off.

Not that I'm advocating that haha.




[edit on 22-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

What can we do? what can we do? Nothing. It's too late. That won't work.

For cryin' out loud, the SCOTUS ruling is NOT the end of the world! Whether you bellyachers like it or not, their ruling WAS correct! McCain/Feingold was unconstitutional and really didn't do a stinkin' thing to stop corporations, unions and special interests from buying votes. I remember when it was passed and seems to me things are more corrupt now than then.

That said, it is a total crock that corporations are given the same standing as people, no doubt about that. But I don't know that there is anything we can do about that. But, there are things we can do to try and stop the vote buying. So, stop the bitching and go to Public Citizen - Clean up Washington, get informed and get involved.

Go to Fair Elections NOW, read and sign the petition, call your Senators and Reps, write them a LETTER and send them an email and let them know how you feel. Send everybody you know an email and encourage them to do the same.

I don't care if you are conservative or liberal, if we don't stop this whining, put aside whatever differences we may have and JOIN together to fight this corrupt government, and DO SOMETHING, well then, stick a fork in us, we're done!

All this moaning and groaning on ATS will do NOTHING to solve the problem.
There are solutions out there - you just have to get involved and USE THEM!

reply to post by inthesticks


I think groups of people have the same rights as individual people.

Jefferson made it clear how the foundation of natural rights operates.

What is true of one is true of many.

Demanding government regulate the speech of private citizens is evil.

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Remember when Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine? Ever since our media as turned into infotainment preaching a message from whoever is paying the bills?

This is the exact same thing, only now we're selling politicians instead of airtime.

This is a monumental gun shot to the face of American liberty. This is going to take decades to reverse and repair if it's even possible at all.

The idea that presence or absence of the fairness doctrine had anything to media turning into celebrity entertainment is blatant nonsense. Your claims that the lack of fairness doctrine cause Brittany Spears to hit the front page seem laughable. Where is your evidence, so-called skeptic?

The fairness doctrine was about forcing specific political views on a public that didn't want it. Did you notice how Air America went out of business? Nobody wanted to hear that stuff, yet you wish to force it upon us.

You just hate the idea that private business owners can say whatever they wish using their media. You are anti-liberty and anti-free-speech. That is why I'm on your foes list.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest


I completely agree with you buddy.

The "fairness" doctrine was nothing more than a political tool to ensure the State could ram its unpopular agenda down the throats of the public.

Originally posted by watcher73

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]

I'd like to ask for some clarification. Lets say an individual buys out a corporation like "ABC Widgets, INC". Then, they privatize the company so that one person is the exclusive owner. Are you then okay with ABC Widgets, INC giving any amount of money to any politicians they chose?

Corporations should not have more rights and privileges than any one individual. Yet as you pointed out, they do. Corporations have been established to give a select group of people extra rights for a price tag of about $10,000. However, just as I'm not in favor of adding any rights to a person or group, I could not possibly be in favor of taking away rights to a person or group, whether or not they are evil. Thats the nice thing about rights. You get them whether or not other people believe you are evil.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by inthesticks

 

I think groups of people have the same rights as individual people.

Jefferson made it clear how the foundation of natural rights operates.

What is true of one is true of many.

Demanding government regulate the speech of private citizens is evil.

Really man, after a year of some measured heartfelt concerns about socialism and a fascist state and now this, and supporting this... Absolutely mind numbing and contrary,
I really suggest you need a new set of batteries in your evil meter, cause you are behind some off the charts evil per your argument. Furthermore, you think Jefferson would support handing over our political process to foreign nationals? I think he would smack you relentlessly , command you to get a hold of your senses and stop using his name to promote a total perversion of his and his brother hard work and BLOOD.

As Dave said you really need to think about the implications and if you truly already have, I feel very sorry for all of us. This is a total game changer, you are SQUARELY
NOT on the side of the American people. Only small event I can think that parallels this is the Iraq war, SPREADING FREEDOMS, ZERO thought about the cost and long term implications. We do not need another corporate SPREADING FREEDOM binge, we saved the Iraqis and gave them freedom, now the corporations spreading the freedoms to them, my head actually hurts.

I really hope you do not get your speculative whim and do not get to see how categorically wrong you are...

reply to post by Janky Red


Dude, do you just get your talking points from HuffPo and paste them here or do you take a moment to roll the ideas I've presented around in your brain first before commenting?

Do you understand the arguments I am making?

You are not addressing them in your post.

Originally posted by koolerthanjesus
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?

Give me a break. No one here is saying we should remove profit motive from corporations. We're saying that because of their profit motives and who may own them, they will not serve the best interests of the country.



The OP's logic that this ruling will somehow reduce the size of government is ridiculous. I can't even respond to it because the logic is so twisted whoever agrees with it has obviously moved past the point of rational thought.

Yeah, the military industrial complex is definitely going to shrink the defense budget now that they can install puppet politicians., and the healthcare industry would definitely never make the government subsidize costly operations. And the banking industry would never want the government to personally guarantee any part of private loans or credit lines.