It's official: A Corporation is running for Congress!

Originally posted by soficrow
The fact is:

the SCOTUS upheld and expanded corporations' rights as "persons" by this ruling - very specifically, their Right to Freedom of Speech.

WHAT'S NEXT?...

Right now, media corporations are fighting to control the Internet, and for the right to control and filter content - to maximize profits. The FCC is leaning towards protecting Net Neutrality, and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press on the Web for all.

If media corporations win the right to control the Internet to maximize profits, we could sue against censorship on the grounds that extreme filtering is NOT necessary to protect profits.

BUT - given that the SCOTUS already acknowledged corporations' Right to Freedom of Speech under this ruling, corporations will have HUGE powers under law. Their legal argument for censorship will be that a) they must protect profits; and b) they have a Right to do what they want because they have a personal Right to Freedom of Speech, and a personal Right to Freedom of the Press - and thus, a Right to impose their views and limitations on users who "choose" to access their service.


- sofi

The fact is:

What you have just presented is not a fact at all. What the SCOTUS upheld was the 1st Amendment. No rights were expanded, as the 1st Amendment makes no distinction as to who gets these rights, and instead prohibits Congress from making any laws abridging speech, and that is the fact of the matter.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by soficrow
The fact is:

the SCOTUS upheld and expanded corporations' rights as "persons" by this ruling - very specifically, their Right to Freedom of Speech.

WHAT'S NEXT?...

Right now, media corporations are fighting to control the Internet, and for the right to control and filter content - to maximize profits. The FCC is leaning towards protecting Net Neutrality, and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press on the Web for all.

If media corporations win the right to control the Internet to maximize profits, we could sue against censorship on the grounds that extreme filtering is NOT necessary to protect profits.

BUT - given that the SCOTUS already acknowledged corporations' Right to Freedom of Speech under this ruling, corporations will have HUGE powers under law. Their legal argument for censorship will be that a) they must protect profits; and b) they have a Right to do what they want because they have a personal Right to Freedom of Speech, and a personal Right to Freedom of the Press - and thus, a Right to impose their views and limitations on users who "choose" to access their service.


- sofi

The fact is:

What you have just presented is not a fact at all. What the SCOTUS upheld was the 1st Amendment. No rights were expanded, as the 1st Amendment makes no distinction as to who gets these rights, and instead prohibits Congress from making any laws abridging speech, and that is the fact of the matter.

I'll agree, for arguments sake.

And will assume you also recognize that my second point follows:

Given that the SCOTUS already acknowledged corporations' Right to Freedom of Speech under this ruling, corporations will have HUGE powers under law.

Media corporations' legal argument for Internet censorship will be that
a) they must protect profits; and
b) they have a Right to do what they want because they have a personal Right to Freedom of Speech, and a personal Right to Freedom of the Press - and thus...

a legal Right to impose their views and limitations on users who "choose" to access their Internet service.


- sofi





[edit on 16-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow


If a corporation owns an internet service, it is their private property to do with what they want, and that was always the case, even before Citizens United. If that corporation is censoring you, then don't do business with them, and find another provider. If they are breaking the law, demand they have their corporate charter revoked. Do what you can, with the inherent political power you have, to reign in corporatism, and stop insisting you're so powerless, because...

The fact is:

You are one of the holders of the inherent political power in the United States, something a corporations can't lay claim to. A corporation is a legal entity granted existence by statute, and corporate charter. Those charters are granted by states, which is to say, by We the People, and We the People have the power and AUTHORITY to demand their corporate charters be revoked. Of course, they have the right to defend themselves, but if they a corporation is acting against the terms of its charter, then prove it and have that charter revoked.

Stop abdicating your personal power and start recognizing that victimology is to be effect, and it is always better to be...CAUSE.

I just wonder how people will react when someone, a single person, is considered more of an entity rather than an individual.

That may be some difference in religion, spirituality, psychology, or likewise on that consideration.

Individualism has been the most common self-evident form of person, yet what if that has only been the case because entitism has either had a minority instance of time to make their case among the majority of individualism.

This would seem that a corporation that does do this is more of the effect due to the cause of ignorance to such minority. The corporation only helps pave the way for such minority. It isn't just interested in itself.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by soficrow

 

If a corporation owns an internet service, it is their private property to do with what they want, and that was always the case...

Not really true. Internet services fall under the purview of the FCC. For example, the FCC defines telephone service as a "universal service," NOT a "commercial service."

The rules are up for change, to accommodate "new technology."

The FCC COULD define broadband as a universal service - like telephones - and protect broadband networks with strong network neutrality rules that prohibit content blocking and discrimination online.

It's been argued that "a broadband plan without open Internet protections is like the constitution without the bill of rights - it's insufficient. "

If that corporation is censoring you, then don't do business with them, and find another provider.

My tax dollars helped build this system. Why should I have to suck it up? Again?

If they are breaking the law, demand they have their corporate charter revoked.

That's a joke. They WROTE the laws. And they're trying to do it again.

... if a corporation is acting against the terms of its charter, then prove it and have that charter revoked.

Stop abdicating your personal power and start recognizing that victimology is to be effect, and it is always better to be...CAUSE.

Thanks for the advice. But as pointed out above - corporations WRITE the laws. Trying to revoke corporate charters is a complete waste of time and resources.

So I'd rather work to prevent NEW laws from serving US corporatism.

...Changing the FCC regulations to make the Internet a "commercial service" instead of a "universal service" is a really, really bad idea... Talk about securing corporate power - and building Corporatism in America.

reply to post by soficrow


Not really true? You continue to present your opinion as fact when the fact of the matter is a far cry from what your opinion is. Below are just four links to articles that bring into question just exactly what authority the FCC has over the internet:

arstechnica.com...

www.wired.com...

www.mediapost.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

As hard as the FCC might be trying to have "purview" over the internet, the issue is far from settled.

As to your "tax dollars" crack, and the obvious desire to be a victim, in "sucking it up again", no one has to suck it up, and as hard as corporations may try to control the internet themselves, the internet can't be controlled, and there will always be ways around their systems.

As to your sad pathetic declaration that the people hold the inherent political power is a joke, well...again, you clearly want to be a victim, but for those who don't, once again you are wrong and it is not a joke, and those who hold that inherent political power and know they do take it very seriously, and all your huffery and puffery to the contrary won't ever change that.

And finally, your assertion that corporations "WRITE" the laws only shows your profound and willful ignorance. Corporatism is no doubt a serious problem that must be dealt with but perhaps you might consider getting out of the way and letting those who have no intentions of abdicating their personal power deal with the bad guys.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As to your ... obvious desire to be a victim,

As to your sad pathetic declaration ... well...again, you clearly want to be a victim,

And finally, your assertion that corporations "WRITE" the laws only shows your profound and willful ignorance. Corporatism is no doubt a serious problem that must be dealt with but perhaps you might consider getting out of the way and letting those who have no intentions of abdicating their personal power deal with the bad guys.

1. I am not a victim, nor am I presenting myself as one.

2. I will not get out of your way.

3. I am not sorry that I am stepping on your toes, or into your turf.

4. You may have 1 or 2 legitimate points but they got lost in your rude and disrespectful bullying.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As to your ... obvious desire to be a victim,

As to your sad pathetic declaration ... well...again, you clearly want to be a victim,

And finally, your assertion that corporations "WRITE" the laws only shows your profound and willful ignorance. Corporatism is no doubt a serious problem that must be dealt with but perhaps you might consider getting out of the way and letting those who have no intentions of abdicating their personal power deal with the bad guys.

1. I am not a victim, nor am I presenting myself as one.

2. I will not get out of your way.

3. I am not sorry that I am stepping on your toes, or into your turf.

4. You may have 1 or 2 legitimate points but they got lost in your rude and disrespectful bullying.

If you're not a victim then why are declaring yourself as one who has been "bullied" simply because someone has taken the time to challenge your histrionic opinions that you have endeavored to present as fact?

Your declaration that it is a joke that people have inherent political power was as rude as any remark I can think of. It was profoundly disrespectful to free people the world over, who are fully aware of their inherent political power. Your insistence that corporations are more important than individuals is not just rude, it is shameful.

Arguably, Internet services fall under the purview of the FCC. For example, the FCC defines telephone service as a "universal service," NOT a "commercial service."

FCC rules are up for change, to accommodate "new technology," something that's been put off for decades.

The FCC COULD define broadband as a "universal service" - like telephones - and protect broadband networks for the public - all it would take would be strong network neutrality rules that prohibit content blocking and discrimination online.

It's been argued that:

"a broadband plan without open Internet protections is like the constitution without the bill of rights - it's insufficient. "


Our tax dollars helped build the physical framework for the Internet. But now, media corporations are claiming they own it outright, and have the right to censor information on the Net.

I do NOT agree.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your insistence that corporations are more important than individuals is not just rude, it is shameful.

The importance of the individual underlay the first amendment when it was written. That was the ideal. Keep in mind the individuals referred to were white, land-owning and therefore somewhat financially influential men.

The reality today is another matter. Much as I write and call and petition my Senators and Congressmen, my opinion does not hold a fraction of the power the big corporations have over them. They just look at my modest campaign contributions and write a nice letter saying thank you for your opinion. Then they vote the way their corporate donors want them to.

It is true that individuals are not entirely powerless. There is strength in numbers, especially numbers who have money.

People who feel powerless in the face of the Supreme Court decision are "gathering" in places like ATS. That is what is happening in this thread. The fact is the SCOTUS' ruling is not very popular among many in the U.S.

Maybe you feel threatened by the power of the individuals who are voicing their opposition?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Sestias]

Originally posted by soficrow
Arguably, Internet services fall under the purview of the FCC. For example, the FCC defines telephone service as a "universal service," NOT a "commercial service."

I agree with you argument here about the differences between these terms of service.

Our tax dollars helped build the physical framework for the Internet. But now, media corporations are claiming they own it outright, and have the right to censor information on the Net.

Bottomline, they don't own the communication itself and never will. As a "transport" medium, that is as far as they can go without actual ownership of the communication.

There has been many arguments on how the physical connections are "leased" for usage.

The central argument of net neutrality (despite what ever legal jibberish reads) is how to tax users of the medium of such connections on a perpetual basis for maintenance. Some no longer want to be a "service" even though they still want to be either "universal" or "commercial" provider.

They are right that they shouldn't be forced, their freedoms taken away, in order to provide that service. This is where they have intentions the re-write laws, and so the confusion starts on this basis where people get paranoid of how those laws are re-written. Obviously, this kind of paranoia is perfectly O.K. to experience and appreciate just how much we know such net neutrality really affects even though no everybody interested knows all matters of the medium of communication.

I thought I had more to say to this, yet didn't want to digress into technicalities of leases.

The FCC is an administrative agency that in its own website refers to itself as an "independent" United States government agency. Independent from whom or what, they don't make clear, but that they presume authority over so many peoples lives they do make clear. If you or I wanted to create a small radio station that operated in between the bandwidths regulated by the FCC, that "independent" agency would neither "grant" license to do so, nor "allow" anyone to operate without a license and will employ armed agents to dismantle that radio station. In this regard, the FCC favors the corporation over the individual. The FCC is a dubious agency that has no more regard for the freedom of speech than those who would label the people who disagree with them as bullies.

Here is the link to the FCC's own website:

www.fcc.gov...

Here are some sites that question and challenge the legitimacy of the FCC:

www.crispinsartwell.com...

www.criminalgovernment.com...

www.fed-soc.org...

techliberation.com...

It might be tempting to argue that posts about the FCC are off topic in this thread, but this thread is about the SCOTUS ruling Citizens United that was all about free speech, and the FCC, is an "independent" agency that could care less about the right to free speech, and will gladly create laws abridging that speech, which is why they love to frame themselves as "independent", since it is Congress who is reigned in by the 1st Amendment, not "independent" bodies.

The FCC is as foul and as dangerous as any out of control corporation and the people would be wise to have this "independent" agency's charter revoked.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I would think that were it legal, then the powers granted them by any legislation should not extend farther than the legislative body's authority to make law, which is supposed to be constitutionally bound. It would operate independently within the limit of powers set forth in its creation.

reply to post by Sestias


The First 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.

A careful look at the text of the First Amendment undermines the statement below:

"The importance of the individual underlay the first amendment when it was written. That was the ideal. Keep in mind the individuals referred to were white, land-owning and therefore somewhat financially influential men."

There is no reference to any individual what-so-ever in the First Amendment. Instead what is there is a clear prohibition upon Congress in making laws that would abridge, abrogate or derogate certain rights. All this nonsensical referencing of "white, land-owning and therefore financially influential men" is nothing more than subterfuge and obfuscation intended to deflect away from what the First Amendment actually does.

The First Amendment is not granting any rights at all, as it was all ready made clear by the Declaration of Independence that preceded the Constitution in which The Bill of Rights is featured, that rights are inalienable. It was further made clear by the Preamble of this Constitution that We the People are the ones who came together in order to form a more perfect union, and thus Ordained this constitution.

No distinction what-so-ever was made regarding a persons financial status or position. When people insist on reducing their own political power down to merely voting and relying upon elected officials to govern, they are surrendering power that was never intended to be surrendered.

The further insistence on reducing the individual to powerless people unless that person agrees to collectivism only disregards the the true power any individual has. Feeling powerless is just a feeling, and feelings are fleeting, fickle and irrelevant. No matter how hard and how long people insist on claiming:

"The fact is the SCOTUS' ruling is not very popular among many in the U.S."

It does not matter, as the Supreme Court upheld as sacrosanct the First Amendment and told Congress in no uncertain terms that this Amendment made clear that the legislative body could not under any circumstances make laws abridging speech. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people disagree with that, as long as the Constitution for the United States stands as it does, which is a republic, then majority opinions are nothing more than opinions and We the People have no right to vote away our rights.

The best this so called majority can do is push for a Constitutional Convention and abolish the Constitution and repeal the First Amendment. God forbid that ever happens. It's bad enough there are so many people praising tyranny and out of control administrative agencies. As long as the Constitution stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, then any individual can use that law to their advantage. There are countless ways in which an individual can assert their own power, without relying upon the ever so fickle and frivolous collective.

An individual can and should challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of any statute, code or ordinance legislated that is abhorrent to the Constitution. An individual can and should rely upon a jury of his peers when being railroaded by a tyrannical government and an individual can and should embrace the sacred responsibility of being a member of the jury so they may nullify any law abhorrent to the Constitution. When juries nullify laws contrary to freedom, no amount of corporate influence can change that. That, my friend, is a fact.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I would think that were it legal, then the powers granted them by any legislation should not extend farther than the legislative body's authority to make law, which is supposed to be constitutionally bound. It would operate independently within the limit of powers set forth in its creation.

I most certainly like the way you think my friend, and I would think the same. It is important then, to challenge any assertions that the FCC has more authority than the legislative body that created it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If it does have more power, then power has been created effectively ex nihilo, without consitutional convention, and congress has indeed made infringing law.

It's simply implicitly so. To state they can legally create something that has more power than they do is to say that they have more power than they have.

Any fancy argument attempting to convince me of the validity of such a logical pardox is little, if anything, more than sophistry.

Seems these guys are arguing for the Constitutional Rights of Corporate "Persons" - to be extended at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.

Not my idea of a good time.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Out of nothing is a sticky issue. On a much higher plane of existence, we all create something out of nothing. However, governments rarely operate on such a level of awareness. Much like the fable of the scorpion and the frog, We the People should avoid giving scorpions rides across the river at all costs. It is in a scorpions nature to sting, even if stinging means their own destruction.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Commander Chakotay, I did not mean it in the sense that Q is in charge (pun semi-intended) at the Fedral level, but in the sense of conservation of mass, charge (pun intended) and energy. Both when the laws of physics go out the window and when the limits of design are disgregarded in order to give 'er some more power, Captain, the warp core is in danger of breaching.

Editedit: Fix miscognative egregiousness. Add some circles and arrows.

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Must...keep...moving...must...keep...Spock! I...sense...there...is...great...wisdom in this...one. Beam me up Scotty.