SCOTUS Free Speech ruling, Hysteria, and ATS, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:19 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Exactly corporations have limited liability, which means the people that run the corporation aren't liable for the debt or evil a corporation produces. So the people that run a corporation can let their evil or greed show through the corporation. They will not face the consequences for doing what is good for their business but bad for the rest of us.

I still think this ruling is a terrible thing. When you have Obama and a majority of FOX agreeing on something maybe you should demand something be done as well.

The SCOTUS ruling isn't about corporate malfeasance, its about free speech. It is no surprise at all that President Obama has a problem with free speech being respected, and a station whose biggest draw spend each episode telling his guests to shut-up, can't be a station too in love with free speech either.

The simple fact of the matter is that Congress screwed up, not the Supreme Court. How many times, in how many ways do people have to say this? The first Amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws that abridge speech. Had Congress done their job to begin with, this ruling wouldn't have happened. I am not defending corporatism, I am advocating free speech and insisting that the rule of law be obeyed. That means, any laws that corporations break, those corporations should be punished, and we the people should demand revocation of charters for any corporation that crosses the line and refuses to obey the law. Unlike you, however, I understand that this ruling was good and just, as it upheld the 1st Amendment, and didn't in any way grant rights to corporations. Either you respect the freedom of speech or you don't, which is it?

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:26 PM by tooo many pills

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Did you not read any of my other posts?

PEOPLE/CITIZENS ARE LIMITED ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN SPEND ON CANDIDATES.

ARE CORPORATIONS?

If it was a victory for free speech then We the People's limits would have been removed.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:29 PM by concernedcitizan

Leaders are the few that have the capability to manage a community, create cultural consensus and urge others into action. They often have to make difficult decisions that may hurt some, or make sure someone can't do exactly what they want. Democracy, however, will never accommodate for this. Doesn't matter who is paying the bills.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:37 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by tooo many pills

Have you even bothered to read the ruling for yourself, or do you just inform yourself by what other people post? Read the ruling and learn for yourself, what was held.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:46 PM by tooo many pills

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No I didn't read all 183pgs. Did you? I read what the OP posted and presented.

What are you trying to say besides slander me?
You didn't answer my question.

STATEMENT: People have a limit to the contributions they can give to candidates.

QUESTION: Are corporations limited?

A victory for freedom of speech to whom? People? or A legal entity that now has more rights to freedom of speech than people?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:59 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by tooo many pills

First of all, I have not slandered you and if you insist on calling it slander then back it up. Secondly, of course I've read the ruling, every page of it, and then I read it again, and finally a third time just to make sure I understood what I was reading. Finally, since you haven't read the ruling, and by insisting I answer your question, you clearly do rely upon other peoples posts to inform yourself.

Citizens United v. F.E.C. is, as is most SCOTUS rulings are, narrow in its ruling, although not nearly as narrow as many rulings can be. The ruling deals with Citizens United complaints that their right to free speech had been abridged due to Section 441b of the BCFR legislation that required them to ask for permission to release the film they made about Hillary Clinton but were denied the right to do so, based upon Section 441b. Do you understand?

This ruling had nothing to do with how much money a corporation could donate to a campaign, it was about the right to release a political film they made and wanted shown during the election cycle. Because of this ruling, if you want to make a political film about someone running for office, just like a corporation, you have the right to show this film to whomever or whatever audience you can find. Because it is your film, just like a corporation, you can spend whatever amount of money you want to make it, advertise it, and release it. Do you understand?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:04 PM by Kaploink

Regardless of the free speech issue, this ruling still allows foreign owned corporations with American subsidiaries to influence the elections with their own and possibly foreign government funds. Something that should never be allowed.

It's not hysteria, its the reality. It will happen.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:16 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Kaploink
Regardless of the free speech issue, this ruling still allows foreign owned corporations with American subsidiaries to influence the elections with their own and possibly foreign government funds. Something that should never be allowed.

It's not hysteria, its the reality. It will happen.

This is just not true. The SCOTUS ruling doesn't "allow" corporations, foreign or domestic to do anything. What the ruling did was strike down as unconstitutional section 441b and by extension section 203. The Court spoke to the very nature of this law and rebuked Congress for not limiting this restraint they put on speech to solely foreign corporations and instead attempted to restrict all corporations, foreign and domestic, from using the right to speech. Had Congress done their jobs to begin with and simply restricted the role of foreign corporations, those corporations could not have petitioned the Supreme Court for a redress of grievances because they have no jurisdiction over foreign corporations.

They also offered as dicta, that they were not so sure that Congress had the right to restrict the speech of foreign corporations, but the point was moot, which is why it was dicta and not holding, and it was not a foreign corporation that used their right to have a redress of grievances, it was a domestic corporation and a non-profit one at that! This was Congress' screw up, and it is Congress that needs to accept the responsibility for it, and fix the damn problem. It is the height of ignorance to blame The Supreme Court for doing their job and shows profound disrespect for the 1st Amendment, simply because of gut reaction and distaste for corporatism

Congress can and should use all their proper jurisdiction and power to keep foreign corporations from influencing the political process. What Congress can't do is make any laws abridging speech, because the 1st Amendment forbids it!

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:31 PM by tooo many pills

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I know what the ruling was about. You are missing my point and the point of the entire outcome of the ruling.

My point: People's freedom of speech is limited because they have limits on how much they can contribute to a candidate. The Federal Campaign Finance Law places legal limits on how much and what you can give.

Is that not limiting our Freedom of Speech? Shouldn't freedom of speech for actual people be placed ahead of freedom of speech for a legal entity?

Corporations on the other hand could not contribute directly to a candidate they had to make a PAC in order to do so. They insisted this limited their freedom of speech. The movie they used as an example is just a cover for what the ruling really means.

Now corporations, not just this movie company, can contribute directly to the candidate of their choice without having to form a PAC and without a limit to how much or what they can contribute to a candidate.

Do you not see the irony?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:51 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by tooo many pills

I have not missed your point, your point is nonsense and has nothing to do with the ruling at all. You are making up stuff in order to justify your anger. If you want to be angry that is your choice, but inventing scenarios that are fictional and expecting reasonable people to accept them as true is rather silly.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 04:18 PM by tooo many pills

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Wow just wow...What the hell are you talking about?

What did I make up?

Obviously you have an agenda...
or
Are completely bone-headed and dumb-ased because
you argue it is a victory for free speech, yet the very the people whom the 1st Amendment was intented for are still limited in their freedom of speech by the Federal Campaign Finance Law. Yes, it has nothing to do with the case but it has everything to do with why they ruled the way they did.

People can not give infinite amounts such as corporations can and will to make sure their candidate wins. If the recent supreme court ruling removed the Federal Campaign Finance Law that prohibits actual people from contributing more than a specified amount it would be another story. However, they did not. We the People's freedom of speech is being limited in this way. How can you not see that?

Yes, this is a victory for corporation free speech because they are limited no more by PACs. They can directly give unlimited amounts to a candidate. Again, WE CAN NOT.

It is not nonsense. You can say whatever you want but the fact is it's real. Corporations over People. It has been ruled upon and unless changed it will greatly influence our elections from here on. Yes, we have the votes but the votes will be vastly influenced by whoever has the most money to spend which will be directly related to the corporations.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 05:20 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by tooo many pills

Okay hot shot, what section of the campaign finance are you referring to that limit individual spending or donations but don't corporations? Be specific and stop lying. You can spout off all you want, in the end it is your own ignorance that is obvious. Did section 441b limit the amount of money a corporation could spend and now that it has been struck down as unconstitutional, they have unlimited potential of donation, is this your argument?

You are purposely lying in order to push forth your own political agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with freedom or respect for speech. If your cause is so just than what would be so wrong with using the truth to support your argument? I asked you directly, if you are for or against the freedom of speech, which is it?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 11:23 PM by Oaktree

reply to post by tooo many pills

But that was the Supreme Court's arguement for the ruling on this case. The corporatons insisted that their rights were being suppressed because they had to make a PAC to give money to candidates. Was there a limit on the amount of money that they could give in these PACs? Probably not.

Not actually. I really think you'd benefit from reading the actual ruling,
at least the first 8 or 10 pages.
The next 175 pages or so tend to drag on.

This non-profit corporation had produced a movie, and a cable company offered to run the movie as pay-per-view. It was decided by a district court that this was illegal electioneering and did not let them play the movie.
The corporation disagreed, because it wasn't a political advertisement they wanted to run, but a movie.
Because the movie mentioned Hillary Clinton by name, this was agaist the rules.

That is what brought this case before the SCOTUS.

From page 1 and 2 of the decision.

In January 2008, appellant Citizens United,
a nonprofit corporation,
released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primaryelections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillaryand the ads.

from your post.

People's rights are being suppressed because they have a LIMIT on how much they can spend on the candidate of their choice.
If corporations want the same rights as human beings then they are subject to the limits all of us are subject to. (I listed them in my first post)

I do see your point, in that there ought to be limits on corporate spending.

I have said several times that I in no way condone the amount of sway corporations and lobbyists have over our government.
This ruling has not changed any of that, for better or worse.

Also from your post:

Exactly corporations have limited liability, which means the people that run the corporation aren't liable for the debt or evil a corporation produces. So the people that run a corporation can let their evil or greed show through the corporation. They will not face the consequences for doing what is good for their business but bad for the rest of us.

For what it's worth, several years back, I had the opportunity to take over operations for a restaurant here in town.

Long story short, I and my wife ended up forming a corporation.
We did the paperwork and filed with the state.

The fee was $5.00.

I paid an extra $25.00 for "expediated processing".
I did not have to pay that fee.

So there you go, there is my bias.
I am a corporation.
I am also unemployed and a stay-at-home dad.

Not all corporations are big evil parasites.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 11:31 PM by Oaktree

reply to post by Kaploink

Not true. Here is a copy/paste from an earlier response on this thread.

From page 47 of the actual decision, or page 54 of the PDF:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.

What that means is that they have not touched on the question of foriegn involvement.
Nothing changed in that respect.

Also, from the Boston Herald:

President Barack Obama and other critics say the court’s decision to let corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the floodgates to foreign involvement.

That was a step too far. At the moment, foreign corporations may not spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was untouched by the high court.

The court’s majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically left for another day "whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process.

Link to article

That the problem here.
The hype is overpowering the truth.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Oaktree]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^