It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you ALLOW the Government to Regulate your own SPEECH?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:14 PM
Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to 'Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters' - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

So she not only wants Free Speech thru the Filter of the Government, but she would also go forth allowing governments to shut down entities providing factual phamplets against policies that the government passes.

Further in the article..........

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other mediumthat corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

So this loony toon is geared to censor all the dissent aimed at the government.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by prionace glauca

No thank you, I think anyone can spout off at the mouth all the want to. I dont have to listen, However if you dont shut your mouth in my home you may end up on your ass, outside my door...

To anyone who things you should regulate speach just try it, Im in a fighting mood.

Freedom of Speech allows for our opinions to be heard. Imagine now all of that being taken away. The threat is very real and would make it a lot easier to pass laws against net neutrality.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:32 PM
Speech is bad, so is information. It puts pressure on the government, and apparently pressure is bad.

Obama Swipes at Media, Says 'Information' Onslaught Pressuring 'Democracy'

Speaking at Hampton University in Virginia, the president raised alarms when he said "information becomes a distraction, a diversion" that is putting "pressure on our country and on our democracy."

The president suggested less is more when it comes to absorbing news content and urged graduates to take a skeptical eye toward news from blogs, cable television and radio as well as modern gadgets like iPods and PlayStations.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Delphiki

Of course it is bad.

Information is exchanged at the blink of an eye and it bypasses all of the filters designed to manipulate the news. Speech is considered more valuable than religion, because without Freedom of Speech one can not even mention religion, let alone disagree with the policies of those in charge of regulating.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in