99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Corporations are legal entities with pure economic interests, not people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Why do you keep posting this crap as if I am disagreeing with that remark? Do you honestly believe most people are so stupid that they cannot see through this, or are you just posting sentences like that to appease the stupid?

My guess, as in any contentious debate; moderation and logic hold no bearing. How can you be for X if you are not for Y. While I tend to think in black and white terms; as the world does operate on such; many believe that if you are fighting against them on one subject, it must mean you are an enemy through and through.

But clearly you are your own worst enemy if you cannot distinguish money from free speech.

For example, if "freedom of speech" was a blanket concept, as you imply, then there would be no need for the second amendment which has to do with the freedom to bear arms and the right of a well-structured militia to protect the constitution. It could have been construed as part of the first...............

You don't need to look to the second amendment to define the first.

If "speech" was intended to mean Corporations, Money et al, why did the founders choose to specify "press"? Would not "speech" have already covered it?

Of course the obvious is that they were referring to "indivdual" speech and included the "entity" of the press as an addition to that protection. If Speech was an all encompassing there would have been no need to include "Press"...and if they had wanted to include all business entities beyond the press...they would not have chosen the singular entity "press" for inclusion.

reply to post by Indigo5


I agree with what you are saying. I simply used the second amendment to show the first amendment has limitations in how it can be construed. If we are going to imply a generic all-encompassing meaning for speech then someone could use firearms to express themselves.

A 9mm slug could say a lot to silence opposition, don't you think?

If you can vote with money, then why can't you vote with your uzi as well?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I agree with what you are saying. I simply used the second amendment to show the first amendment has limitations in how it can be construed. If we are going to imply a generic all-encompassing meaning for speech then someone could use firearms to express themselves.

A 9mm slug could say a lot to silence opposition, don't you think?

If you can vote with money, then why can't you vote with your uzi as well?

That's the best way to sum up this whole conversation!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I agree with what you are saying. I simply used the second amendment to show the first amendment has limitations in how it can be construed. If we are going to imply a generic all-encompassing meaning for speech then someone could use firearms to express themselves.

A 9mm slug could say a lot to silence opposition, don't you think?

If you can vote with money, then why can't you vote with your uzi as well?

If you can vote with money, then why can't you vote with your uzi as well?

ya, just "vote" for the candidate that you like the least

Hey wait a minute......

Is that a definition of "assassination" ?

How DOES that enter into free speech anyway?

If a "corporation" exercises its' right in that way, is it still free speech?

Oil compamies actually have assassinated people.

Originally posted by Indigo5
If "speech" was intended to mean Corporations, Money et al, why did the founders choose to specify "press"? Would not "speech" have already covered it?

Of course the obvious is that they were referring to "indivdual" speech and included the "entity" of the press as an addition to that protection. If Speech was an all encompassing there would have been no need to include "Press"...and if they had wanted to include all business entities beyond the press...they would not have chosen the singular entity "press" for inclusion.

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.

Show me exactly where it clearly states the Individual? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". How is that "obvious" it was aimed at the Individual? If you want to be correct; the First Amendment is aimed at the restrictions of Congress. They cannot impede in the Peoples' engagement in a free society to speak how they see fit. Why does it matter who, or in what manner, or how it comes about matter?

This is exactly what Title 2, Section 441b was doing -- Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech. It was expressly written to keep Congress from deciding who gets to speak and who does not. If the government held such interest, speech would not be a freedom; it would be a liberty granted by Congress.

But lets go with your logic here for a minute. You stated that the First Amendment is specifically aimed at protecting the freedom of speech for the press. Am I correct? But what is the Press? Who decides what is considered "press" and what is not? What if the "press" is organized under a corporate charter?

Wouldn't it stand then that the First Amendment, as you see it, is in direct conflict of itself? If persons are restricted to speak because of their association (with a corporation) then Congress has violated two clauses of the First Amendment: First they created a law abridging the freedom of speech and second they have singled out a group because of their association.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Indigo5
If "speech" was intended to mean Corporations, Money et al, why did the founders choose to specify "press"? Would not "speech" have already covered it?

Of course the obvious is that they were referring to "indivdual" speech and included the "entity" of the press as an addition to that protection. If Speech was an all encompassing there would have been no need to include "Press"...and if they had wanted to include all business entities beyond the press...they would not have chosen the singular entity "press" for inclusion.

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.

Show me exactly where it clearly states the Individual? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". How is that "obvious" it was aimed at the Individual?

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

By the very fact that it states "or the press"...

If Speech was meant to include entities it would not have been neccessary to include one. "Speech" would have covered it.

Furthermore "or the press" clearly shows that they saw the "Press" as seperate from the word "Speech" and neccessary to include for protection.

See...the crowd that claims that speech is all encompasing, entities and people, does not explain why then the founders felt it neccessary to add specifically one "entity"....."or the Press".

Just the press...not Walmart, Not GE, Not "Enterprises of business"

THE FOUNDING FATHER DEFINED "SPEECH" WHEN THEY FOLLOWED IT WITH "OR THE PRESS"...Right there they tell you that the word "Speech" does not cover non-human entities, but felt compelled to make an exception for the PRESS.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
They cannot impede in the Peoples' engagement in a free society to speak how they see fit. Why does it matter who, or in what manner, or how it comes about matter?

Round and round we go. One instance folks admit corporations are not people...the next the argue how the "people's voice" cannot be impeded.

A corporation is not "people".

A corporation is a legal contruct where several, often thousands of individuals, invest with an interest in economic profit.

This corporation may have a board of directors, with differing political views and ambitions, varying views on social issues, religious views etc. They are united in the singular cause and DUTY of maximizing PROFIT for that corporation.

If electing candidate A will result in tax breaks, loop holes, less regulation for this corporation, then it's Board of Directors may, according to CU vs. FEC use general treasury funds of it's shareholders( who represent an even more diverse set of political views and values) to create political materials to endorse candidate A or attack Candidate A's opponent.

What has happened here, despite there being actual humans involved, is the corporate "entity" motivated by....and even duty bound to...act on it's...not who...it's economic interest.

The materials produced are not "Speech" as the founders intended it, they are not the personal desires of the shareholders or even the board of directors, they are the common lowest denominator, the singular economic drive of that corporation for PROFIT, that is what corporations are constructed to do. Life, liberty, happiness, justice, fairness...Corporations are not driven by these human desires...they are singularly driven toward PROFIT and PROFIT alone and only restrained by consumer demand and the government.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Wouldn't it stand then that the First Amendment, as you see it, is in direct conflict of itself? If persons are restricted to speak because of their association (with a corporation)

Nope. Where are you getting this.

No...PEOPLE cannot be restricted to speak whatever corporation they are associated with or employed by.

The Corporation itself though? Through spending general treasury funds? Hell yes.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Wouldn't it stand then that the First Amendment, as you see it, is in direct conflict of itself? If persons are restricted to speak because of their association (with a corporation)

Nope. Where are you getting this.

No...PEOPLE cannot be restricted to speak whatever corporation they are associated with or employed by.

The Corporation itself though? Through spending general treasury funds? Hell yes.

And how so? In what governmental power does Congress or any of Government have the power to restrict anyone or anything on how they speak?

I understand fully that this argument boils down to the "corporate" status of things. But is it not an individual or collective of individuals speaking via the corporate entity?

From what you have written, I ask you; you are okay with the Government deciding who gets to speak and who does not correct?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
They cannot impede in the Peoples' engagement in a free society to speak how they see fit. Why does it matter who, or in what manner, or how it comes about matter?

Round and round we go. One instance folks admit corporations are not people...the next the argue how the "people's voice" cannot be impeded.

A corporation is not "people".

But isn't a corporation made up of individuals that decided to freely associate and organize into a corporate structure?

What you are advocating is that because of that association, those people, under such organization are not allowed to speak to the political process or speak freely...

reply to post by Indigo5


So you are saying that Congress has the ability to restrict and limit speech; based on their whim and who they decide who gets to speak and who does not?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

My fight has always been to allow the greatest amount of liberties and the restoration of the path that our forefathers, my ancestors, set upon in freeing the bonds that human's have for so long been shackled in.

Thank you for enlightening me. What you say makes a lot of sence but I fear that freedom and liberty are illusions that have become the arguing point of seperate factions fighting over a dying system.
It would seem that a literal 'black and white' interpretation of the first amandment is not entirely practical in all situations... On the other hand, the legal and social ramifications of the 'opposite' of that is quite a scary thought to entertain.
I propose that freedom is an illusion. Weather the master I serve is an external person/object or an internal need/desire, still I am a servant. The most freedom that I can ever experience is simply the freedom to choose, even then there is not always much of a choice.
A wise man once said "if you want to experience something, give it away."
If you want to experience freedom, bring it to someone else.
If you want to experience freedom of speech, give freedom of speech to someone without a voice.
I think that the when the first ammandment was written it was written with the rights of the individual in mind. I don't think that corperations or political donations were a consideration when the amendment was written. However it would seem that such a defination is now required. The world has changed a lot since the first ammendment was written.
Therefore I propose that both sides of the arguement are right. That's not really helpful is it? Both sides are right but either sides solution to the problem is not very practicle. It would seem that the only practicle way forward is to completely overhaul the political and social systems. I don't feel that it would be possible to define a working and fair solution by ammending the constitution again.
Thought needs to be given to the very nature of society and how the different parts interact e.g. social, economical, political. A new society needs to be formed under the constitution and it needs to be far more utilitarian than the current system.
Just because some people seem to have no issue with the current structures even though they themselves have struggled within the same systems that OWS are protesting... Doesn't mean that the current social/political/economical structures can't be improved from what they currently are.

I hope that wasn't to far off topic.

How do "municipal" corporations play into this?

Are "they" allowed to make contributions to candidates?

Where does free speech stand on "municipal" corporation?

How about charities as corporations?

Hard to complicate matters...

No legal fiction (corporation) should be able to pool resources to force feed politics or monopolize industry. The same as no illegal fiction (mafia) can exert force to maintain control of a town or region extorting from its inhabitants. If you haven't noticed... Weapons, cash, and treasonous authority seem to crop up throughout our history. And you wonder why? Perhaps not...

Well, the Koch Brothers funding this, Soros funding that, and T. Boone Pickens picking off our water supply. Followed by speculative trading, skirting embargo, and traitorous politicians milking it up for what it's worth.

Any questions now?

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
I don't think that corperations or political donations were a consideration when the amendment was written. However it would seem that such a defination is now required. The world has changed a lot since the first ammendment was written.

Both existed when the amendment was written. What it comes down to though is those who wrote it (mainly Madison), understood that the very being of listing Rights would eventually lead to the Government saying such Rights are only granted via the Government.

What clarification do we need to see that Freedom of Speech is not limited by the person, or the association of said person?! This is the very notion that was expounded upon by Madison (or Hamilton) when they wrote Federalist Paper 84.

There the case was made that bills of rights serve no purpose in the new Constitution because the Constitutioen itself was a "bill of rights". The idea being was that the Constitution, its powers enumerated, would be all that Government was given. Though, I give no fault to the anti-federalist in this, as we know the drive of Man will always seek out weaknesses and seek out ambiguity to further their stake in life.

Congress made no distinction of who was afforded the freedom of speech. Thought they did, in a conjoining statement ensure the Press was among them. To highlight that not only Individuals, but others enjoyed the protections to speak out against the powers that sat within Government.

Interesting is those who fight against the "powers" and against "Corporations" are willing to accept a limited form of Freedom of Speech.

Therefore I propose that both sides of the arguement are right. That's not really helpful is it? Both sides are right but either sides solution to the problem is not very practicle. It would seem that the only practicle way forward is to completely overhaul the political and social systems. I don't feel that it would be possible to define a working and fair solution by ammending the constitution again.
Thought needs to be given to the very nature of society and how the different parts interact e.g. social, economical, political. A new society needs to be formed under the constitution and it needs to be far more utilitarian than the current system.
Just because some people seem to have no issue with the current structures even though they themselves have struggled within the same systems that OWS are protesting... Doesn't mean that the current social/political/economical structures can't be improved from what they currently are.

I hope that wasn't to far off topic.

Corporations have always been here !

When America was settled by Europeans from the 17th century onward, there was initially little control from governments back in Europe.[1] Many settlements began as shareholder or stockholder business enterprises, and while the king of Britain had technical sovereignty, in most instances "full governmental authority was vested in the company itself."[1] Settlers had to fend for themselves; compact towns sprung up based as legal corporations in what has been described as "pure democracy":

"The people, owing to the necessity of guarding against the Indians and wild animals, and to their desire to attend the same church, settled in small, compact communities, or townships, which they called towns. The town was a legal corporation, was the political unit, and was represented in the General Court. It was a democracy of the purest type. Several times a year the adult males met in town meeting to discuss public questions, to lay taxes, to make local laws, and to elect officers. The chief officers were the "selectmen," from three to nine in number, who should have the general management of the public business; the town clerk, treasurer, constables, assessors, and overseers of the poor. To this day the town government continues in a large measure in some parts of New England." ––historian Henry William Elson writing in 1904.[2]

Local government in the United States

The big corporations were here too ... from England long before the "Revolution".

Much info on this gets suppressed and is not widely discussed.

Many if not most Founding Fathers were corporate stockholders in some capacity.

Maybe they knew exactly what they were doing !

So, I read to page 7 and lost my will to continue. If i saw one more person make a negative comparison to Fox News, as if the entire landscape of "news media" isn't the exact same wasteland, I may have actually vomited. By the way, a sure sign of your typical "liberal idealist" (if we are to use such silly labels) is such a hatred for Fox News, singularly, that they are the comparison of all that is disgusting (like Satan of an Evangelical...another of those labels)

One poster, in particular, came into the thread with nothing but insults and obnoxious meandering through all manner of distractions, even including a one line, name dropping post meant to associate themselves with an intellectual great, as if that association provided additional credibility to their argument.

And, when all of this is said and done, the primary thesis of the (intended) OP has stood unchallenged: that a very specific portion of the OWS Declaration is lacking in proper Constitutional context and awareness. Yes, his use of the word "moron" is likely too strong and flavored by his experience of "discussions" with those such as I have already mentioned, and the narrow minded, Fox News comparing, accusational "debate that is offered in place of reasonable dialogue.

Every election season I hope that, after seeing people showing their displeasure, my nation will regain its senses and make meaningful movement towards promoting individualism. And then I am brought sharply back to reality by the grand displays of groupthink.

I am not 1% I am not wealthy and I work for a living.

I am not 99%. I have a job and can't spend my days in the park "protesting".

I apparently don't exist.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Makes complete sense... Although, no one here is attempting to limit free speech. What you're witnessing is the effort to identify and enact preventative measures against free speech being hijacked. When force, bribery, stealth, and blackmail are used to convey a single message in Governing bodies, Court of Law, and Media Centers ... How is that not limiting the same article leading off our Bill of Rights?

Let's avoid the Catch 22, and come up with broader solutions. This isn't the prairie days where you could fence off some land and support yourself with hardly any outside interference. Now we've been led down the path of subliminally piped messages seeking no consent. Do the math, and you'll probably arrive at the same present day equation. We've been had...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, I read to page 7 and lost my will to continue. If i saw one more person make a negative comparison to Fox News, as if the entire landscape of "news media" isn't the exact same wasteland, I may have actually vomited. By the way, a sure sign of your typical "liberal idealist" (if we are to use such silly labels) is such a hatred for Fox News, singularly, that they are the comparison of all that is disgusting (like Satan of an Evangelical...another of those labels)

One poster, in particular, came into the thread with nothing but insults and obnoxious meandering through all manner of distractions, even including a one line, name dropping post meant to associate themselves with an intellectual great, as if that association provided additional credibility to their argument.

And, when all of this is said and done, the primary thesis of the (intended) OP has stood unchallenged: that a very specific portion of the OWS Declaration is lacking in proper Constitutional context and awareness. Yes, his use of the word "moron" is likely too strong and flavored by his experience of "discussions" with those such as I have already mentioned, and the narrow minded, Fox News comparing, accusational "debate that is offered in place of reasonable dialogue.

Every election season I hope that, after seeing people showing their displeasure, my nation will regain its senses and make meaningful movement towards promoting individualism. And then I am brought sharply back to reality by the grand displays of groupthink.

I am not 1% I am not wealthy and I work for a living.

I am not 99%. I have a job and can't spend my days in the park "protesting".

I apparently don't exist.

Your subtle attempt at labeling is unappreciated. At least JPZ he can't control his temper even online. He tends to lose it by lashing out in nonsense or name calling. The persona is mirrored on Fox News in the form of one Bill O'Reilly. It's the same with my father... He exhibits this type behavior as a retired adult. It's not called "programming," so you can sit back and enjoy time on the couch.

You know what they say:

If it grunts like an ape, throws feces like an ape, scratches itself in front of cameras like an ape... You'll find it on Fox. The same parent company hacking cell phones along with being bought and paid for by a billionaire Saudi. Negative you say? Now we're full circle... Back to two forms of injustice mocking our Constitution. Perhaps you understand irony.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Corporations have always been here !

When America was settled by Europeans from the 17th century onward, there was initially little control from governments back in Europe.[1] Many settlements began as shareholder or stockholder business enterprises, and while the king of Britain had technical sovereignty, in most instances "full governmental authority was vested in the company itself."[1] Settlers had to fend for themselves; compact towns sprung up based as legal corporations in what has been described as "pure democracy":

"The people, owing to the necessity of guarding against the Indians and wild animals, and to their desire to attend the same church, settled in small, compact communities, or townships, which they called towns. The town was a legal corporation, was the political unit, and was represented in the General Court. It was a democracy of the purest type. Several times a year the adult males met in town meeting to discuss public questions, to lay taxes, to make local laws, and to elect officers. The chief officers were the "selectmen," from three to nine in number, who should have the general management of the public business; the town clerk, treasurer, constables, assessors, and overseers of the poor. To this day the town government continues in a large measure in some parts of New England." ––historian Henry William Elson writing in 1904.[2]

Local government in the United States

The big corporations were here too ... from England long before the "Revolution".

Much info on this gets suppressed and is not widely discussed.

Many if not most Founding Fathers were corporate stockholders in some capacity.

Maybe they knew exactly what they were doing !

And if true, The Act of 1871 would hold a little more weight. "Corporation" takes on more than one meaning as the ongoing debate entails.