SCOTUS Rules In Favor of First Amendment

[Mikey]

We should all rejoice.

Oh yes. Let us rejoice for we have thrown off the shackles of tyranny.
(Did you come in your pants when you heard?)

Praise the Lord.

Make animal sacrifices to your household gods.

Or whatever.

[smackaholic]

There should be 100% freedom of anyone to donate whatever the fukk they want, so long as there is 100% disclosure of who is donating to whom.

Now if we could just get an amendment to change our ridiculous electoral circus method of picking predidents along with a requirement of runoff elections, perhaps we will someday break the 2 party choke hold. Trouble is, that would require the republicrats to do it.

[LTS TRN 2]

Why couldn't it have been Scalia hunting drunk with Cheney that fateful day?....

[BSmack]

Sorry to disappoint. No cum in the pants and athiests such as myself don't often praise the Lord. As far as animal sacrifices go, I do plan to introduce cow flesh to my barbecue grill in a couple of hours. Would it be appropriate to tip back a glass of wine and be appreciative that the Court did it's job and prohibited Congress from taking fundamental rights away from its citizens?

Corporate personhood will be the end of American liberty.

[Cuda]

Wha...?????

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong, 88. There's no need to ban corporations, but rather there's a dire need to put them back in their place--as serving the nation, not the other way around. The idea that corporations have gained the legal status of individual citizens is so Orwellian that you should be horrified--if you ever read Orwell, that is.

[Tom In VA]

I'm inclined to be straight up the middle centrist on this.

Corporations are the ROCK and the Government is the HARD PLACE, we're in between.

Neither are inherently "evil" but if either gets unchecked power in any capacity, it's a shit sandwich for everyone in between.

[Diogenes]

The idea that corporations have gained the legal status of individual citizens ....

To the current political leadership that just means having no rights whatsoever.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Voting should only be for rich people, or those with high salaried jobs any ways, not poverty stricken gutter trash.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Hopefully we can stay a republic.

But a republic for "some".

Pick axes and shovels for everybody else.

[Diogenes]

Voting should only be for rich people, or those with high salaried jobs any ways, not poverty stricken gutter trash.

How about for anyone who pays more in taxes than they receive in cash payments? And active duty military and veterans of course. They've earned their say.

Or we could just stick with bread and circuses. That always works out so well.

[Wolfman]

If memory serves me then President Bush did not veto that legislation with the thought that the Supreme Court would take care of it. Looks as if that is what happened.
I still am amazed that people think that corporations pays taxes. They collect taxes from their customers in the form of increased costs for goods and services they provide.

[Diogenes]

A corporation is merely a business form.

Since fucking when do "business forms" enjoy 1st amendment protections? Under that rationale they should be able to form private armies using their 2nd amendment rights. Armed "security" from McDonald's should be able to storm Burger King's headquarters and slaughter the lot of them in "self-defense."

Because private citizens get to do that all the time.


Moron.

[Mikey]

When a corporation does something illegal, do they put the piece of paper in jail or the people who ran the corporation in jail?

Unfortunately when a corporation does something illegal, often nobody gets put in jail because there's no individual to prosecute. By your logic, if a corporation does something illegal everybody who is part of the corporation should be put in jail. Not a bad idea, actually.

[Diogenes]

Because private citizens get to do that all the time.


Moron.

A corporation isn't a private citizen with individual rights...

You mean like the right to "be able to storm Burger King's headquarters and slaughter the lot of them in "self-defense.""

Go suck Obama's dick some more, idiot.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

mv, could you shed a little light on the notion of Corporate Personhood?

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_ ... ood_debate

I just want your interpretation/opinion.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

[Diogenes]

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 medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. 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.

[LTS TRN 2]

What the fuck happened to Avi/Jessup during his walkabout? He's suddenly speaking sanely.

[Mikey]

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 medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. 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.

Money and speech are not the same thing.

[upstart]

It's nice to see mvscal posting.

[Diogenes]

What the fuck happened to Avi/Jessup during his walkabout? He's suddenly speaking sanely.

I am a conservative.

A 'conservative' who thinks the government can dictate who has the right to political speech and who wanted Obama in the White House in order to destroy America.

You're just another moronic anti-American douchebag.

[Diogenes]

Let's take mvscal's fucked up logic for a walk, if possible. The New York Times is a corporation (The New York Times Company: http://www.nytco.com/corporate_governance/index.html) Under McCain-Feingold, although it was a corporation, it was permitted to engage in political speech because it was a "news organization", and the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge the freedom of the Press. That same exception allowed people like Michael Moore to make movies ("documentaries") that also engaged in political speech. He was exempt under the same criteria.

What if one of my corporations (I own shares in several) decided to put out a movie that said John Edwards was a lying, morally depraved adulterer? Uh oh. My corporation is not permitted to do so. None of my corporations would qualify for the Press exemption, because they are also engaged in other for-profit activities. So I get to STFU while the New York Times and Michael Moore get to blather their points of view to the masses, unchecked.

My corporation's speech gets censored. Other corporation's, not so much.

The fact is that both are political speech. The speaker makes no difference. The freedom of speech cannot be abridged. Period full stop.

Even better-what if a non-profit organization made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. According to mvscum, the FCC would be within their rights to ban it.

Which is what they did. Which is what this case is about.

[smackaholic]

88's example is one reason why the law needs to be this way. As soon as you start limiting shit, you are gonna run into problems, no matter how well intended they may be. the gubmint needs to feel free to stfu in this case. their sole interest should be in seeing to it that whomever is bankrolling the speech, be identified.

what really sucks in this ruling is the typical 5/4 split along political lines. You would think that a good ACLU carrying lib would be for it, especially for the unions sake, but, unfortunately the political sides have been drawn and these fukkers walk lockstep on their respective sides for the most part.

[Stanley Pickkkle]

Once again...mvscal is the smartest person in a thread. Even smarter than lawyers about lawyer stuff. Wow..Just fukkken WOW!

[Alan]

Once again...mvscal is the smartest person in a thread. Even smarter than lawyers about lawyer stuff. Wow..Just fukkken WOW!

Stanley, how are you going to fit my balls in your mouth with his already in there?

[Stanley Pickkkle]

Tell you what. I'll take the opposite side of any issue that mvscal wants to argue, provided his position is supported by the deep thinkers: Stanley Pickkkle and LTSTRN2.

I think 88 is smart....he's just not as smart as mvscal. As a matter of fact, I don't think very many people in the world are as smart as mvscal. We are truly blessed on this board by his presense.

[Lillian Vernon]

Of course mvscal favors censorship. Look at his behavior as a mod.

Corporations are legal constructs which have no rights whatsoever other than those assigned to them by the State.

Then let the individual states decide if they want corporations involved in the political process or not.

The less federal involvement in anything except waging war, delivering mail and fixing the highways, the better.

[Diogenes]

Tell you what. I'll take the opposite side of any issue that mvscal wants to argue, provided his position is supported by the deep thinkers: Stanley Pickkkle and LTSTRN2.

I think 88 is smart....he's just not as smart as mvscal. As a matter of fact, I don't think very many people in the world are as smart as mvscal. We are truly blessed on this board by his presense.

You're as stupid as you are gay.

[Diogenes]

The less federal involvement in anything except waging war, delivering mail and fixing the highways, the better.

I agree and, of course, that works both ways. The less government is involved in business and the less business is involved in government, the better.

Corporations are commercial enterprises and they have no role to play in the political process. They can only subvert the process to the detriment of individual liberty.

Spoken like a true leftist twat.

Just die already, faggot.

[Diogenes]

STFU, bitch.

Go suck off Obama some more, since he's the guy you wanted in office. Too bad for you and your leftist brethren he hasn't had a chance to pack the court yet.

[Lillian Vernon]

The less federal involvement in anything except waging war, delivering mail and fixing the highways, the better.

I agree and, of course, that works both ways. The less government is involved in business and the less business is involved in government, the better.

Corporations are commercial enterprises and they have no role to play in the political process. They can only subvert the process to the detriment of individual liberty.

Of course you sidestepped the most important point, which was...

Then let the individual states decide if they want corporations involved in the political process or not.

You can't have it both ways. If you want the federal government out of everything, then you cannot support McCain Feingold type legislation that dictates what the states can and cannot allow when it comes to campaign financing. Let the states decide and if your state allows it, then leave if you don't like it.

[Diogenes]

he's the guy you wanted in office.

And things couldn't be going better for genuine fiscal conservatives thanks to Obama. Of course you wouldn't understand because you put your party affiliation above all else and delude yourself into thinking that it makes a difference.

Still a fucking moron. I have no 'party affiliation'. I oppose leftists of all stripes. But I'm glad you're happy with the job your boy has done on the economy.

Idiot.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Of course mvscal favors censorship. Look at his behavior as a mod.

RACK.

[BSmack]

Corporate personhood will be the end of American liberty.

Then ban the corporate form. There isn't anything in the Constitution that requires states to allow corporations to exist. Ban them, smarty pants. And see what that does to your economy.

Great argument. Corporations are no threat to individual liberty because if you get rid of them this country's economy will crash?

[Lillian Vernon]

Once again...mvscal is the smartest person in a thread. Even smarter than lawyers about lawyer stuff. Wow..Just fukkken WOW!

Ummm. Not hardly. The logical inconsistency of his position was exposed by :lv: in a single sentence.

[smackaholic]

Except when they call themselves Republicans and then you drop to your knees to gobble their spurt like a greedy nestling.

that'll rack, even if i am on the other side of this particle debate.

[Dr_Phibes]

Let's take mvscal's fucked up logic for a walk,

[Edvard] errr you're arguing in favour of giving inanimate objects and their representatives the same rights as people [/Munch]

[smackaholic]

no, he's argueing that a corporation, is in fact a collection of people and that that group enjoys the same rights as an individual.

[Dr_Phibes]

yes, but those people are acting in the interest of the product that washes your windows, not the public good - these things can be made separate from politics, I think. The public and the private interest are quite seperate things and are often times at odds with each other - giving them the same status as a person strikes me as a bit strange.