Slashdot Mirror
Judge: School's Facebook Post is a Campaign Contribution (coloradoan.com)
schwit1 writes: A Colorado judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate. In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common's principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an "excellent education leader" who would provide "sensible stewardship" of Thompson.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
The court seems to be saying that there's no problem with Bob Schaffer's personal speech, so it doesn't seem like a free-speech problem to me. The focus was on whether the school, a governmental entity, should in its official capacity make comments for or against a candidate. Governmental entities don't really have free-speech rights.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"So when everyone in the US posts for or against a US presidential candidate every single one of the posts is a campaign contribution under this ruling."
No, because the personal opinions of individuals on their private facebook pages mean fuck all. It's only because the principal used the school's official facebook account to praise the candidate that this amounted to anything at all. And even then the guy's rival had to kick a shit up to have it even looked at.
If that same principal used his own personal facebook page to say the exact same thing then absolutely nothing would have happened - and if the rival still tried to push it into court at that point, the judge would have laughed him out of the courtroom.
Again, it is ONLY because the praise was spread via an official ORGANIZATIONS facebook page that anything (And it is considered minor by the judge) happened.
"Citizens United", the ruling that defined corporations as people with the same free speech rights.
Citizens United did no such thing. The way the first amendment is written it says nothing about who freedom of speech applies to. It's written as a restriction on the federal government. Weather a Corporation is a person, citizen, or inadimate object the federal government is cannot restrict its speech.
Retards like you who think the first amendment shouldn't apply to corporations, I hope you enjoy a future where the government now controls what the media can say since freedom of the press won't apply anymore. Newspapers, television networks, Internet service providers, etc... Are all corporations.