Fahrenheit 9/11 was in theaters and later on DVD. Were it to be a paid programming message on TELEVISION, there MIGHT have been an issue.
Which is absurd. Why should the state have the power to regulate the manner in which political speech can take place in the 30 days preceding an election?
Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. It's absurd to say that an individual has the right to anonymous speech UNLESS he bands together with other like-minded individuals.
The problem isn't one private entity giving their one word, but one private entity speaking as if it were a thousand voices in a thousand places.
So now your issue isn't with speech, it's with the SCALE of that speech? Show me the text in the 1st amendment that grants Congress the power to ensure that everyone gets to speak at the same volume level in a crowded room.
So who is posting as "someone else" and why can't that "someone else" just sue them for slander and/or libel under the existing laws? You still haven't made any sort of compelling argument for why we need to regulate the source of political speech.
My gut instinct is to say no. He has a right to anonmyous free speech. But we already regulate speech somewhat with out election laws, so there has to be some middle ground. The fact that he is hiding behind a corporation instead of buying the advertising directly means he gives up some 1st amendment rights in my mind.
Why should he give up anything? Why do you think that we should regulate speech with our election laws?
It doesn't, but it wasn't written with monolithic corporations as people, unions, or mass media in mind, either.
Well, if you really believe that it seems that there is one way you could solve the problem. Personally I don't find your argument very compelling. Speech is speech. The source or medium of that speech does not matter.
If you don't have more people and more money, who cares what you think?
I reject your conclusion that the United States will turn into an "Asian MMO" without limitations on free speech.
An individual's right to political free speech, in practical terms, is marginalized and ultimately ceases to exist if giant groups of people (corporations/unions/etc.) can wield that same power on a much, much larger/louder scale without the corresponding limits and drawbacks of individuality.
I wasn't aware that the 1st amendment had a fairness doctrine attached to it.
Maybe your hypothetical individual should group with like minded people to convey his message more effectively?
The problem here is when a corporation masquerades as a folksy "grass roots" organization when distributing their speech.
Even if they do that, why exactly is it a problem?
Under the current system, you could write a satanist propoganda, and publish under the name of "The Association of Citizens to Elect Mitt Romney". Furthermore, you can do this right before an election, so that the truth of the identity of the author is not revealed until long after the point at which it matters.
So what? We have free speech in this country. That includes anonymous speech. Anonymous political speech has been around in this country since the Federalist papers and has a long history of being upheld by SCOTUS regardless of
More stupid from the teabaggers/libertarian/rethuglicans. The editor of a newspaper can and should be able to state the OPINION of the newspapers editorial and management boards. The crucial difference is that the New Yorks Times did not take money from the corporate coffers and donate it to a specific candidate
It's pretty telling that you start off your post with a rant about how stupid those dumb teabagging rethuglicans are while being completely oblivious to the fact that it's still ILLEGAL for a corporation to donate money to a political campaign.
Citizens United said that corporations can put out their own advertisements/fliers/movies/etc. It did not say they can write checks to Obama for America or McCain/Palin 2008.
This is why the first amendment exists - rather than risk creating a regulatory structure that is incredibly open to abuse, we open speech up to everyone and every thing and leave it up to the voter to parse out the bad speech.
The intent was that Congress would not be in the position of regulating speech.
Why are you so afraid of unfettered speech anyway? Is your opinion of the American electorate so low that you think they need to be shielded from this speech and can't form their own opinions about it?
Microsoft could set up a shell group called "Concerned Citizens for Software Freedom" and funnel money into it to buy a million political ads that trashed a candidate running against a candidate they liked.
Yes, actually she did. Start on page 64. She is arguing that the law DOES cover books but you don't need to worry about it because the Government has never tried to regulate books and if it did there would be grounds for a legal challenge. You'll forgive me if I don't find that argument very compelling.
So free speech only applies to selected bodies? Unions can exercise all the political exertion they want but corporations can't?
Some corporations can. The people who are outraged over Citizens United never found the time to complain when the for-profit New York Times was endorsing political candidates.
Did you read the same Citizens United ruling that I did? Did you read then Solicitor General Kagan's argument that basically said "Yeah, this legislation gives the Feds the power to ban books, but that's irrelevant because we would never do such a thing."? The 1st amendment says plainly enough that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The old law prohibited Citizens United from publishing a film about a political candidate within a certain timeframe preceding a Federal election. Such a law is not compatible with the 1st amendment if free speech is to have any meaning.
It was not flamebait, but with emphasis on USA's resource consumption
Which really isn't that much more obnoxious than the EU or Japan, particularly from the perspective of someone living in the third world. Why didn't you include the EU in your list of places where the people should all die?
(for minimal impact, you can argue that a single knife can be passed around the US population, each person kills someone and hands the knife to another person, costing a total of $1.)
That'll last until you come across someone with a gun. We have a lot of guns in the US ya know;)
It reminds me of when the three CEOs [go.com] of the car industry all took private planes to lobby Washington for a taxpayer handout.
So it would have made more sense for the people that have huge companies to run to waste their time driving there or flying commercial? I loved seeing politicians that regularly fly on private jets (whether it's POTUS on AF1 or Congress-critters that fly on lobbyist jets or military flights) condemning others for doing the same.
For most of the starving world, food is a weapon used by the local thug/"political leader" to wield against the people and enforce their will.
Perhaps we should be giving the people AR-15s instead of rice? Hard to keep food from your people when they have the ability to fight back effectively.
I don't have a problem with the notion of birth control. Use it myself on a regular basis. I just have a problem with the people that think it should be state mandated. If freedom and self-determination are to mean anything the Government can't regulate our reproductive choices.
We don't sing, unless in a drunken stupor in a bad karaoke bar.
We don't dance, unless high on some kind of drug.
We don't relax, unless passified in front of the stare-box serving propaganda and lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Fahrenheit 9/11 was in theaters and later on DVD. Were it to be a paid programming message on TELEVISION, there MIGHT have been an issue.
Which is absurd. Why should the state have the power to regulate the manner in which political speech can take place in the 30 days preceding an election?
Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. It's absurd to say that an individual has the right to anonymous speech UNLESS he bands together with other like-minded individuals.
The problem isn't one private entity giving their one word, but one private entity speaking as if it were a thousand voices in a thousand places.
So now your issue isn't with speech, it's with the SCALE of that speech? Show me the text in the 1st amendment that grants Congress the power to ensure that everyone gets to speak at the same volume level in a crowded room.
So who is posting as "someone else" and why can't that "someone else" just sue them for slander and/or libel under the existing laws? You still haven't made any sort of compelling argument for why we need to regulate the source of political speech.
My gut instinct is to say no. He has a right to anonmyous free speech. But we already regulate speech somewhat with out election laws, so there has to be some middle ground. The fact that he is hiding behind a corporation instead of buying the advertising directly means he gives up some 1st amendment rights in my mind.
Why should he give up anything? Why do you think that we should regulate speech with our election laws?
Dude, the freedom of speech is not the same thing as the freedom to lie about your identity.
So you don't think that anonymous political speech is protected by the 1st amendment? Why aren't you posting under your real name then?
It doesn't, but it wasn't written with monolithic corporations as people, unions, or mass media in mind, either.
Well, if you really believe that it seems that there is one way you could solve the problem. Personally I don't find your argument very compelling. Speech is speech. The source or medium of that speech does not matter.
If you don't have more people and more money, who cares what you think?
I reject your conclusion that the United States will turn into an "Asian MMO" without limitations on free speech.
Did you read the oral arguments or do you get all of your information from Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow?
An individual's right to political free speech, in practical terms, is marginalized and ultimately ceases to exist if giant groups of people (corporations/unions/etc.) can wield that same power on a much, much larger/louder scale without the corresponding limits and drawbacks of individuality.
I wasn't aware that the 1st amendment had a fairness doctrine attached to it.
Maybe your hypothetical individual should group with like minded people to convey his message more effectively?
The problem here is when a corporation masquerades as a folksy "grass roots" organization when distributing their speech.
Even if they do that, why exactly is it a problem?
Under the current system, you could write a satanist propoganda, and publish under the name of "The Association of Citizens to Elect Mitt Romney". Furthermore, you can do this right before an election, so that the truth of the identity of the author is not revealed until long after the point at which it matters.
So what? We have free speech in this country. That includes anonymous speech. Anonymous political speech has been around in this country since the Federalist papers and has a long history of being upheld by SCOTUS regardless of
More stupid from the teabaggers/libertarian/rethuglicans. The editor of a newspaper can and should be able to state the OPINION of the newspapers editorial and management boards. The crucial difference is that the New Yorks Times did not take money from the corporate coffers and donate it to a specific candidate
It's pretty telling that you start off your post with a rant about how stupid those dumb teabagging rethuglicans are while being completely oblivious to the fact that it's still ILLEGAL for a corporation to donate money to a political campaign.
Citizens United said that corporations can put out their own advertisements/fliers/movies/etc. It did not say they can write checks to Obama for America or McCain/Palin 2008.
This is why the first amendment exists - rather than risk creating a regulatory structure that is incredibly open to abuse, we open speech up to everyone and every thing and leave it up to the voter to parse out the bad speech.
Thank you. You said it better than I did.
The intent was that Congress would not be in the position of regulating speech.
Why are you so afraid of unfettered speech anyway? Is your opinion of the American electorate so low that you think they need to be shielded from this speech and can't form their own opinions about it?
Microsoft could set up a shell group called "Concerned Citizens for Software Freedom" and funnel money into it to buy a million political ads that trashed a candidate running against a candidate they liked.
Yeah, so? Why are you so worried about speech?
The New York Times is a for-profit corporation that's been endorsing political candidates for decades.
ink that the difference is that the constitution also makes no mention of organizations or corporations has have ANY rights.
That's completely irrelevant. Read the plain text of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part of "shall make no law" is so hard to understand?
Yes, actually she did. Start on page 64. She is arguing that the law DOES cover books but you don't need to worry about it because the Government has never tried to regulate books and if it did there would be grounds for a legal challenge. You'll forgive me if I don't find that argument very compelling.
So free speech only applies to selected bodies? Unions can exercise all the political exertion they want but corporations can't?
Some corporations can. The people who are outraged over Citizens United never found the time to complain when the for-profit New York Times was endorsing political candidates.
Did you read the same Citizens United ruling that I did? Did you read then Solicitor General Kagan's argument that basically said "Yeah, this legislation gives the Feds the power to ban books, but that's irrelevant because we would never do such a thing."? The 1st amendment says plainly enough that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The old law prohibited Citizens United from publishing a film about a political candidate within a certain timeframe preceding a Federal election. Such a law is not compatible with the 1st amendment if free speech is to have any meaning.
Later. Right now, let's play [introversion.co.uk] Global Thermonuclear War.
I love Defcon but I wish they had made a REAL global thermonuclear war based in the 1980s. There should be MIRVs in the game and no missile defense.
It was not flamebait, but with emphasis on USA's resource consumption
Which really isn't that much more obnoxious than the EU or Japan, particularly from the perspective of someone living in the third world. Why didn't you include the EU in your list of places where the people should all die?
(for minimal impact, you can argue that a single knife can be passed around the US population, each person kills someone and hands the knife to another person, costing a total of $1.)
That'll last until you come across someone with a gun. We have a lot of guns in the US ya know ;)
It reminds me of when the three CEOs [go.com] of the car industry all took private planes to lobby Washington for a taxpayer handout.
So it would have made more sense for the people that have huge companies to run to waste their time driving there or flying commercial? I loved seeing politicians that regularly fly on private jets (whether it's POTUS on AF1 or Congress-critters that fly on lobbyist jets or military flights) condemning others for doing the same.
For most of the starving world, food is a weapon used by the local thug/"political leader" to wield against the people and enforce their will.
Perhaps we should be giving the people AR-15s instead of rice? Hard to keep food from your people when they have the ability to fight back effectively.
I don't have a problem with the notion of birth control. Use it myself on a regular basis. I just have a problem with the people that think it should be state mandated. If freedom and self-determination are to mean anything the Government can't regulate our reproductive choices.
We don't sing, unless in a drunken stupor in a bad karaoke bar.
We don't dance, unless high on some kind of drug.
We don't relax, unless passified in front of the stare-box serving propaganda and lies.
Speak for yourself.....