 
|
Haven’t heard about this on the nightly news, have you?
On one hand, she was just doing her job as Solicitor General and this may not reflect her personal feelings or how she might rule when on the Court. On the other hand, what’s up with Obama promoting crapola like this?
According to an explosive special report on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s views on the First Amendment right to free speech, in September of 2009 Kagan encouraged the Court to adhere to a new philosophy on the First Amendment that would allow the government to censor posters, pamphlets, and TV and radio content–and the Internet.
In a stunning news report issued today by CNS, the following information was disclosed:
“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,” 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.”
Even liberal Justice Ginsberg questioned Kagan about the policy, inquiring as to whether or not the same principle could be used to ban books.
A great quote from Anatole France:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Likewise, our Supreme Court, in its majestic equality, has given anyone with millions of dollars, Joe Sixpack or Exxon alike, the freedom to buy elections. How much more equal and free can we be, folks???
(Psst, that was sarcasm…)
#19 You make an excellent point Hmeyers… most big corporations are multinationals and don’t give a sh*t about America.
So how’s that sit with you right-wingers? Shall we give big corporations who don’t give a sh*t about America the right to buy elections? Or should I say, even more of a right than they have now…
Whatever happened to America first, rah rah rah? Why are you wingnuts so obsequious to the big money boys? Weird.
#6 Phydeau – you should consider this equally plausible scenario:
Are you comfortable with the idea of George Soros, the billionaire financier, or Michael Moore spending millions for ads and movies supporting a particular left-wing candidate for office?
Do you really think a candidate elected because a few Hollywood elite insiders spend millions on his campaign is really going to be able to effective represent the people in his district?
#23 jbenson2, you obviously don’t get the difference between individual American citizens spending big bucks vs corporations spending big bucks. I’m OK with individual American citizens spending big bucks on elections, even right-wing billionaire individuals. What I’m not OK with is big corporations spending big bucks on elections, especially ones that don’t have the interest of America first.
Which is all of them, really… even if they’re 100% American companies, their only reason for existing is to maximize shareholder value, regardless of how it might harm America. That’s the way the corporate system is set up.
Actually, I’m not that OK with individual American citizens spending millions or billions to influence elections, but that has more of a foundation in the Constitution than allowing corporations to influence elections.
In order to protect their newly-recognized right of free speech, corporations will also now have the right to keep and bear arms.
A better title is Are Democrats and George Bush against Free Speech, since they passed the campaign finance law that the Supremes threw out.
Why is this guy wearing pearl earrings?
New Rules:
• Corporations only gain Free Speech rights after they turn 21 and register to vote.
• All corporations older than 110 years of age will be deemed senile.
• All corporations must register with the Selective Service.
• No corporation under the age of 18 may drink or vote.
• All corporations over the age of 18 may be fucked.
While we’re on the topic of corporate free speech, can we recognize that mainstream media is also largely major corporations? Any possibility of ever getting the Fairness Doctrine back?
http://tinyurl.com/6pnta
Nah. That would be way too much to hope for.
#29 – Buzz,
• Corporations only gain Free Speech rights after they turn 21 and register to vote.
Corps would be fine with this. Young corporations would simply find smaller older corporations to buy and thus acquire voting rights.
• All corporations older than 110 years of age will be deemed senile.
As many corporations have done, they will simply declare bankruptcy and open in a new name. Expect this about every 109 years.
• All corporations must register with the Selective Service.
The military industrial complex largely is selective service. They’ll probably be OK with this too.
• No corporation under the age of 18 may drink or vote.
Addressed above.
• All corporations over the age of 18 may be fucked.
But, so much more often, they are on the giving end rather than the receiving one. Gently with a chainsaw for me please Mr. Corporation.
#13:
“Free speech should apply to individuals even if they choose to join together in groups called corporations.”
I wasn’t aware that you were forbidden to exercise your *individual* natural rights once you bought a share of stock.
I guess putting the effort into exercising your right to political speech is such a time sink that you’d rather have an immortal legal construct do it for you by proxy.
Now if the Supreme Court would get moving and throw out the ban on political ads that do not contain the words I am X and I approve this message.
#32 “I guess putting the effort into exercising your right to political speech is such a time sink that you’d rather have an immortal legal construct do it for you by proxy.”
I would like to use my resources (printing presses, film cameras, etc) that are owned by the corporation I formed to create my speech.
#34 Benjamin, I really think you should research what exactly a corporation is. It’s not necessarily owned by any individual. It’s an independent entity.
The crappolla referred to in the article is obviously the slated and biased manner in which the information is presented. The issue was if Corporation’s have a right to publish political matter using their general funds. Current law requires that they establish a political action group.
Limit free speech, what crappolla.
This was argued for corporations AND UNIONS.
It must be OK for the AFL-CIO to buy time and influence Congress. I never hear them mentioned.
#37. What this article is attempting to do is create a means for the far right to attack the nomination of Kagan to the SC. If they mentioned unions also being included, then the far right loonies would be conflicted and would not know if the arguement was good or bad.
#38
Looks like you got your left and right confused. We all know the left loons kiss the union label.
#34:
“I would like to use my resources (printing presses, film cameras, etc) that are owned by the corporation I formed to create my speech.”
If your business is a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or even maybe an LLC, go right ahead.
I don’t think you get what a corporation is, though.