Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

[Lao Tse]

They are just as much people as a PAC..

Which is zero amount of being people.

You don't have to declare something a person to give it the partial rights of a person.

just like we don't have to declare animals to be people to protect them from cruelty. Do we?

this is just more of your fascist overstepping. Typical. Stop repeating your same broken syllogisms. They are full of fail.

 

[Timshel]

Which is zero amount of being people.

You don't have to declare something a person to give it the partial rights of a person.

So the government has the right to limit the speech of any association or group? Is that what you are arguing, moron?

 

[Lao Tse]

So the government has the right to limit the speech of any association or group? Is that what you are arguing, moron?

Define group.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Political speech is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.”

This basically says it all. Stringy, I think you've done a splendid job of explaining why the SCOTUS ruled the 1st amendment applies to corporate entities. As I said before, we seem to both be on the same page, regarding application of the 1st to corporations. This thread was intended to challenge pinheads who don't believe the "free speech" provisions of the 1st should apply to corporations making political contributions, but does apply when it comes to freedom of religion. My point was, you can't have it both ways (not YOU personally, you are consistent), you can't argue that corporations don't have a constitutional right to free speech, but do have the right to freedom of religion.

Now, some distinction was made about "non-profits" but the fact of the matter is, the constitution is not applied on the basis of profit. You can't say, well, this corporation is making a profit, therefore it's not entitled to the constitutional protections of a non-profit. The constitution can either apply in full, or it doesn't apply at all. The SCOTUS ruled it applied in full.

 

[Lao Tse]

This basically says it all. Stringy, I think you've done a splendid job of explaining why the SCOTUS ruled the 1st amendment applies to corporate entities. As I said before, we seem to both be on the same page, regarding application of the 1st to corporations. This thread was intended to challenge pinheads who don't believe the "free speech" provisions of the 1st should apply to corporations making political contributions, but does apply when it comes to freedom of religion. My point was, you can't have it both ways (not YOU personally, you are consistent), you can't argue that corporations don't have a constitutional right to free speech, but do have the right to freedom of religion.

Now, some distinction was made about "non-profits" but the fact of the matter is, the constitution is not applied on the basis of profit. You can't say, well, this corporation is making a profit, therefore it's not entitled to the constitutional protections of a non-profit. The constitution can either apply in full, or it doesn't apply at all. The SCOTUS ruled it applied in full.

Too bad you're both idiots on corporate personhood. that's the road to fascism.

 

[Timshel]

Define group.

Are you serious? Answer the question.

Are media corporations protected under the first amendment? Can congress regulate coverage of politicians by corporate media? If they are protected under the first amendment then why not other corporations?

The precedent you are advancing is unworkable.
...

The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id. , at 691 ( Scalia, J. , dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S. , at 782); see Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. , 472 U. S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens , JJ., dissenting); id. , at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.

The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment .

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Too bad you're both idiots on corporate personhood. that's the road to fascism.

No, it's actually what can prevent fascism.

No one has claimed that corporations are persons. That is hyperbole you have introduced, because you oppose the SCOTUS ruling. The actual case brought before the SCOTUS for review, was a "company" who had produced a documentary on Hillary Clinton, and they were prevented from distributing the material during the 2008 primaries. The company argued it had the 1st amendment right to distribute the documentary, and that right had been infringed. The court found in their favor.

 

[Lao Tse]

Are you serious? Answer the question.

Are media corporations protected under the first amendment? Can congress regulate coverage of politicians by corporate media? If they are protecting under the first amendment then why not other corporations?

The precedent you are advancing is unworkable.
...

The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id. , at 691 ( Scalia, J. , dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S. , at 782); see Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. , 472 U. S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens , JJ., dissenting); id. , at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.

The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment .

It's all square with the first amendment. Corporations are not people.

there are no "unworkable contradictions".

Im talking about Political Action Committees, not media companies. With media companies it's the free speech of the commentator that is being allowed, not the company.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's all square with the first amendment. Corporations are not people.

there are no "unworkable contradictions".

Im talking about Political Action Committees, not media companies. With media companies it's the free speech of the commentator that is being allowed, not the company.

Then according to you, we can just tell the mosque builders to kiss our ass, they can't build their mosque! They are a company, and don't have constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression. The Atheists could take that argument a step further, and argue that any church amounts to a corporation, and has no constitutional rights.

 

[Lao Tse]

Then according to you, we can just tell the mosque builders to kiss our ass, they can't build their mosque! They are a company, and don't have constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression. The Atheists could take that argument a step further, and argue that any church amounts to a corporation, and has no constitutional rights.

Building definitely isn't speech. Reduce your dosage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Building definitely isn't speech. Reduce your dosage.

I didn't argue that building was speech, dumbshit. INCREASE your dosage!

 

[Timshel]

It's all square with the first amendment. Corporations are not people.

there are no "unworkable contradictions".

Im talking about Political Action Committees, not media companies. With media companies it's the free speech of the commentator that is being allowed, not the company.

What? If this documentary had been produced and aired by a "media corporation" who would the "commentator" be?

 

[Lao Tse]

What? If this documentary had been produced and aired by a "media corporation" who would the "commentator" be?

That depends on who the casting director picks.

 

[Timshel]

That depends on who the casting director picks.

So then why does this change when it is not produced by a "media corporation?"

 

[Lao Tse]

So then why does this change when it is not produced by a "media corporation?"

It goes to a legal construct called, 'just because some companies chose media, doesn't mean all corporations must get unlimited access'. BP gets cheap gas.

 

[Timshel]

It goes to a legal construct called, 'just because some companies chose media, doesn't mean all corporations must get unlimited access'. BP gets cheap gas.

Your responses are retarded asshat. All of a sudden when it is produced by NBC it's not corporate speech, but that of the on air talent. There is no logical support for your position.

As the court indicated, it is almost impossible to distinguish between what is a legitimate media corporation and what is not. You are asking the state to tell some associations they can speak and others they cannot. It's a dangerous precedent which cannot coexists with liberties protected under the first amendment.

 

[Lao Tse]

Your responses are retarded asshat. All of a sudden when it is produced by NBC it's not corporate speech, but that of the on air talent. There is no logical support for your position.

As the court indicated, it is almost impossible to distinguish between what is a legitimate media corporation and what is not. You are asking the state to tell some associations they can speak and others they cannot. It's a dangerous precedent which cannot coexists with liberties protected under the first amendment.

But alas. there is no logical support for your position.

A difficulty in discriminating a media corporation is no excuse to stop trying.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a fascist lawyer fuckstick.

 

[Lao Tse]

Stringfield really says "gaggle of dogs". That's how "smart" he is. (fool) LOL.

 

[Timshel]

But alas. there is no logical support for your position.

A difficulty in discriminating a media corporation is no excuse to stop trying.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a fascist lawyer fuckstick.

The courts opinion in CU v FEC is logically supported. The first amendment does not allow for restriction of speech based on the identity of the speaker. The importance of distinctions between corporate vs non corporate speakers is unclear. Further, there is no basis for distinctions between different types of corporate speakers (i.e., non profit, for profit and for profit media corporations) and it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between those or to police economic exchanges between the different forms.

The state should not be TRYING to regulate political speech and freedom of the press to begin with.

You are an idiot and advocating a position wherein politicians will be empowered to choose who may speak and who may not.

 

[DamnYankee]

He's a Dick.