APP - Defend Citizens United

Over the last 40 years, pornography, shirts that read "fuck the draft," black armbands, lude art, and a number of other items have been protected as free speech, even though they are frequently not political in nature, and generally don't pertain to speaking or dialogue (the wordiness that you seem to be single-mindedly seeking).

Do you know why this is, [edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rune said:
Explain how money is speech.
Show how government by the highest bidder is appropriate.
Tell why a coporation is a person.
Pretend you are on a debate forum, where facts are proven by proof, not your say so alone.

Show why the first ammendment protects the spending of multi-national companies, and why centuries of limited campaign donations was wrong.

Finaly, explain how representative democracy is enhanced by billions of dollars of untrackable donations.
Click to expand...
I can't. It's by far and away the worst court decision on my lifetime and it will the consequences to our Republic will be terrible. Unless somehow this decision can be overturned our Democracy has ended and we can mark our Calenders for the date Citizens United was decided as the official date we became a Plutocracy, owned in part by Foreign interests.
 
Threedee said:
Over the last 40 years, pornography, shirts that read "fuck the draft," black armbands, lude art, and a number of other items have been protected as free speech, even though they are frequently not political in nature, and generally don't pertain to speaking or dialogue (the wordiness that you seem to be single-mindedly seeking).

Do you know why this is, [edit]
Click to expand...
Because speech doesn't have to be political to be protected [edit] :)

I agree with Fuck the Draft! College graduates should be able to pick their own employers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derp Derp said:
Because speech doesn't have to be political to be protected [edit] :)

I agree with Fuck the Draft! College graduates should be able to pick their own employers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but political contributions are, which is what free speech was specifically created to protect. But you ignored the latter part of the sentence, because you are a hack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rune said:
Explain how money is speech.
Click to expand...

Money is not speech. Money is money, and speech is speech. It costs money to broadcast speech.

Show how government by the highest bidder is appropriate.
Click to expand...

It's not appropriate. But that's not what Citizens United did.

Tell why a coporation is a person.
Click to expand...

A corporation is not a person, a corporation is a corporation and a person is a person. Corporations are comprised of people.

Pretend you are on a debate forum, where facts are proven by proof, not your say so alone.
Click to expand...

Wow... that's going to be tough to do in this thread, where "facts" are hyperbole and "proof" is rhetoric, and you have no intention of honest debate.

Show why the first ammendment protects the spending of multi-national companies, and why centuries of limited campaign donations was wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you are either confused or misinformed about what Citizens did. First of all, Citizens was not a "multi-national" company, it is solely a US company. Second, we still have limits on campaign donations. In 2002, we passed McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, which restricted what Citizens did. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional. Before 2002 and after 2010, what Citizens did is perfectly legal and doesn't violate any campaign finance law. From 2002 to 2010, their first amendment rights were being violated by McCain-Feingold, or so the SCOTUS ruled.

Finaly, explain how representative democracy is enhanced by billions of dollars of untrackable donations.
Click to expand...

It's not, and that has never been the argument. You know who Citizens is, don't you? Seems like that point alone would prove they aren't "untrackable." And what they did, was not "donate billions" but rather, produce a product for distribution to the public. It so happened, the product was political in nature, and fell under the description of "political advertising" covered in McCain-Feingold. The court ruled, under the first amendment, the company had a right to free speech, and this could not be restricted by campaign finance laws, because it is an inalienable right.
 
Derp Derp said:
I can't. It's by far and away the worst court decision on my lifetime and it will the consequences to our Republic will be terrible.
Click to expand...
pure hyperbole, conjecture, and fear mongering. This decision is easily ignored by people becoming educated. The only reason liberals are terrified of this decision is that they know corporations support republicans and to them, that's bad, mmmmk?
 
Threedee said:
Yes, but political contributions are, which is what free speech was specifically created to protect. But you ignored the latter part of the sentence, because you are a hack.
Click to expand...

So the first ammendment was created specifically to protect political contributions? Hardly. It was created to protect political critizism, you know, a disenting veiwpoint.
Try again.
 
Threedee said:
[edited quote]
Click to expand...

1. This is APP, please conduct yoursef accordingly.
2. Can you read? I said it was created to protect political speech. Try to keep up.
3.Expression is speech. Need I quote the dictionary again? Show how money is expression. You seem quite confused by this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dixie said:
A corporation is comprised of people, it is a group of people. I thought we settled the issue of discrimination against people based on creed, years ago?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Dix. To be clear, you said this earlier;

Dixie said:
A corporation is not a person, a corporation is a corporation and a person is a person. Corporations are comprised of persons
Click to expand...

So, corps are not people right?
 
Rune said:
1. This is APP, please conduct yoursef accordingly.
2. Can you read? I said it was created to protect political speech. Try to keep up.
3.Expression is speech. Need I quote the dictionary again? Show how money is expression. You seem quite confused by this.
Click to expand...

Money, in the context of political contributions, is most certainly political expression. Only a moron would say otherwise.

Don't give a shit about the APP rules. This thread should have been posted elsewhere to begin with.
 
And once more, for the record, I have no problem with the SCOTUS reversing itself on the matter of corporate personhood, but until it does so, corportations get to engage in political expression via campaign contributions.
 
Threedee said:
Money, in the context of political contributions, is most certainly political expression. Only a moron would say otherwise.

Don't give a shit about the APP rules. This thread should have been posted elsewhere to begin with.
Click to expand...

I posted it here puposely, in an evidently vain attempt to have a civil discussion.

Now, can you prove that money is speech? Just your say so doesn't cut it.
 
I can prove that money is expression, based upon all of the cases the SCOTUS has addressed so far on the matter. In each case, someone was attempting to promote a lifestyle, political stance, or choice, and campaign contributions meet those same criteria. But I shouldn't even have to go this far. You are a fucking moron.
 
Threedee said:
I can prove that money is expression, based upon all of the cases the SCOTUS has addressed so far on the matter. In each case, someone was attempting to promote a lifestyle, political stance, or choice, and campaign contributions meet those same criteria. But I shouldn't even have to go this far. You are a fucking moron.
Click to expand...

If you can please do so. Your personal insults are doing very little to advance your case.
 
Rune said:
If you can please do so. Your personal insults are doing very little to advance your case.
Click to expand...

Okay, then ignore the last sentence of what I posted. There is your proof. Or are you going to deny the SCOTUS decisions don't exist so that you can try and waste my time. Quit being a child.
 
Rune said:
Thanks for the input Dix. To be clear, you said this earlier;

So, corps are not people right?
Click to expand...

Again, corporations are corporations and people are people. Corporations are comprised of many people. The court ruled the 'corporation' could not be denied constitutional rights, without denying those rights to the people who comprise the corporation. Liberals perverted this into the hyperbolic strawman, that "corporations are people."

For the sake of constitutional rights, they are protected whether you belong to a corporation or not, because they are inalienable. Therefore, the fact that you are part of a corporation, doesn't limit, restrict, or deny your constitutional rights. In a sense, you could argue that "Democrats" are a corporation, or "Republicans" ...are they also not entitled to run political advertisements? Seems we might be getting into sketchy territory when we start restricting free speech to ONLY individual persons, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top