Originally posted by TerrierJackNope.
So you're all a bunch of corporate collectivists. Eager for chains to bind you. The founders would be appalled.
And neither am I willing to accept any form of censorship.
"The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from
single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unin-corporated associations of individuals, to incorporatedassociations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion."
What The Founders might find appalling is this continued drift away from self-reliance towards dependency on a centralized Big Gov to make so many decisions for the individual.
Originally posted by monster truckGiven that the Framers were overwhelmingly believers in Natural Law theory and Lockean Fundamental Rights, it's rather difficult to believe that they would have thought that non-human entities had a right to "freedom of speech".
Nope.
And neither am I willing to accept any form of censorship.
"The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from
single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unin-corporated associations of individuals, to incorporatedassociations of individuals—and the ...[text shortened]... ance towards dependency on a centralized Big Gov to make so many decisions for the individual.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's obvious. It describes the main legislative organs, their powers and how their members are elected.
No.
Why would a Constitution be concerned with such trivialities?
It's hilarious that you call this a triviality while defending Obama's opinion that this is important.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs quoted, the speaker is irrelevant.
Given that the Framers were overwhelmingly believers in Natural Law theory and Lockean Fundamental Rights, it's rather difficult to believe that they would have thought that non-human entities had a right to "freedom of speech".
Feel free to provide proof to the contrary.
Originally posted by PalynkaI didn't defend Obama's opinion at all.
It's obvious. It describes the main legislative organs, their powers and how their members are elected.
It's hilarious that you call this a triviality while defending Obama's opinion that this is important.
You obviously don't understand what the purpose of a Constitution is. It certainly isn't to etch in stone every possible policy regarding elections that may take place in the distant future.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course you weren't.
I didn't defend Obama's opinion at all.
You obviously don't understand what the purpose of a Constitution is. It certainly isn't to etch in stone every possible policy regarding elections that may take place in the distant future.
no1:His concern over the possibility of foreign corporations being allowed to now run attack ads against individual candidates is well-founded.
The second part is your typical strawman. I wasn't talking about "every possible policy". I was talking about one that your own President feels undermines the concept that elections should be decided by the American people.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought we'd been over this???😕
So a bird chirping outside my window has a "right to freedom of speech"?
As does the guy who falsely yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater (you stated you were against ALL censorship)?
As quoted in the decision, the identity of the speaker has no bearing on 'freedom of speech'.
Yes, I'm against ALL censorship.
Your example is perfect. Are you one of those folks who believes everything you see and hear?
Originally posted by monster truckYou might believe such idiocy, but the Framers didn't.
I thought we'd been over this???😕
As quoted in the decision, the identity of the speaker has no bearing on 'freedom of speech'.
Yes, I'm against ALL censorship.
Your example is perfect. Are you one of those folks who believes everything you see and hear?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnyone who involves themselves in the political process has something to gain/lose or, at least, feels they do. Just because a corporation involves themselves is a nonsequitor. In fact, you could start a corporation in your basement if you want and have no employees. The fact of the matter is that citizens are being censored with the premise they are doing so in the name of political reform and stopping corruption and this is based upon the notion that the rich will have a stronger voice than those not so fortunate. If this is the spirit of the law, then the law has feiled in the case brought to the Supreme court. Really what Obama and his cronies want is a lock down come election time when it comes to political discourse within the press. All that will remain are those in the press, who are more often that not, left leaning having a voice during this time. Somehow big corporations should be slighted for big media. This is proposterous!! ðŸ˜
And that nonexistent political movement is benefiting how exactly?