Dems announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch

[Rod1]

Of course you can. It's the speech of whoever controls the corporation; usually the majority of the shareholders.

Thats not true, corporations are considered under the law as an entirely separate legal person.

 

[HomerThompson]

The government was trying to censor a film. It claimed the authority to ban any book with even one sentence advocating for a candidate. How is that kind of censorship healthy for our democracy?

Nice straw man. I never implied that they should be able to censor a film or anything else for that matter.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Yes, but there should be limits on the amount of money one can spend to fund a campaign. It's not just about advertising. We're talking about people giving tens of millions of dollars directly to the campaign. Personally, I'd prefer to see strictly public funding for elections.

Well, I'm pretty sure Citizens United left intact the limits that go directly to Candidates' campaigns. I'm not arguing that I believe having corporations engaging in political speech in somehow inherently good, just that it is protected. The issue in Citizens was about a group of individuals who got together and create a non-profit to fund an inane video about Hillary Clinton. I believe it was a narrower ruling than many make it out to be.

 

[Rod1]

The government was trying to censor a film. It claimed the authority to ban any book with even one sentence advocating for a candidate. How is that kind of censorship healthy for our democracy?

1.- The US government can censor a film from being broadcasted in public. Like pornography.

2.- Law must follow a general applicability under the 14th.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Thats not true, corporations are considered under the law as an entirely separate legal person.

.....yes....

I think we're getting stuck in the semantics here. All I'm stating is that the corporation's position on anything is usually a result of who controls the corporation (usually a majority of the shareholders).

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This is the text of the first

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Corporations are not people, not their have the rights on indiviual shareholders extended to them.

Otherwise corporations would not cooperate with criminal investigations concerning shareholders because they would be able to plead the 5th.

Yes, and in that text, it never specifies that only individual people could be denied that freedom. So an originalist would find that any law that prohibited freedom of speech from any association, company, baseball team, or labor union, would be unconstitutional under the Amendment as written. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech". The law in question in Citizens United most certainly abridged a lot of speech.

Consider a law that said individuals are free to have an abortion but hospitals, surgery centers, and Planned parenthood were prohibited from providing those services to you. Under current precedent. Would you then nod your head and say, well Planned Parenthood isn't a person, non-profits aren't people?

 

[HomerThompson]

Well, I'm pretty sure Citizens United left intact the limits that go directly to Candidates' campaigns. I'm not arguing that I believe having corporations engaging in political speech in somehow inherently good, just that it is protected. The issue in Citizens was about a group of individuals who got together and create a non-profit to fund an inane video about Hillary Clinton. I believe it was a narrower ruling than many make it out to be.

Right, and I understand that it's protected, but I don't think it should be in an absolute way. I don't believe that money is equal to speech. It takes the freedom of speech away from people with less resources. I know that it kind of functionally works that way anyway, but making it stark and part of the election process hurts the nature of our Democracy.

 

[trident]

Dems have a history of talking tough and then folding at the end.

They've been like this since '93 when Clinton came in.

More likely this:

Than this:

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

1.- The US government can censor a film from being broadcasted in public. Like pornography.

2.- Law must follow a general applicability under the 14th.

Pornography is a different consideration of free specch. We all agree that there are very limited cases in which censorshipis oncsitutional.

The US government explicitly argued that they could censor any book with even one sentence about a political candidate. It's a damn good thing they lost, because such censorship is far too broad.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yes, and in that text, it never specifies that only individual people could be denied that freedom. So an originalist would find that any law that prohibited freedom of speech from any association, company, baseball team, or labor union, would be unconstitutional under the Amendment as written. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech". The law in question in Citizens United most certainly abridged a lot of speech.

Consider a law that said individuals are free to have an abortion but hospitals, surgery centers, and Planned parenthood were prohibited from providing those services to you. Under current precedent. Would you then nod your head and say, well Planned Parenthood isn't a person, non-profits aren't people?

That makes no sense. It's effectively outlawed if no one is allowed to provide the service, so people aren't free to get it done.

 

[Rod1]

.....yes....

I think we're getting stuck in the semantics here. All I'm stating is that the corporation's position on anything is usually a result of who controls the corporation (usually a majority of the shareholders).

That doesnt changes the fact that a corporation and its public stances can be regulated.

If the shareholders want their opinion heard then make a private non-profit and do whatever they want with their own money.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Right, and I understand that it's protected, but I don't think it should be in an absolute way. I don't believe that money is equal to speech. It takes the freedom of speech away from people with less resources. I know that it kind of functionally works that way anyway, but making it stark and part of the election process hurts the nature of our Democracy.

I'll use the same analogy I used elsewhere. Suppose the Republicans passed a law saying abortion was legal, but no money could be spent for one, and no money could be internally allocated by any organization, like Planned Parenthood, to pay for pro-bono abortions. How trite would it sound if they shrugged their shoulders at critics and said "Money isn't abortions."

 

[Rod1]

Pornography is a different consideration of free specch. We all agree that there are very limited cases in which censorshipis oncsitutional.

How is it different?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it says "except pornography".

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That makes no sense. It's effectively outlawed if no one is allowed to provide the service, so people aren't free to get it done.

Exactly. And speech is effectively censored if money isn't allowed to spent publishing books, filming movies, or paying for ad space.

 

[Rod1]

I'll use the same analogy I used elsewhere. Suppose the Republicans passed a law saying abortion was legal, but no money could be spent for one, and no money could be internally allocated by any organization, like Planned Parenthood, to pay for pro-bono abortions. How trite would it sound if they shrugged their shoulders at critics and said "Money isn't abortions."

Corporations arent people, the individuals that have the freedom of speech can buy whatever they want with their own money, a corporation cant because there were laws against it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

How is it different?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it says "except pornography".

Do you really want to trace the history of pornography law in the US? It's tangential to this conversation. And how does the limited censorship of pornography somehow justify broad ranging censorship of political speech?

 

[Rod1]

Do you really want to trace the history of pornography law in the US? It's tangential to this conversation. And how does the limited censorship of pornography somehow justify broad ranging censorship of political speech?

Its not tangential at all, you claim the 1st trumps over all law when it comes to speech.

Except pornography. Why?

 

[HomerThompson]

I'll use the same analogy I used elsewhere. Suppose the Republicans passed a law saying abortion was legal, but no money could be spent for one, and no money could be internally allocated by any organization, like Planned Parenthood, to pay for pro-bono abortions. How trite would it sound if they shrugged their shoulders at critics and said "Money isn't abortions."

That's not equivalent though. Not at all. In fact, it's completely ridiculous. No one is outlawing spending money on advertising. There is a gulf between spending money on a campaign, and finding that money is equal to speech so that unlimited amounts being spent on elections is totally kosher.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Corporations arent people, the individuals that have the freedom of speech can buy whatever they want with their own money, a corporation cant because there were laws against it.

Corporations don't have to be people for the government to not be allowed to restrict movies they produce, ads they produce, books they publish etc. Do you really think the government should be allowed to censor the publication of a book critical to the government on the grounds that it was published by a corporation rather than self-published?

Have you ever thought of the ramifications of that case beyond your bumper sticker mantra?

 

[HomerThompson]

Exactly. And speech is effectively censored if money isn't allowed to spent publishing books, filming movies, or paying for ad space.

The money itself isn't speech. A service is not equal to talking, and spending some money on advertising isn't the same thing as saying money and speech are the same construct.