Should only "natural persons" and the press have First Amendment rights? [View all]

[Nye Bevan]

Many DUers have suggested that constitutional rights should be reserved for "natural persons". And there is a group called "move to amend" which takes this view. But read this, bearing in mind that "MoveOn.org" is not a "natural person":

MoveOn.org won't be forced to take down a Baton Rouge-area billboard critical of Bobby Jindal's decision to forgo Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, a federal judge ruled Monday (April 7).

The suit was filed last month by Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, who said the national liberal organization improperly used his office's trade and tourism branding in its satirical billboard posted just outside of the state capital. But U.S. District Court Judge Shelly Dick disagreed Monday, siding with MoveOn.org in stating the group's free speech rights trumped the state's case.

"The State has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to curtail MoveOn.org's political speech in favor of protecting of the State's service mark," Dick said in her ruling. She added "irreparable injury" would not be caused to Louisiana's tourism campaign if the ad remained in place.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/moveon_louisiana_jindal_lawsui_ruling.html

3 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, only "natural persons" and the press, and not artificial entities such as MoveOn.org, should have First Amendment rights.
	1 (33%)
	No. I disagree that First Amendment rights should only be for "natural persons" and the press.
	2 (67%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll