General Discussion

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)

93. BrotherIvan was proposing a system that went way, way beyond the pre-CU era.

Wed Sep 10, 2014, 08:14 PM

Sep 2014

There were some worrying incursions on the First Amendment pre-CU, like movies being banned, but nothing like what BrotherIvan is proposing.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The ACLU and Citizens United (note: they oppose the constitutional amendment to overturn CU) [View all] kelly1mm Sep 2014 OP

The question is are corporations people? still_one Sep 2014 #1

And the answer is 100% yes. They always have been. That was not the new part of CU Recursion Sep 2014 #17

but can a corporation serve time in jail? still_one Sep 2014 #22

No more than a real human can be dissolved Recursion Sep 2014 #24

Are corporations often dissolved in this way? Orrex Sep 2014 #37

Arthur Andersen (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #40

So... Just one. Not much of a deterrent, I should think. Orrex Sep 2014 #42

This is obviously incorrect, as Citizens United was decided in 2010. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #33

Citizens United was not the first time corporations were called people Recursion Sep 2014 #38

For limited matters, Recursion. Not in all things. Read the case law more carefully, please. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #48

If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a donkey have? immoderate Sep 2014 #103

Not really. A lot of that descends from a note attached to Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #51

Not "always." The notion that corporations have all the same rights as tblue37 Sep 2014 #62

But until that court reporter included that point in his headnote to his summary, tblue37 Sep 2014 #64

No, the question is whether corporations are part of "the press." eallen Sep 2014 #21

The Founders knew what corporations were, and didn't mention them in the Bill of Rights. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #34

They mentioned "the press" explicitly. Which was businesses, then. eallen Sep 2014 #35

Then it is reasonable that they considered the matter, and limited the 1st Amendment's protections Romulox Sep 2014 #47

Your definition of "the press" is circular eallen Sep 2014 #55

And that is why their fund rasing mailers go straight into my garbage can bluestateguy Sep 2014 #2

that makes no sense. La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2014 #3

Talking about throwing physical mail into the trash and not recycling bin. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #7

i got that. still makes no sense though. La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2014 #39

Their entire premise is flawed. Like PETA, they are quickly sabotaging their own organization. Mercy_Queen Sep 2014 #4

The ACLU marym625 Sep 2014 #29

90+% of the time I agree with the ACLU but not on this, money is not speech and Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #5

The ACLU is fighting internally on this marym625 Sep 2014 #30

An amendment would also curtail their spending........(nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #6

Whttevrrr, aclu. "unfortunately" for you.. not for those of us who give a damn about Democracy. Cha Sep 2014 #8

unbelievable. aclu thinks that corporations are people? i will withhold my donations spanone Sep 2014 #9

Money is not speech BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #10

So if the Republicans passed a law that banned unions from spending money on political campaigning, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #12

All campaigns should be publicly financed BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #13

You didn't really answer the question, now did you? Hrmm. n/t X_Digger Sep 2014 #15

If it was too subtle, the answer is yes BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #20

So you are proposing essentially abolishing the First Amendment. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #26

Do you think the 1st Amendment was essentially abolished before CU? kcr Sep 2014 #91

BrotherIvan was proposing a system that went way, way beyond the pre-CU era. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #93

Should Congress be able to cap my donations to DU? (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #18

DU is not a candidate and you are paying for a service BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #19

So you are OK with unlimited independent expenditures? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #25

Paper is not speech, and nor is electricity. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #23

Exactly. By that logic NYC Liberal Sep 2014 #49

The proposed amendment would allow Congress to ban books. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #11

How did it work before Citizens United? BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #14

The case was about a smear "documentary" about HRC Recursion Sep 2014 #31

There is no government crackdown on actual speech BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #46

Many posters are extrapolating via fiction, your opinion to frame it in their terms. LanternWaste Sep 2014 #54

That's a good post, LanternWaste, I agree. Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #102

This is not about "money to candidates". Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #94

No, it didn't say anything about money to candidates Recursion Sep 2014 #95

Well-meaning but naive amendments would do more harm than good. X_Digger Sep 2014 #16

Not exactly true. There is a deep rift at the ACLU marym625 Sep 2014 #27

No, it is exactly true. While certainly there is disagreement with the ACLU's official position kelly1mm Sep 2014 #44

I just got off the phone with both the National office marym625 Sep 2014 #45

The link is still on their website, is it not? Is that not the ACLU's national website? kelly1mm Sep 2014 #50

It's not marym625 Sep 2014 #56

If you say so. However, I hope you told them that if they have an official website kelly1mm Sep 2014 #58

I specifically mentioned DU and the disagreements happening because of it marym625 Sep 2014 #60

On more thing - IF they chage their position as described on their website I will post the updated kelly1mm Sep 2014 #59

It's all good marym625 Sep 2014 #61

Well, time to stop donating to the ACLU. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #28

I stopped donating when the ACLU rushed to defend Rush Limbaugh. I know what the official BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #79

Yep, they defended the Klan's right to march, too. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #84

I remember that. They even made a telelvision movie out of it, "Skokie". BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #96

There's a distinct line between "consistent" Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #32

True, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #36

Some people hate the ACLU because they defended the right of the KKK to march. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #41

Can you please tell me which books and movies were banned before Citizen's United? Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #57

"Hillary: the Movie" was banned. That's what the Citizens United case was all about. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #63

No Hillary the movie was not banned Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #65

Yes-folks-the-Obama-administration-is-arguing-it-has-the-power-to-ban-books Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #67

No, they could distribute it all they had to do was follow campaign finance laws Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #70

Nye, it's been an amazing run.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #66

By agreeing with the ACLU's position on this issue? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #68

I looked up the source for that second link, it was written by Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #71

Here's a Daily Kos link: Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #72

So you have Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor and an anonymous blogger on your side Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #73

How about the "New Yorker"? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #75

Well now that you finally show what he said, it turns out he said the opposite of what you claimed Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #78

Well... he said "I'm not saying it could be banned" Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #80

Once again he explicitly said he was NOT saying books could be banned Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #86

"Some limits on financing of campaign books". Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #87

I believe there should be limits on campaign spending Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #88

We have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there should be any limitations, ever, on pamphlets Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #89

Of course I never said any of that and you created a huge strawman to misrepresent me Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #90

"Some limits on financing of campaign books" Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #92

Thank you for your arguments BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #97

The ACLU does lots of good work despite their position on this one issue. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #43

I agree tazkcmo Sep 2014 #53

God Bless the ACLU, I wouldnt have them be any other way, even if they are wrong this time randys1 Sep 2014 #76

ACLU, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH! Money is an economic tool, not speech! Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #52

I'm afraid I don't agree; see #23. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #69

The words written on the paper are the speech and the words written and spoken Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #74

Protecting "speech" without protecting the means of speech means absolutely nothing. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #98

Which is precisely what the monopoly media is doing to the general public, preventing the Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #99

And you just made a statement that 2.8 billion people can see, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #100

Yes, I had to pay to post this. I paid for the computer, the DSL, the wifi, the electricity. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #104

So if a Republican congress passed a law banning unions from spending money on political campaigning Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #82

SO I guess the ACLU thinks people should be able to shout out "fire" in a crowded building too. onecaliberal Sep 2014 #77

If the building is indeed on fire, then yes, I'm sure they do (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #81

I guess I'm one of the very few DUers who strongly supports the ACLU in every position it holds (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #83

Wrong version of the amendment? ManiacJoe Sep 2014 #85

ACLU is definitely in the wrong on this bluebomber Sep 2014 #101