Latest Breaking News

Veilex

(1,555 posts)

51. Except that...

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:36 PM

Feb 2013

the 1st Amendment doesn’t exempt a person from repercussions of utilizing free speech. If it did, people making verbal threats against a sitting President could not be arrested. Nor individuals sued for defamation of character. Did the 1st Amendment work out in the high profile, politically charged case of the NAACP protesting against the hardware store? Sure. But for every instance of lowly little peons trying to stand up for themselves, big corporations use, as you put it “leverage” to squash any media attention on anything that might create a blemish on their perfect corporate aesthetic. It boils down to this; we have freedom of speech... corporations have more freedom of speech... more powerful, more versatile, more ruthless... and simply just more. After all, money is speech.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal Over Corporate Campaign Contributions [View all] Purveyor Feb 2013 OP

Corporations do not have free-speech rights Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1

'Corporations are people my friend.' nt onehandle Feb 2013 #2

You are wrong, of course. And its a good thing that you are wrong. onenote Feb 2013 #10

Except that.... Veilex Feb 2013 #13

No, not "except that" onenote Feb 2013 #19

Except that... Veilex Feb 2013 #51

Corporations can and are sued for defamation too onenote Feb 2013 #52

Having more opportunity... Veilex Feb 2013 #53

As an individual I also am more limited in how far and wide I can spread my message compared onenote Feb 2013 #54

I have no issues Veilex Feb 2013 #55

Citizens United was not legislation. It struck down legislation. onenote Mar 2013 #58

Either way, Veilex Mar 2013 #59

Why is money speech? Orrex Feb 2013 #14

So would you be okay with a law that said onenote Feb 2013 #17

Explain to me why money is speech. Orrex Feb 2013 #18

I just explained that regulation of speech is and always has been permissible if justified by a onenote Feb 2013 #21

In a word, sure. Why not? Orrex Feb 2013 #23

Ha! Because money talks!!!!! nt valerief Feb 2013 #24

Never heard the expression, "Money Talks"? Javaman Feb 2013 #50

Still, I have a hard time with money = speech. AllyCat Feb 2013 #20

Which is why limits on contributions should be constitutional onenote Feb 2013 #22

That's an interesting way to put it, and I may have misunderstood you previously Orrex Feb 2013 #27

You tell me how a corporation talks without a PERSON interrupting Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #28

Corporations have privileges that are and should be defined by federal and state laws. NYC Liberal Feb 2013 #57

They do if the SCOTUS says they do. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #44

When a corporation gives live birth at the hospital to a baby corporation, AndyA Feb 2013 #3

The female corporation is the one with boobs. groundloop Feb 2013 #7

Alerting ...for using the words "boobs" and "dicks". L0oniX Feb 2013 #9

Alerting on you for the same reason. You know, using those words. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #45

Ok ...I will alert on myself. BREAKING NEWS: results are below... L0oniX Feb 2013 #48

If you dont behave I am going to meta and calling you out. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #49

But A "Lorena Bobbitt" Corporation Has Neither n/t DallasNE Feb 2013 #15

Corporate Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal Over Corporate Campaign Contributions jsr Feb 2013 #4

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ L0oniX Feb 2013 #8

Um . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #32

You're absolutely right. jsr Feb 2013 #42

In reality a such ban was UPHELD. alp227 Feb 2013 #41

I am surprised. Why arent you? Or did I misunderstand something? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #46

Corporations aren't people - they're giant profit-obsessed monsters pretending to be people. reformist2 Feb 2013 #5

They are legal entities, existing only paper and they exist for the sole purpose ProfessionalLeftist Feb 2013 #25

You have described one category of corporation. onenote Feb 2013 #33

There was talk in the past . . . aggiesal Feb 2013 #31

When one is Scalded Nun Feb 2013 #6

Clear as Mud! anokaflash Feb 2013 #11

I take it you haven't read the decision onenote Feb 2013 #16

It was a stupid ass decision Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Feb 2013 #34

Same question: have you read the decision? onenote Feb 2013 #36

Not all of it Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #39

Why do you think it was a "stupid ass" decision? onenote Feb 2013 #40

I was talking about the CU decision Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #43

Ok.No disagreement there. Thanks for clarifying onenote Feb 2013 #47

So Corruption Still Needs To Occur At Arms Length DallasNE Feb 2013 #12

Is this ruling good or bad for us? nt brush Feb 2013 #26

Good...eom Kolesar Feb 2013 #29

Some commenters don't seem to understand the import of this . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #35

I agree that your interpretation is correct. However.... groundloop Feb 2013 #37

Agreed . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #38

What's the point of this century-old ban Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #56