Did you not read the thread Yar? There is no argument that "the government should not be regulating political speech". It does it all the fucking time in many different ways because the interest in the government regulating it is explicit and known.[I mean, Jesus fuck read a history book]
I don't think you are understanding my point. There shouldn't be any question that I understand there are exceptions to an ideal of freedom of speech, or even of political speech. The point here is that when you state your position as "well, I think democracry would probably function better without corporate funded ads," then you weaken your point. It is certainly more reasonable than "obviously corporate funded political messages will destroy the country." But it doesn't hold up very well against the First Amendment. At the very least, it doesn't make a very compelling case to push for further exception to the First Amendment.
You think democracy will function better without such messages. I think it will function better with them. Oh well, freedom of speech wins.
So foreign individuals and governments have a constitutionally protected right to buy television ads to influence American elections? Clearly, that can't be the court's rationale, because they have upheld, and continue to uphold restrictions on the speech of foreign individuals and governments.
So, if that's your view of the First Amendment, that's fine, but that's certainly not the Court's view, so it's not really relevant to the thread.
This is probably one of the worst decisions they've made in a while. Seriously, what were they thinking? ...seriously? How could anyone think this would be a good idea?
Wait, why? Their political opinion is just going to be whatever they feel makes them the most money.
Yeah, well, I don't really want to get into economic theory and such here. But yeah, so what? I can hear what they have to say with the understanding that they a) just want to make more money, and b) them making more money could be a good thing for a lot of people.
Yeah, I'm interested in this one as well. The entire reason for existence of a corporation is to make its shareholders money. If I'm not a shareholder, I have zero interest in anything a corporation has to say, nor should I.
That is pretty clearly not true. What if you work for one? Buy products from one? Sell your products to one? Partner with one? Work for a government agency that regulates one? Tax one? Live in a town where one is located? And so on. All such people might be interested for various reasons in hearing what the corporation wants from politics. I'm having a hard time believing you really think that no one but a shareholder should care about a corporation, or that I am a silly goose for caring what might be important to a local company that is hugely responsible for my quality of life, even if indirectly. Or, conversely, maybe I'd like to know what a company that I despise is trying to say.
Because corporations have proven, time and time again, they that will put their own stakeholders (shareholders, and maybe employees) above the good of the nation as a whole.
Same for unions.
Same for pretty much anyone who's ever funded a political ad. I don't get the point here. Individuals don't have selfish or petty motives? Individuals are always putting the good of the nation above themselves? Politicians are? Individuals are always saying something that direct affects the listener? (answers are no,no,no,no btw). Hell, at least there can be some morality in wanting to turn a legitimate profit. Free speech protects people who ran political ads for reasons far worse than that.
While it may not be consciously what you intended, the effect of what you are saying is still, "no one should be allowed to hear anything unless it is what I agree should be heard." Or, perhaps to be more fair, you feel that no speech should be allowed unless a government commission has reviewed it to determine that it puts the good of the nation ahead of personal motives and that it has direct relevance to any who would listen. I can't even fathom how that would work, nor how awful it would be if it did.
I really don't understand how you think the argument changed or how you think the understanding that the world is not perfect somehow weakens the argument.
You're basically saying "well the world is not perfect so we should require silly goose policies regarding speech no matter how much damage those policies might do to democracy and how little they might have on speech"
No, not quite, I'm saying that if your point is that it is some people's opinion that government would work a little better without corporate ads being allowed, that's great, but it is also a lot of people's opinon that government control of political speech should be minimized. And the thing that tips the balance is that one is in the Constitution and the other isn't. So, if you are backing off of a stance that corporate ads would clearly destroy society, which is very reasonable to back off of, well then unfortunately you're also backing off of a compelling interest the State has to get involved with this to begin with. Not sure why this is hard to understand.
Given all that, I think democracy is an effective tool in certain capacities, but... I think I'd be in favor of some educational and/or age and/or income requirements if that's how I define my ends. I don't think this ruling will have a major impact on that.
Yeah well I agree. I was being mostly rhetorical in even getting into the notion of "democracy functioning better;" it wasn't my stance.
So foreign individuals and governments have a constitutionally protected right to buy television ads to influence American elections? Clearly, that can't be the court's rationale, because they have upheld, and continue to uphold restrictions on the speech of foreign individuals and governments.
So, if that's your view of the First Amendment, that's fine, but that's certainly not the Court's view, so it's not really relevant to the thread.
I don't think they have a Consitutionally protected right to anything. Perhaps to due process, but that's a different thread olol. But sure, under the logic of this ruling, if they have something to say then I have a Constitutionally protected right to hear it. Considering disclosure requirements, I don't think this will be a problem. I think foreigners might find themselves in a backfire, wasting their time and money, when someone puts out another ad saying, "you really gonna listen to what China has to say?"
But so what? If China makes an anti-Hillary movie and puts it on YouTube, what's the government going to do then? Make YouTube take it down? What if everyone starts watching it on a Chinese Web site? Take over ISPs and filter the IP space? If you support goverment control over what messages we get to see and hear, I'm afraid there's a good chance that could be a futile battle long-term.
But as you said, since that isn't what the decision was about, then that isn't what we're discussing here.
So foreign individuals and governments have a constitutionally protected right to buy television ads to influence American elections? Clearly, that can't be the court's rationale, because they have upheld, and continue to uphold restrictions on the speech of foreign individuals and governments.
So, if that's your view of the First Amendment, that's fine, but that's certainly not the Court's view, so it's not really relevant to the thread.
I don't think they have a Consitutionally protected right to anything.
The Court disagrees with you. They found that Citizens United had standing to sue, which means that the FEC violated their Constitutional rights. That necessarily means that Citizens United, as a corporation, has a Constitutionally protected right to speak.
Justice Kennedy even makes this explicit in his opinion, writing, "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, the Court really does grant corporations a right to speak. And that right is, in fact, a speaker's right rather than a listener's right.
But sure, under the logic of this ruling, if they have something to say then I have a Constitutionally protected right to hear it.
Again, this simply isn't what the Court said. The Court explicitly preserves restrictions on speech where such speech would not "[allow] government entities to perform their functions," including a categorical ban on certain forms of free speech by federal employees. If your reasoning were an accurate representation of the Court's view, then your right to hear the views of federal employees would trump statutory provisions prohibiting them from speaking. Alas, it is not so.
It turns out that the government can, in fact, constitutionally prohibit speech by certain classes of associations or individuals, provided that such speech would not allow a governmental entity to perform its function.
hat is pretty clearly not true. What if you work for one? Buy products from one? Sell your products to one? Partner with one? Work for a government agency that regulates one? Tax one? Live in a town where one is located? And so on. All such people might be interested for various reasons in hearing what the corporation wants from politics. I'm having a hard time believing you really think that no one but a shareholder should care about a corporation, or that I am a silly goose for caring what might be important to a local company that is hugely responsible for my quality of life, even if indirectly. Or, conversely, maybe I'd like to know what a company that I despise is trying to say.
I think this is the crux of the issue here. You are presuming that this will give small, local companies a voice as well. It simply won't. The companies that we are talking about, the ones that this ruling is advantageous to, andthe ones that we are worried about, are multi-nationals who are completely and totally concerned with the base-line and the shareholders. You're fooling yourself if you think anything else, especially after this recent economic crisis.
Yeah, I'm interested in this one as well. The entire reason for existence of a corporation is to make its shareholders money. If I'm not a shareholder, I have zero interest in anything a corporation has to say, nor should I.
That is pretty clearly not true. What if you work for one? Buy products from one? Sell your products to one? Partner with one? Work for a government agency that regulates one? Tax one? Live in a town where one is located? And so on. All such people might be interested for various reasons in hearing what the corporation wants from politics. I'm having a hard time believing you really think that no one but a shareholder should care about a corporation, or that I am a silly goose for caring what might be important to a local company that is hugely responsible for my quality of life, even if indirectly. Or, conversely, maybe I'd like to know what a company that I despise is trying to say.
Can't answer to that last, but as for the rest a corporation (or union, or other entity) has plenty of ways to communicate with the bulk of their indirect stakeholders without broadcasting to the electorate at large.
But then, I'd have had no problem with a narrower ruling that allowed speech that voters (or other stakeholders) had to specifically seek out. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to click-through to a portion of the website for a corporation that owns the factory in my town. I also see harm in allowing that same corporation to buy ad time in mass media right up to election day, nationwide, to influence non-stakeholders.
Then you can go and seek out whatever propaganda the companies you love or the companies you hate want you to hear. No problemo.
Because corporations have proven, time and time again, they that will put their own stakeholders (shareholders, and maybe employees) above the good of the nation as a whole.
Same for unions.
Same for pretty much anyone who's ever funded a political ad. I don't get the point here. Individuals don't have selfish or petty motives? Individuals are always putting the good of the nation above themselves? Politicians are? Individuals are always saying something that direct affects the listener? (answers are no,no,no,no btw). Hell, at least there can be some morality in wanting to turn a legitimate profit. Free speech protects people who ran political ads for reasons far worse than that.
People. Who have individual rights. And here's where we get into corporate personhood (as much as you want to brush it aside), because that's a huge-ass difference. Yes, unfortunately the bar allowing us to muzzle actual living breathing citizens should probably be higher than the bar allowing us to muzzle non-people.
I fail to see how this is controversial.
While it may not be consciously what you intended, the effect of what you are saying is still, "no one should be allowed to hear anything unless it is what I agree should be heard." Or, perhaps to be more fair, you feel that no speech should be allowed unless a government commission has reviewed it to determine that it puts the good of the nation ahead of personal motives and that it has direct relevance to any who would listen. I can't even fathom how that would work, nor how awful it would be if it did.
I'll repeat, yet again, that I'd have zero problem with speech that the individual has to seek out. Rather than broadcast speech. So yeah, I have no problem with you hearing the speech. I have a problem with them attempting to make everybody hear the speech. I'm for restrictions on the speaker, not the listener.
And as it's been used in a rebuttal before, I don't think the task of differentiating between "broadcast" and "narrowcast" media (as in, media that the listener seeks out and media such as broadcast ad time) is somehow impossible. I think we can do it with more than enough accuracy to make it worthwhile.
I think this is the crux of the issue here. You are presuming that this will give small, local companies a voice as well. It simply won't. The companies that we are talking about, the ones that this ruling is advantageous to, and the ones that we are worried about, are multi-nationals who are completely and totally concerned with the base-line and the shareholders. You're fooling yourself if you think anything else, especially after this recent economic crisis.
That's unsubstantiated, and regardless is not anywhere near any crux of the issue.
Can't answer to that last, but as for the rest a corporation (or union, or other entity) has plenty of ways to communicate with the bulk of their indirect stakeholders without broadcasting to the electorate at large.
But then, I'd have had no problem with a narrower ruling that allowed speech that voters (or other stakeholders) had to specifically seek out. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to click-through to a portion of the website for a corporation that owns the factory in my town. I also see harm in allowing that same corporation to buy ad time in mass media right up to election day, nationwide, to influence non-stakeholders.
How exactly do you define who is and isn't a stakeholder? What if, as so many corporations do, they donate heavily to charity and sponsor public works projects in the areas they are located?
And it's not like anything is forced on anyone. Hell, we have DVRs now.
People. Who have individual rights. And here's where we get into corporate personhood (as much as you want to brush it aside), because that's a huge-ass difference. Yes, unfortunately the bar allowing us to muzzle actual living breathing citizens should probably be higher than the bar allowing us to muzzle non-people.
You just completely fucking shifted the goalposts of our discussion, making your argument a pointless circle. Corporate personhood is no more an issue now in this discussion than it ever was.
I'll repeat, yet again, that I'd have zero problem with speech that the individual has to seek out. Rather than broadcast speech. So yeah, I have no problem with you hearing the speech. I have a problem with them attempting to make everybody hear the speech. I'm for restrictions on the speaker, not the listener.
That's an original distinction that I don't really get, but, you know, this was video on-demand in this case, not broadcast. And can the "yet again..." you just now invented this.
But then, I'd have had no problem with a narrower ruling that allowed speech that voters (or other stakeholders) had to specifically seek out. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to click-through to a portion of the website for a corporation that owns the factory in my town. I also see harm in allowing that same corporation to buy ad time in mass media right up to election day, nationwide, to influence non-stakeholders.
How exactly do you define who is and isn't a stakeholder? What if, as so many corporations do, they donate heavily to charity and sponsor public works projects in the areas they are located?
And it's not like anything is forced on anyone. Hell, we have DVRs now.
I'm confused, are you posing that a corporation that donates to charity or is involved in public works makes that community stakeholders in said corporation? I'm honestly asking because that doesn't seem to fit with any definition of stakeholder that I've ever encountered. The reward corporations get for their charitable work doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. (obviously I'm coming at this from the direction that the court's decision is fundamentally flawed so please no one respond with "the court disagrees with you" because, well, duh. That's why we're having this discussion.)
And not everyone has a DVR nor am I sure that even if everyone did it would really apply to the discussion at large :P
Can't answer to that last, but as for the rest a corporation (or union, or other entity) has plenty of ways to communicate with the bulk of their indirect stakeholders without broadcasting to the electorate at large.
Huh?
See below. If a company really wanted to put in the effort to inform communities about...well, whatever the fuck they want to inform them about...then they could easily hold town meeting on their property, distribute leaflets on their property, etc. If McCain-Feingold limited this, then I'm all for a narrow ruling allowing it (along with VOD).
But then, I'd have had no problem with a narrower ruling that allowed speech that voters (or other stakeholders) had to specifically seek out. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to click-through to a portion of the website for a corporation that owns the factory in my town. I also see harm in allowing that same corporation to buy ad time in mass media right up to election day, nationwide, to influence non-stakeholders.
How exactly do you define who is and isn't a stakeholder? What if, as so many corporations do, they donate heavily to charity and sponsor public works projects in the areas they are located?
And it's not like anything is forced on anyone. Hell, we have DVRs now.
So because I have the ability to pay money to easily skip the content, we're comfortable treating it the same as content that the user specifically seeks out? That makes sense.
And unless I just want to not consume any mass media whatsoever for the 90-day period (or was it 60, I forget) leading up the the election, it's going to be pretty hard to avoid these ads. They're ubiquitous on both radio and television (and billboards, and elsewhere) during that time period. Again, this is a world of difference between a VOD "documentary" or other on-demand media, which is why a narrow ruling dealing with on-demand media (leaving the rather reasonable restrictions that were in place) would have been most appropriate.
As to determining who is and is not a stakeholder, that's pretty easy. If you care enough to seek out the information (or misinformation) a company wants to give you then you make yourself a stakeholder. And if you have a prior business relationship with the company (either as a shareholder, employee, or customer) then they should feel free to contact you. And hell, for retail stores I see no reason they couldn't offer information or propaganda to anybody who is on their property (including customers).
All of this can be allowed while still restricting the use of broadcast media consumed by the electorate at large..
People. Who have individual rights. And here's where we get into corporate personhood (as much as you want to brush it aside), because that's a huge-ass difference. Yes, unfortunately the bar allowing us to muzzle actual living breathing citizens should probably be higher than the bar allowing us to muzzle non-people.
You just completely fucking shifted the goalposts of our discussion, making your argument a pointless circle. Corporate personhood is no more an issue now in this discussion than it ever was.
No, because you're answering statements as to the motives of corporations (and unions, and other entities) with the fact that human beings may have equally malignant motivations. Which is irrelevant unless you're granting corporations personhood (or at least the individual rights that personhood comes with). Because yes, I'll admit I'm absolutely fine with giving actual people more leeway with regards to free speech than corporations, allowing them political speech in areas where I would have zero problem denying it to a corporation. Because they're people. With actual individual rights.
I'll repeat, yet again, that I'd have zero problem with speech that the individual has to seek out. Rather than broadcast speech. So yeah, I have no problem with you hearing the speech. I have a problem with them attempting to make everybody hear the speech. I'm for restrictions on the speaker, not the listener.
That's an original distinction that I don't really get, but, you know, this was video on-demand in this case, not broadcast. And can the "yet again..." you just now invented this.
So that's not me back on page 16, and again on page 24, saying that I'd agree VOD (and other on-demand media, including books and movies requested by the viewer/reader) should be exempted? That a narrow ruling covering more broadcast-based media was more appropriate?
My bad.
mcdermott on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
semi related, has anyone seen the "demon sheep" ad yet?
No, because you're answering statements as to the motives of corporations (and unions, and other entities) with the fact that human beings may have equally malignant motivations. Which is irrelevant unless you're granting corporations personhood (or at least the individual rights that personhood comes with). Because yes, I'll admit I'm absolutely fine with giving actual people more leeway with regards to free speech than corporations, allowing them political speech in areas where I would have zero problem denying it to a corporation. Because they're people. With actual individual rights.
Making corporate personhood an issue.
Let me explain the circle here:
"People should have access to other people's speech, but not the speech or corporations."
"Why?"
"Because corporations are interested in profits and don't put the good of the country ahead of their own good."
"And people don't do this?"
"People. Not corporations. Corporations aren't people."
"WTF?!?!"
That argument has no merit, it is a big circle that you just lost track of in the middle.
That's unsubstantiated, and regardless is not anywhere near any crux of the issue.
Wait wait, what's unsubstantiated? That multi-nationals don't pander to their stockholders and do things based on profit?
No, that they are the only entities affected, or they are somehow more evil or less important to their communities than smaller corporations.
Wait, you're still pretending that companies where the HR department has a larger budget then many nations is not going to overshadow "Jim and Jill's House of Pancakes and Buttplugs"?
Let me explain the circle here:
"People should have access to other people's speech, but not the speech or corporations."
"Why?"
"Because corporations are interested in profits and don't put the good of the country ahead of their own good."
"And people don't do this?"
"People. Not corporations. Corporations aren't people."
"WTF?!?!"
That argument has no merit, it is a big circle that you just lost track of in the middle.
This is possibly the dumbest thing you've said in the thread.
The highlighted part? THAT'S THE CRUX RIGHT HERE YOU SILLY GOOSE!
How is this simple obvious statement a "WTF" moment?
That's unsubstantiated, and regardless is not anywhere near any crux of the issue.
Wait wait, what's unsubstantiated? That multi-nationals don't pander to their stockholders and do things based on profit?
No, that they are the only entities affected, or they are somehow more evil or less important to their communities than smaller corporations.
You have a massive deficiency in what we call "scale" and I am really really surprised that you typed this without crumbling into a howling fit of laughter.
Like, there is no equivalency between GE and Jim's Auto Repair. None. To think that this in any way benefits anyone but the multi-nationals who are already pouring millions into the pockets of these senators and others is ludicrous and reveals a distinct disconnect from how the world actually operates at an executive level.
No, because you're answering statements as to the motives of corporations (and unions, and other entities) with the fact that human beings may have equally malignant motivations. Which is irrelevant unless you're granting corporations personhood (or at least the individual rights that personhood comes with). Because yes, I'll admit I'm absolutely fine with giving actual people more leeway with regards to free speech than corporations, allowing them political speech in areas where I would have zero problem denying it to a corporation. Because they're people. With actual individual rights.
Making corporate personhood an issue.
Let me explain the circle here:
"People should have access to other people's speech, but not the speech or corporations."
"Why?"
"Because corporations are interested in profits and don't put the good of the country ahead of their own good."
"And people don't do this?"
"People. Not corporations. Corporations aren't people."
"WTF?!?!"
That argument has no merit, it is a big circle that you just lost track of in the middle.
Oh, I get it. You're just confused because you think I'm buying your bullshit "freedom to listen" which does not exist. The freedom of speech is a freedom of the speaker, not the audience. Conveniently, even if I did buy this line of argument, it'd be irrelevant since I'd have fully supported a more limited decision allowing the audience in question to actively seek out the speech of these entities.
So yeah, the bolded? I'm not arguing that. Never was (see pages previously referenced). And the circle is broken, and we all lived happily ever after.
People have the right to their speech (specifically broadcast speech), even when their speech is self-serving and hurts the country as a whole. At least in general, obviously even then there are some restrictions that are allowable. Things have no such right (or shouldn't, that being my argument) and thus when their speech is self-serving and hurts the country I have no problem slapping a muzzle on them for two months or so. With much less justification than I would require in order to give a real human being the same treatment.
And not even much of a muzzle, since I'm perfectly fine with the idea that they could get their speech out to the limited audience that actively gives a fuck what they have to say.
But that would make corporate personhood an issue, and thus is inconvenient to you, so you'll just ignore it and once again try to stuff words in my mouth. You know, rather than answer this really simple argument.
semi related, has anyone seen the "demon sheep" ad yet?
Yes, i laughed
Man, that commercial was creepy as fuck.
And also sad, because it suggests that there exists a demographic for whom that commercial would be compelling. Who ARE these people?
Either way, Carly Fiorina has balls that go clank. An ex-CEO who ran her company in the shitter then floated off on a golden parachute running for office in this climate? Best of luck. It'll be hilarious when she wins.
Oh, I get it. You're just confused because you think I'm buying your bullshit "freedom to listen" which does not exist. The freedom of speech is a freedom of the speaker, not the audience. Conveniently, even if I did buy this line of argument, it'd be irrelevant since I'd have fully supported a more limited decision allowing the audience in question to actively seek out the speech of these entities.
Except... you are irrefutably incorrect about this. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. Call it bullshit, that's wonderful, but you are completely incorrect. How shall I demonstrate it again? Shall I use the example of China censoring Google? Or how about the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the matter? How about the language of the First Amendment itself? - you know, speech, not speaker, or to speak, but speech. There are so many, many ways to show that freedom of speech is, in fact, about our right to hear it. I mean, simple logic is really all you need. Teh value is in me getting to hear things and make decisions without the government deciding they know better for me and making sure I only hear what they want me to hear. That's the problem we're trying to avoid. Sure, courts have occasionally recognized a "freedom of self-expression" but not nearly so often or so important as recognizing the exchange of ideas and the limits on censorship. What value really is self-expression of an individual in and of itself, compared to the value of getting to hear political ideas without the government controlling what you get to hear?
But this other stuff you keep rambling about... seeking out content... how exactly does that work? Is me turning on the TV and tuning to a certain channel not seeking it out? How about going to a Web site? What if I have IP television? How do you draw the line again?
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
semi related, has anyone seen the "demon sheep" ad yet?
Yes, i laughed
Man, that commercial was creepy as fuck.
And also sad, because it suggests that there exists a demographic for whom that commercial would be compelling. Who ARE these people?
Either way, Carly Fiorina has balls that go clank. An ex-CEO who ran her company in the shitter then floated off on a golden parachute running for office in this climate? Best of luck. It'll be hilarious when she wins.
I still think the worst part was the fact that apparently "Fiscal Conservative" now means "Won't raise taxes" and that's it.
The corporation has no voice to begin with. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE within a corporation use the corporation as a shield to hide behind while speaking their personal opinion.
Oh, I get it. You're just confused because you think I'm buying your bullshit "freedom to listen" which does not exist. The freedom of speech is a freedom of the speaker, not the audience. Conveniently, even if I did buy this line of argument, it'd be irrelevant since I'd have fully supported a more limited decision allowing the audience in question to actively seek out the speech of these entities.
Except... you are irrefutably incorrect about this. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. Call it bullshit, that's wonderful, but you are completely incorrect. How shall I demonstrate it again? Shall I use the example of China censoring Google? Or how about the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the matter? How about the language of the First Amendment itself? - you know, speech, not speaker, or to speak, but speech. There are so many, many ways to show that freedom of speech is, in fact, about our right to hear it. I mean, simple logic is really all you need. Teh value is in me getting to hear things and make decisions without the government deciding they know better for me and making sure I only hear what they want me to hear. That's the problem we're trying to avoid. Sure, courts have occasionally recognized a "freedom of self-expression" but not nearly so often or so important as recognizing the exchange of ideas and the limits on censorship. What value really is self-expression of an individual in and of itself, compared to the value of getting to hear political ideas without the government controlling what you get to hear?
But this other stuff you keep rambling about... seeking out content... how exactly does that work? Is me turning on the TV and tuning to a certain channel not seeking it out? How about going to a Web site? What if I have IP television? How do you draw the line again?
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
First, I feel that allowing exemptions for sought out speech nullifies that entire big first paragraph. It entirely addresses, for instance, you "China censoring Google" point.
As for the bolded, it's pretty simple. Did I choose specifically to see your content? If no, you're wrong. So yes, a specific show that is appropriately labeled would be fine (in my view). A commecial during CSI: Miami (or whatever other terrible show people watch) would not be. When I'm watching American Idol I am not making an active decision to watch any given commercial during American Idol.
Website? Yes.
Web ad? No.
IP television? Yes, if it's not an ad (but rather the content sought).
I don't think that it would be impossible to codify this. Even erring on the side of caution. But obviously you do.
EDIT: Actually, I'll make it even easier. Instead of figuring out what's allowed, just limit the things we deny. No paid television or radio advertisements less than 30 minutes in length. Done. Maybe try and define paid web advertisements as well. Better than nothing, though.
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.
...
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.”
But this other stuff you keep rambling about... seeking out content... how exactly does that work? Is me turning on the TV and tuning to a certain channel not seeking it out? How about going to a Web site? What if I have IP television? How do you draw the line again?
As Steven's notes. That we do not have all the possible answers to whatever technology may be created does not mean that we cannot rule on each individually as they come up. It does not mean we have to throw our hands up in the air and say that we cannot even try to regulate it.
For the current discussion, TV is broadcast, it is limited not by what you want but what is offered in your area. Internet based television is not and is not broadcast and so would not suffer those same restrictions. As well, being interactive, internet based television offers a wide variety of opinions to be presented and chosen from at the same time.
Considering that Web sites and internet based television are not currently regulated in the manner you claim is detrimental you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the laws against that are Unconstitutional before they have been written[not that they are going to be written, because no one gives a shit what you say on the internet]
orry, there's no other way to put it. Call it bullshit, that's wonderful, but you are completely incorrect. How shall I demonstrate it again? Shall I use the example of China censoring Google? Or how about the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the matter? How about the language of the First Amendment itself? - you know, speech, not speaker, or to speak, but speech
Yo are just plain wrong here. Plain retarded wrong. Sarah Palin wrong. Speech has always been about the speaker and it has never been considered some object upon which the Congress cannot make laws.
It is the same deal with property rights. They are not rights for property, but the right of PEOPLE regarding the property that they own. The "freedom of speech" refers to the individuals right to speech. "Freedom of Speech" is not Freedom "for speech" it is its own idiom that refers to the individuals rights.
China censoring Google is not even part of the discussion[one because China did not censor Google, but rather the people who were using Google's service, and two because its about fucking China] and all the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the matter always refer to speech as the right of the individual to speak it. All of them. That is not to say that the public good from disclosure might not be considered, but it is to say that its always about the rights of the speaker.
By censoring Google, they censored people by making it much harder for individuals to speak. By censoring the companies in this case, it hasn't been made harder for individuals to speak as if you can set up a corporation, you can set up a PAC.
By censoring Google, they censored people by making it much harder for individuals to speak. By censoring the companies in this case, it hasn't been made harder for individuals to speak as if you can set up a corporation, you can set up a PAC.
Except they didn't censor Google. Google brings you to web pages. Those web pages are not the speech of Google. They are the speech of other organizations or individuals that Google will direct you to if you wish to look. Google is not speaking by directing you to the speech of others. It would be like saying that Comcast was censored and not Citizens United because Comcast was going to carry it.
edit: And to head idiocy off at the pass, yes I know that a lot of places reported it as "Google Censored" but while that was what was indeed said in terms of true words that is not the reality of the situation. This works in the same way that "freedom of speech" is in the Constitution, but it does not actually mean that Speech has the right to be free.
By censoring Google, they censored people by making it much harder for individuals to speak. By censoring the companies in this case, it hasn't been made harder for individuals to speak as if you can set up a corporation, you can set up a PAC.
I'll go with "all of what Goum said," but I'd also like to point out that whether it was the web sites or Google that was censored, this is still a matter of the audience that was restricted. Not the speaker. They didn't make it one bit harder for me to put up a blog about how terrible China's government is, they just made it harder for a citizen in China to read that blog.
Well, they also shoot people in the face for putting up blogs criticizing the government, but that wasn't (from what I can tell) what Yar was talking about. He was specifically addressing the issue of restricting what the audience gets to hear.
A narrower decision allowing readers/viewers/listeners to actively seek out political ads would have avoided this issue quite nicely. I am in total agreement that censoring a VOD title is absurd, and that the fact that this would have allowed censorship of books in the same situation is equally absurd (and in fact demonstrates why it was absurd). This does not mean we need to allow every corporation that can write a check to dream up their own last-minute attack ads and throw them on during House.
Yar wants us to go into all the detail of how we would define this. But that's not necessary here. I'm quite confident that given a page or so the nerds on this forum could easily come up with some reasonable definitions and decide what should and should not qualify as "narrowcast" or "broadcast" in this context. Then we could put it to a vote, and make the decision.
If only we had a group, elected by the populace, who were paid to rationally consider these points, debate the pros and cons, define the terms, then draft a law that addressed the issue while balancing the rights of individuals against the compelling government interest in regulating the role of corporations in elections.
Yes, I realize I'm putting a little too much faith in Congress there. Still, even for that batch of fucktards this is hardly an impossible feat.
EDIT: Oh, and I feel like my post needed a twist of lime.
As Steven's notes. That we do not have all the possible answers to whatever technology may be created does not mean that we cannot rule on each individually as they come up. It does not mean we have to throw our hands up in the air and say that we cannot even try to regulate it.
Look, common-sense interpretation = a corporation is not a person; people are people. Legal interpretation = corporations have a form of personhood.
If you don't like the decision then it's silly to go through the First Amendment angle; attack the laws that deem a corporation to be a "person". If they're not people then the whole issue goes away.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Look, common-sense interpretation = a corporation is not a person; people are people. Legal interpretation = corporations have a form of personhood.
If you don't like the decision then it's silly to go through the First Amendment angle; attack the laws that deem a corporation to be a "person". If they're not people then the whole issue goes away.
Exactly this whole thread is aimed at the wrong thing.
"the evil conservative Supreme Court actually made a ruling based on the law"
The problem is corporate personhood, but that is an international problem not just an American problem.
"People should have access to other people's speech, but not the speech or corporations."
"Why?"
"Because corporations are interested in profits and don't put the good of the country ahead of their own good."
"And people don't do this?"
"People. Not corporations. Corporations aren't people."
"WTF?!?!"
If it helps -
There are good reasons to think that corporations are more interested in backing an already well-entrenched demographic than other people, and to a far higher degree than average, and
=
There are numerous types of speech (from people) which we recognize as bad, but which we refuse to regulate on grounds of possible abuse by the regulator. But you can't reasonably argue that someone is going to mistake a person for a corporation and such. There is no slippery slope here.
In short, one would like to limit the ability of people who are (for example) racist from further propagating racism. And where we have an unambiguous ability to do so, we do: hate speech legislation.
=
A corporation is not a natural entity that exists outside of the state; it is a legal structure created by states to simplify certain aspects of commerce, by granting a set of privileges not accessible to non-incorporated individuals. For instance, the state grants me, the majority owner of Acme Inc, limited liability: this is a subsidy (as my control over Acme Inc, as majority shareholder, will outpace my liability).
Nothing forces you to be a corporation. The state grants you a set of privileges (corporate liability) in return for some costs (corporate income tax). And if the state says "oh and you can't also use your corporate war chest to directly support politicians, only your individual incomes", that war chest only exists by recognition by the state of rights which non-incorporated entities do not have. Why shouldn't the state be able to restrict what it can do?
ronya on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
An entity comprised of people is not a people itself. I don't get what's hard about this.
But if that's the stance you wanna take then an entire branch of government, an entity comprised of people, should have the same freedom of speech / spending of money in funding political ads and campaigns.
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.
...
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.”
Yeah, I was the first one in this thread to cite that, good catch. But continuing on... "The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”
See that part there? "Not decisive"? That's what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter that they are a corporation, or any other type of association.
The corporation has no voice to begin with. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE within a corporation use the corporation as a shield to hide behind while speaking their personal opinion.
Try reading the thread. "Groups of people" is no argument whatsoever against the First Amendment. Hell, the Amendment itself is primarily about groups.
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.
...
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.”
Yeah, I was the first one in this thread to cite that, good catch. But continuing on... "The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”
See that part there? "Not decisive"? That's what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter that they are a corporation, or any other type of association.
The corporation has no voice to begin with. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE within a corporation use the corporation as a shield to hide behind while speaking their personal opinion.
Try reading the thread. "Groups of people" is no argument whatsoever against the First Amendment. Hell, the Amendment itself is primarily about groups.
Uh Yar, you realize that the decision was that "Identity doesn't matter" because they were overturning all the precedent that said it did right?
"Identity doesn't matter" was the conclusion and not the support of the argument.
Edit: so in the argument, identity does indeed matter.
What you are arguing looks like this
Us: This ruling is shitty because it concludes identity doesn't matter
You: But identity doesn't matter, it says so right in the decision!
Look, common-sense interpretation = a corporation is not a person; people are people. Legal interpretation = corporations have a form of personhood.
If you don't like the decision then it's silly to go through the First Amendment angle; attack the laws that deem a corporation to be a "person". If they're not people then the whole issue goes away.
No such laws exist. Corporations have "personhood" by way of common law and not legislation. By legislation they can be treated as people for certain sets of actions and rights that are necessary in order to make running a business efficient.
Us: This ruling is shitty because it concludes identity doesn't matter
You: But identity doesn't matter, it says so right in the decision!
Yeah, that's fair. But keep in mind that when this decision said, "identity doesn't matter," it basically said, "there's no need to even discuss that here, here are about 1,000 Supreme Court decisions about it already, free speech extends to corporations" and then went on to give an argument that was much more about why the government shouldn't be censoring political speech, and not about who is or isn't a person. The issue of corporate personhood in particular was even less notable than the issue of corporations having free speech. Which is why it's so frustrating that every newcomer to this thread comes in with "corporations aren't people, they don't get free speech rights like people get." The entire decision was about why that doesn't matter.
You're right. They aren't people. Screw corporate personhood right in its ass. Guess what? That doesn't affect this decision. It seems that the majority of people feel that the Supreme Court decided something along the lines of "Corporations are people and we are affirming that here specifically with regard to them having the same free speech as people, since they are people, you know." If that were the case, mythago might have a point. That is what frustrates me. Because that isn't the point of either the First Amendment or this decision regarding it. Free speech as an ideal is not about a government granting you special privilege to talk to other people. It's about the government not using the power we cede to it in order to take control of non-government sources of ideas. It's a check on their power over the power of whatever else might lead us to think and vote a certain way.
But this "source of ideas" wouldn't exist without government intervention to begin with.
If you want the government to truly keep its hands out, fine: the government ceases to recognize the corporation as an independent entity from its shareholders. If you the shareholder fuck up, or one of the managers you employ fucks up, you are liable for all the damages from said mistake. If your business goes bankrupt, you do, too: no more cutting and running.
Posts
So foreign individuals and governments have a constitutionally protected right to buy television ads to influence American elections? Clearly, that can't be the court's rationale, because they have upheld, and continue to uphold restrictions on the speech of foreign individuals and governments.
So, if that's your view of the First Amendment, that's fine, but that's certainly not the Court's view, so it's not really relevant to the thread.
That is pretty clearly not true. What if you work for one? Buy products from one? Sell your products to one? Partner with one? Work for a government agency that regulates one? Tax one? Live in a town where one is located? And so on. All such people might be interested for various reasons in hearing what the corporation wants from politics. I'm having a hard time believing you really think that no one but a shareholder should care about a corporation, or that I am a silly goose for caring what might be important to a local company that is hugely responsible for my quality of life, even if indirectly. Or, conversely, maybe I'd like to know what a company that I despise is trying to say.
Same for pretty much anyone who's ever funded a political ad. I don't get the point here. Individuals don't have selfish or petty motives? Individuals are always putting the good of the nation above themselves? Politicians are? Individuals are always saying something that direct affects the listener? (answers are no,no,no,no btw). Hell, at least there can be some morality in wanting to turn a legitimate profit. Free speech protects people who ran political ads for reasons far worse than that.
While it may not be consciously what you intended, the effect of what you are saying is still, "no one should be allowed to hear anything unless it is what I agree should be heard." Or, perhaps to be more fair, you feel that no speech should be allowed unless a government commission has reviewed it to determine that it puts the good of the nation ahead of personal motives and that it has direct relevance to any who would listen. I can't even fathom how that would work, nor how awful it would be if it did.
No, not quite, I'm saying that if your point is that it is some people's opinion that government would work a little better without corporate ads being allowed, that's great, but it is also a lot of people's opinon that government control of political speech should be minimized. And the thing that tips the balance is that one is in the Constitution and the other isn't. So, if you are backing off of a stance that corporate ads would clearly destroy society, which is very reasonable to back off of, well then unfortunately you're also backing off of a compelling interest the State has to get involved with this to begin with. Not sure why this is hard to understand.
Yeah well I agree. I was being mostly rhetorical in even getting into the notion of "democracy functioning better;" it wasn't my stance.
I don't think they have a Consitutionally protected right to anything. Perhaps to due process, but that's a different thread olol. But sure, under the logic of this ruling, if they have something to say then I have a Constitutionally protected right to hear it. Considering disclosure requirements, I don't think this will be a problem. I think foreigners might find themselves in a backfire, wasting their time and money, when someone puts out another ad saying, "you really gonna listen to what China has to say?"
But so what? If China makes an anti-Hillary movie and puts it on YouTube, what's the government going to do then? Make YouTube take it down? What if everyone starts watching it on a Chinese Web site? Take over ISPs and filter the IP space? If you support goverment control over what messages we get to see and hear, I'm afraid there's a good chance that could be a futile battle long-term.
But as you said, since that isn't what the decision was about, then that isn't what we're discussing here.
"Futile" and "Illegal" are rather different.
The Court disagrees with you. They found that Citizens United had standing to sue, which means that the FEC violated their Constitutional rights. That necessarily means that Citizens United, as a corporation, has a Constitutionally protected right to speak.
Justice Kennedy even makes this explicit in his opinion, writing, "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, the Court really does grant corporations a right to speak. And that right is, in fact, a speaker's right rather than a listener's right.
Again, this simply isn't what the Court said. The Court explicitly preserves restrictions on speech where such speech would not "[allow] government entities to perform their functions," including a categorical ban on certain forms of free speech by federal employees. If your reasoning were an accurate representation of the Court's view, then your right to hear the views of federal employees would trump statutory provisions prohibiting them from speaking. Alas, it is not so.
It turns out that the government can, in fact, constitutionally prohibit speech by certain classes of associations or individuals, provided that such speech would not allow a governmental entity to perform its function.
I think this is the crux of the issue here. You are presuming that this will give small, local companies a voice as well. It simply won't. The companies that we are talking about, the ones that this ruling is advantageous to, andthe ones that we are worried about, are multi-nationals who are completely and totally concerned with the base-line and the shareholders. You're fooling yourself if you think anything else, especially after this recent economic crisis.
Can't answer to that last, but as for the rest a corporation (or union, or other entity) has plenty of ways to communicate with the bulk of their indirect stakeholders without broadcasting to the electorate at large.
But then, I'd have had no problem with a narrower ruling that allowed speech that voters (or other stakeholders) had to specifically seek out. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to click-through to a portion of the website for a corporation that owns the factory in my town. I also see harm in allowing that same corporation to buy ad time in mass media right up to election day, nationwide, to influence non-stakeholders.
Then you can go and seek out whatever propaganda the companies you love or the companies you hate want you to hear. No problemo.
People. Who have individual rights. And here's where we get into corporate personhood (as much as you want to brush it aside), because that's a huge-ass difference. Yes, unfortunately the bar allowing us to muzzle actual living breathing citizens should probably be higher than the bar allowing us to muzzle non-people.
I fail to see how this is controversial.
I'll repeat, yet again, that I'd have zero problem with speech that the individual has to seek out. Rather than broadcast speech. So yeah, I have no problem with you hearing the speech. I have a problem with them attempting to make everybody hear the speech. I'm for restrictions on the speaker, not the listener.
And as it's been used in a rebuttal before, I don't think the task of differentiating between "broadcast" and "narrowcast" media (as in, media that the listener seeks out and media such as broadcast ad time) is somehow impossible. I think we can do it with more than enough accuracy to make it worthwhile.
Huh?
How exactly do you define who is and isn't a stakeholder? What if, as so many corporations do, they donate heavily to charity and sponsor public works projects in the areas they are located?
And it's not like anything is forced on anyone. Hell, we have DVRs now.
You just completely fucking shifted the goalposts of our discussion, making your argument a pointless circle. Corporate personhood is no more an issue now in this discussion than it ever was.
That's an original distinction that I don't really get, but, you know, this was video on-demand in this case, not broadcast. And can the "yet again..." you just now invented this.
I hate all permutations of this phrase.
I'm confused, are you posing that a corporation that donates to charity or is involved in public works makes that community stakeholders in said corporation? I'm honestly asking because that doesn't seem to fit with any definition of stakeholder that I've ever encountered. The reward corporations get for their charitable work doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. (obviously I'm coming at this from the direction that the court's decision is fundamentally flawed so please no one respond with "the court disagrees with you" because, well, duh. That's why we're having this discussion.)
And not everyone has a DVR nor am I sure that even if everyone did it would really apply to the discussion at large :P
See below. If a company really wanted to put in the effort to inform communities about...well, whatever the fuck they want to inform them about...then they could easily hold town meeting on their property, distribute leaflets on their property, etc. If McCain-Feingold limited this, then I'm all for a narrow ruling allowing it (along with VOD).
So because I have the ability to pay money to easily skip the content, we're comfortable treating it the same as content that the user specifically seeks out? That makes sense.
And unless I just want to not consume any mass media whatsoever for the 90-day period (or was it 60, I forget) leading up the the election, it's going to be pretty hard to avoid these ads. They're ubiquitous on both radio and television (and billboards, and elsewhere) during that time period. Again, this is a world of difference between a VOD "documentary" or other on-demand media, which is why a narrow ruling dealing with on-demand media (leaving the rather reasonable restrictions that were in place) would have been most appropriate.
As to determining who is and is not a stakeholder, that's pretty easy. If you care enough to seek out the information (or misinformation) a company wants to give you then you make yourself a stakeholder. And if you have a prior business relationship with the company (either as a shareholder, employee, or customer) then they should feel free to contact you. And hell, for retail stores I see no reason they couldn't offer information or propaganda to anybody who is on their property (including customers).
All of this can be allowed while still restricting the use of broadcast media consumed by the electorate at large..
No, because you're answering statements as to the motives of corporations (and unions, and other entities) with the fact that human beings may have equally malignant motivations. Which is irrelevant unless you're granting corporations personhood (or at least the individual rights that personhood comes with). Because yes, I'll admit I'm absolutely fine with giving actual people more leeway with regards to free speech than corporations, allowing them political speech in areas where I would have zero problem denying it to a corporation. Because they're people. With actual individual rights.
Making corporate personhood an issue.
So that's not me back on page 16, and again on page 24, saying that I'd agree VOD (and other on-demand media, including books and movies requested by the viewer/reader) should be exempted? That a narrow ruling covering more broadcast-based media was more appropriate?
My bad.
Wait wait, what's unsubstantiated? That multi-nationals don't pander to their stockholders and do things based on profit?
"People should have access to other people's speech, but not the speech or corporations."
"Why?"
"Because corporations are interested in profits and don't put the good of the country ahead of their own good."
"And people don't do this?"
"People. Not corporations. Corporations aren't people."
"WTF?!?!"
That argument has no merit, it is a big circle that you just lost track of in the middle.
No, that they are the only entities affected, or they are somehow more evil or less important to their communities than smaller corporations.
Wait, you're still pretending that companies where the HR department has a larger budget then many nations is not going to overshadow "Jim and Jill's House of Pancakes and Buttplugs"? This is possibly the dumbest thing you've said in the thread.
The highlighted part? THAT'S THE CRUX RIGHT HERE YOU SILLY GOOSE!
How is this simple obvious statement a "WTF" moment?
Cue "we're not talking about corporations. Or corporate personhood." Even though both were referenced in the freaking decision.
Yeah, I don't know how you get around Justice Kennedy writing, "The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
It's pretty obvious that corporate personhood is a crucial issue in the opinion.
No it's not
why? because Yar said it wasn't are you guys are just too silly to see why
You have a massive deficiency in what we call "scale" and I am really really surprised that you typed this without crumbling into a howling fit of laughter.
Like, there is no equivalency between GE and Jim's Auto Repair. None. To think that this in any way benefits anyone but the multi-nationals who are already pouring millions into the pockets of these senators and others is ludicrous and reveals a distinct disconnect from how the world actually operates at an executive level.
Oh, I get it. You're just confused because you think I'm buying your bullshit "freedom to listen" which does not exist. The freedom of speech is a freedom of the speaker, not the audience. Conveniently, even if I did buy this line of argument, it'd be irrelevant since I'd have fully supported a more limited decision allowing the audience in question to actively seek out the speech of these entities.
So yeah, the bolded? I'm not arguing that. Never was (see pages previously referenced). And the circle is broken, and we all lived happily ever after.
People have the right to their speech (specifically broadcast speech), even when their speech is self-serving and hurts the country as a whole. At least in general, obviously even then there are some restrictions that are allowable. Things have no such right (or shouldn't, that being my argument) and thus when their speech is self-serving and hurts the country I have no problem slapping a muzzle on them for two months or so. With much less justification than I would require in order to give a real human being the same treatment.
And not even much of a muzzle, since I'm perfectly fine with the idea that they could get their speech out to the limited audience that actively gives a fuck what they have to say.
But that would make corporate personhood an issue, and thus is inconvenient to you, so you'll just ignore it and once again try to stuff words in my mouth. You know, rather than answer this really simple argument.
Yes, i laughed
Man, that commercial was creepy as fuck.
And also sad, because it suggests that there exists a demographic for whom that commercial would be compelling. Who ARE these people?
Either way, Carly Fiorina has balls that go clank. An ex-CEO who ran her company in the shitter then floated off on a golden parachute running for office in this climate? Best of luck. It'll be hilarious when she wins.
But this other stuff you keep rambling about... seeking out content... how exactly does that work? Is me turning on the TV and tuning to a certain channel not seeking it out? How about going to a Web site? What if I have IP television? How do you draw the line again?
And although people are now insisting it again, despite no one as of yet in the entire thread providing any evidence, where in the decision does it say it's about the rights of a corporation or corporate personhood?
I still think the worst part was the fact that apparently "Fiscal Conservative" now means "Won't raise taxes" and that's it.
The corporation has no voice to begin with. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE within a corporation use the corporation as a shield to hide behind while speaking their personal opinion.
First, I feel that allowing exemptions for sought out speech nullifies that entire big first paragraph. It entirely addresses, for instance, you "China censoring Google" point.
As for the bolded, it's pretty simple. Did I choose specifically to see your content? If no, you're wrong. So yes, a specific show that is appropriately labeled would be fine (in my view). A commecial during CSI: Miami (or whatever other terrible show people watch) would not be. When I'm watching American Idol I am not making an active decision to watch any given commercial during American Idol.
Website? Yes.
Web ad? No.
IP television? Yes, if it's not an ad (but rather the content sought).
I don't think that it would be impossible to codify this. Even erring on the side of caution. But obviously you do.
EDIT: Actually, I'll make it even easier. Instead of figuring out what's allowed, just limit the things we deny. No paid television or radio advertisements less than 30 minutes in length. Done. Maybe try and define paid web advertisements as well. Better than nothing, though.
As Steven's notes. That we do not have all the possible answers to whatever technology may be created does not mean that we cannot rule on each individually as they come up. It does not mean we have to throw our hands up in the air and say that we cannot even try to regulate it.
For the current discussion, TV is broadcast, it is limited not by what you want but what is offered in your area. Internet based television is not and is not broadcast and so would not suffer those same restrictions. As well, being interactive, internet based television offers a wide variety of opinions to be presented and chosen from at the same time.
Considering that Web sites and internet based television are not currently regulated in the manner you claim is detrimental you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the laws against that are Unconstitutional before they have been written[not that they are going to be written, because no one gives a shit what you say on the internet]
Yo are just plain wrong here. Plain retarded wrong. Sarah Palin wrong. Speech has always been about the speaker and it has never been considered some object upon which the Congress cannot make laws.
It is the same deal with property rights. They are not rights for property, but the right of PEOPLE regarding the property that they own. The "freedom of speech" refers to the individuals right to speech. "Freedom of Speech" is not Freedom "for speech" it is its own idiom that refers to the individuals rights.
China censoring Google is not even part of the discussion[one because China did not censor Google, but rather the people who were using Google's service, and two because its about fucking China] and all the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the matter always refer to speech as the right of the individual to speak it. All of them. That is not to say that the public good from disclosure might not be considered, but it is to say that its always about the rights of the speaker.
Except they didn't censor Google. Google brings you to web pages. Those web pages are not the speech of Google. They are the speech of other organizations or individuals that Google will direct you to if you wish to look. Google is not speaking by directing you to the speech of others. It would be like saying that Comcast was censored and not Citizens United because Comcast was going to carry it.
edit: And to head idiocy off at the pass, yes I know that a lot of places reported it as "Google Censored" but while that was what was indeed said in terms of true words that is not the reality of the situation. This works in the same way that "freedom of speech" is in the Constitution, but it does not actually mean that Speech has the right to be free.
I'll go with "all of what Goum said," but I'd also like to point out that whether it was the web sites or Google that was censored, this is still a matter of the audience that was restricted. Not the speaker. They didn't make it one bit harder for me to put up a blog about how terrible China's government is, they just made it harder for a citizen in China to read that blog.
Well, they also shoot people in the face for putting up blogs criticizing the government, but that wasn't (from what I can tell) what Yar was talking about. He was specifically addressing the issue of restricting what the audience gets to hear.
A narrower decision allowing readers/viewers/listeners to actively seek out political ads would have avoided this issue quite nicely. I am in total agreement that censoring a VOD title is absurd, and that the fact that this would have allowed censorship of books in the same situation is equally absurd (and in fact demonstrates why it was absurd). This does not mean we need to allow every corporation that can write a check to dream up their own last-minute attack ads and throw them on during House.
Yar wants us to go into all the detail of how we would define this. But that's not necessary here. I'm quite confident that given a page or so the nerds on this forum could easily come up with some reasonable definitions and decide what should and should not qualify as "narrowcast" or "broadcast" in this context. Then we could put it to a vote, and make the decision.
If only we had a group, elected by the populace, who were paid to rationally consider these points, debate the pros and cons, define the terms, then draft a law that addressed the issue while balancing the rights of individuals against the compelling government interest in regulating the role of corporations in elections.
EDIT: Oh, and I feel like my post needed a twist of lime.
If you don't like the decision then it's silly to go through the First Amendment angle; attack the laws that deem a corporation to be a "person". If they're not people then the whole issue goes away.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Exactly this whole thread is aimed at the wrong thing.
"the evil conservative Supreme Court actually made a ruling based on the law"
The problem is corporate personhood, but that is an international problem not just an American problem.
If it helps -
=
In short, one would like to limit the ability of people who are (for example) racist from further propagating racism. And where we have an unambiguous ability to do so, we do: hate speech legislation.
=
Nothing forces you to be a corporation. The state grants you a set of privileges (corporate liability) in return for some costs (corporate income tax). And if the state says "oh and you can't also use your corporate war chest to directly support politicians, only your individual incomes", that war chest only exists by recognition by the state of rights which non-incorporated entities do not have. Why shouldn't the state be able to restrict what it can do?
But if that's the stance you wanna take then an entire branch of government, an entity comprised of people, should have the same freedom of speech / spending of money in funding political ads and campaigns.
See that part there? "Not decisive"? That's what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter that they are a corporation, or any other type of association.
Try reading the thread. "Groups of people" is no argument whatsoever against the First Amendment. Hell, the Amendment itself is primarily about groups.
Uh Yar, you realize that the decision was that "Identity doesn't matter" because they were overturning all the precedent that said it did right?
"Identity doesn't matter" was the conclusion and not the support of the argument.
Edit: so in the argument, identity does indeed matter.
What you are arguing looks like this
Us: This ruling is shitty because it concludes identity doesn't matter
You: But identity doesn't matter, it says so right in the decision!
No such laws exist. Corporations have "personhood" by way of common law and not legislation. By legislation they can be treated as people for certain sets of actions and rights that are necessary in order to make running a business efficient.
You're right. They aren't people. Screw corporate personhood right in its ass. Guess what? That doesn't affect this decision. It seems that the majority of people feel that the Supreme Court decided something along the lines of "Corporations are people and we are affirming that here specifically with regard to them having the same free speech as people, since they are people, you know." If that were the case, mythago might have a point. That is what frustrates me. Because that isn't the point of either the First Amendment or this decision regarding it. Free speech as an ideal is not about a government granting you special privilege to talk to other people. It's about the government not using the power we cede to it in order to take control of non-government sources of ideas. It's a check on their power over the power of whatever else might lead us to think and vote a certain way.
If you want the government to truly keep its hands out, fine: the government ceases to recognize the corporation as an independent entity from its shareholders. If you the shareholder fuck up, or one of the managers you employ fucks up, you are liable for all the damages from said mistake. If your business goes bankrupt, you do, too: no more cutting and running.