Why does the left want to suppress free speech?

[Chris]

Here I thought the left supported social rights.

Why does the left want to suppress free speech? (http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech/article/2532270)


Many people on the political left don’t much like the First Amendment. That seems odd to someone of my generation. In past times people who suppressed what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled speech—student armbands, nude dancing, flag burning—were usually conservatives. But now it seems that it’s mostly liberals who want to shut down speech that offends them, and it’s usually political speech which many people think was the main concern of the Founders rather than the kinds of speech referenced above.

Anyway, here are some examples of liberals trying to shut down speech.

Ÿ Democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Chris Murphy have proposed a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which Barack Obama lamented in one of his State of the Union addresses, by denying constitutional rights to corporations. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh in his Volokh Conspiracy blog, that would pretty much wipe out freedom of the press and some other freedoms as well.

“So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."

[Mainecoons]

Simple. The left only likes their own free speech. They don't like anyone else's.

This is hardly rocket science, Chris.

[Chris]

I guess that's it then, as the article points out, "it seems that it’s mostly liberals who want to shut down speech that offends them."

But surely they, the forum left, have a rebuttal.

[Ravi]

Corporations can't have sex, therefore they are not people. Biggest piece of 1984ism ever foisted on the American public is that corporations have personhood.

[Peter1469]

Corporations can't have sex, therefore they are not people. Biggest piece of 1984ism ever foisted on the American public is that corporations have personhood.

I too think that the legal fiction of corporate personhood should be abandoned.

[Mainecoons]

Nor do labor unions. And that has no bearing on whether either should be allowed to involve themselves in politics.

Frankly, I think not.

[Chris]

Corporations can't have sex, therefore they are not people. Biggest piece of 1984ism ever foisted on the American public is that corporations have personhood.

So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."

[Ransom]

Corporations can't have sex, therefore they are not people. Biggest piece of 1984ism ever foisted on the American public is that corporations have personhood.

Unions nor Community Organizations can have sex either, but we elected one President.

[pjohns]

The left only likes their own free speech. They don't like anyone else's.


I have often noted that "freedom of speech," for the contemporary left, is much like it was in the former Soviet Union (say, in the 1970s): One was free to say whatever one wished, just as long as it dovetailed perfectly with The Official Party Line...

[nic34]

Here I thought the left supported social rights.

Why does the left want to suppress free speech? (http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech/article/2532270)

I do. I just don't think corporations should have rights without the responsibilities.

When was the last time a corporation was executed or imprisoned for murder?

And yes, they have murdered.....

[Private Pickle]

I do. I just don't think corporations should have rights without the responsibilities.

When was the last time a corporation was executed or imprisoned for murder?

And yes, they have murdered.....

Annnnnnnnnnd LOL.

[nic34]

Explain.

[Private Pickle]

Explain.

Well corporations are inanimate. They are not alive. So unless a corporation gained consciousness and toppled it's building onto someone thereby killing them, it would be impossible for them to "murder".

[nic34]

Then how do they attain "personhood"?

[Private Pickle]

Then how do they attain "personhood"?

Literally or legally?

[nic34]

Corporations are a result of a specific contractual legal framework (provided by government)

No "artificial entities" - non human beings - should have rights spelled out under the Constitution. This includes unions and non-profit corporations.

Rights do not come from government, we have them because we are alive.... inalienable. Government does not actually have authority to grant rights to entities created by law. Certain powers and privileges may be needed and desired for certain entities over others, but not constitutional rights.

[Private Pickle]

Corporations are a result of a specific contractual legal framework (provided by government)

No "artificial entities" - non human beings - should have rights spelled out under the Constitution. This includes unions and non-profit corporations.

Rights do not come from government, we have them because we are alive.... inalienable. Government does not actually have authority to grant rights to entities created by law. Certain powers and privileges may be needed and desired for certain entities over others, but not constitutional rights.

So you think Corporate Personhood literally translates into corporations having the exact same rights as people? Can you confirm or deny that please?

[Chris]

I do. I just don't think corporations should have rights without the responsibilities.

When was the last time a corporation was executed or imprisoned for murder?

And yes, they have murdered.....

So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."

[Chris]

Then how do they attain "personhood"?

Government. Government created corporate personhood.

[Mr Happy]

Oh, the irony of this thread...

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14006-Changes-to-Forum-Rules

[Chris]

Corporations are a result of a specific contractual legal framework (provided by government)

No "artificial entities" - non human beings - should have rights spelled out under the Constitution. This includes unions and non-profit corporations.

Rights do not come from government, we have them because we are alive.... inalienable. Government does not actually have authority to grant rights to entities created by law. Certain powers and privileges may be needed and desired for certain entities over others, but not constitutional rights.

Agreed.

So why would government do that?

[Private Pickle]

Oh, the irony of this thread...

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14006-Changes-to-Forum-Rules

You should report if you see a violation. This post is trolling with a hint of derailing. See the forum rules for clarification.

[Private Pickle]

The idea that Corporate Personhood bestows upon corporations all of the rights of the Constitution is simply incorrect. It's a falsehood meant to minimize the impact of corporations on society and politics...

[Chris]

The idea that Corporate Personhood bestows upon corporations all of the rights of the Constitution is simply incorrect. It's a falsehood meant to minimize the impact of corporations on society and politics...

I think you mean protections, but yes, as far as I understand it, legally they do have every right and protection natural people do.

[darroll]

They don't want to hear people tell the truth about them destroying this country with dope, free love, broken promises, chicken-sh**t foreign policy, Changing the names of proud people (Indians), And their favorite policy "screw onto others before they screw on to you", Say I hurt myself so I can get supported and live a life of Reilly, letting the country(s) losers rule this country, Trash people for practicing their religious beliefs.
It's not going to change, so enjoy the handouts as they get votes.

[Private Pickle]

I think you mean protections, but yes, as far as I understand it, legally they do have every right and protection natural people do.

First paragraph of wiki:


Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.


And for the record:



Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts

[Chris]

First paragraph of wiki:



And for the record:

Same wiki article also states:


The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.

OK, wait, I see what you're saying a little below that:


Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis.

Yea, you're right.

[Private Pickle]

Same wiki article also states:



OK, wait, I see what you're saying a little below that:



Yea, you're right.

Ultimately it's to protect against nationalization...thus a very good and important thing.

[Private Pickle]

They don't want to hear people tell the truth about them destroying this country with dope, free love, broken promises, chicken-sh**t foreign policy, Changing the names of proud people (Indians), And their favorite policy "screw onto others before they screw on to you", Say I hurt myself so I can get supported and live a life of Reilly, letting the country(s) losers rule this country, Trash people for practicing their religious beliefs.
It's not going to change, so enjoy the handouts as they get votes.

Have you ever tried dope or free love? Don't knock em till you try em... Oh and by the way, in my State, both are protected rights...

[jillian]

First paragraph of wiki:

that would be incorrect. corporations are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.




And for the record:

have you read the case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Private Pickle;313085]First paragraph of wiki:

that would be incorrect. contracts are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.





have you read the case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.

What a mess!

Anyway, I'll ask you, jillian, the same question I asked the other lefties: So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?

[jillian]

[QUOTE=jillian;313101]

What a mess!

Anyway, I'll ask you, jillian, the same question I asked the other lefties: So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?

oh no!!! so fix the quotemarks!! yenta.

*rolls eyes*

is there anything too mundane for you to whinge about?

your question is the mess because the press has always been protected by the first amendment...

if you actually read the amendment, you'll see that 'freedom of the press' is specificaly protected.

funny.... you refuse to look at caselaw for anything you dislike... and are a literalist to the point of absurdity...

but for citizens untied, the worst decision made by our court sine dred scott, suddenly you're all about legislating from the bench?

lmao.

[Private Pickle]

that would be incorrect. contracts are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.





have you read the case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.

So I have no idea what you just said...something about people or something...

[jillian]

So I have no idea what you just said...something about people or something...

yeah, i know you don't.

chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing..

how about you try reading it again with the typo corrected:
that would be incorrect. corporations are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.

and then, you cited a case... but don't know what it held:

have you read that particular case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes
of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Chris;313107]

oh no!!! so fix the quotemarks!! yenta.

*rolls eyes*

is there anything too mundane for you to whinge about?

your question is the mess because the press has always been protected by the first amendment...

if you actually read the amendment, you'll see that 'freedom of the press' is specificaly protected.

funny.... you refuse to look at caselaw for anything you dislike... and are a literalist to the point of absurdity...

but for citizens untied, the worst decision made by our court sine dred scott, suddenly you're all about legislating from the bench?

lmao.

You seem to have sidestepped the topic under discussion and the question posed you. The topic is not the first amendment.

The question, to help you out, has to do with if corporations are suppressed from free speech that that will include newspaper corporations, all corporations.

Are you OK with that?

[Chris]

yeah, i know you don't.

chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing..

how about you try reading it again with the typo corrected:
that would be incorrect. corporations are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.

and then, you cited a case... but don't know what it held:

have you read that particular case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes
of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.


chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing..

Why are you making things up?

[jillian]

Why are you making things up?

i'm not.

tissue?

[jillian]

[QUOTE=jillian;313112]

You seem to have sidestepped the topic under discussion and the question posed you. The topic is not the first amendment.

The question, to help you out, has to do with if corporations are suppressed from free speech that that will include newspaper corporations, all corporations.

Are you OK with that?

actually, the topic IS the first amendment if you're talking about citizens united.

and you asserted that "the left" (whatever that is) wants to suppress free speech.

so what are we talking about if not the first amendment.

pickle said that corporations have always been considered people in response to another post. if you have a problem with the "off topic" (which really wasn't off topic) it would be there. i simply pointed out that he didn't have a clue what the case he referred to said.

you don't like the goal posts you set up and want to move them because you don't understand citizens united or what it did? i can't help that. but last i checked you aren't the thread police.

btw, i've generally found that people who start threads saying things like "libs" or "the left" have no intention of starting a discussion but simply want to troll and get high-fived by other like minded people

hence your making the comments you do instead of actually discussing the issue.

[Chris]

i'm not.

tissue?

This is what you made up: "chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing.."

Thanks for the personal insult.

How about you try and stay on topic. You were asked a simple question.

[jillian]

This is what you made up: "chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing.."

Thanks for the personal insult.

How about you try and stay on topic. You were asked a simple question.

awww... what does "what a mess" refer to?

how about you try responding to posts instead of trying to derail every thread when you don't agree with the person posting, mr ad hom

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Chris;313124]

actually, the topic IS the first amendment if you're talking about citizens united.

and you asserted that "the left" (whatever that is) wants to suppress free speech.

so what are we talking about if not the first amendment.

you don't like the goal posts you set up and want to move them because you don't understand citizens united or what it did?

btw, i've generally found that people who start threads saying things like "libs" or "the left" have no intention of starting a discussion but simply want to troll and get high-fived by other like minded people

hence your making the comments you do instead of actually discussing the issue.

Still a mess.


ctually, the topic IS the first amendment if you're talking about citizens united.

No the topic is: "you asserted that "the left" (whatever that is) wants to suppress free speech." as you clearly indicate.


so what are we talking about if not the first amendment.

Well if you and others on the left want to suppress corporate free speech, and you have implied you do, then are you OK with suppressing free speech for all corporations: As asked three times now, “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?


you don't like the goal posts you set up and want to move them because you don't understand citizens united or what it did?

Straw man.


btw, i've generally found that people who start threads saying things like "libs" or "the left" have no intention of starting a discussion but simply want to troll and get high-fived by other like minded people

Ad hom.

You're one not answering the question.


hence your making the comments you do instead of actually discussing the issue.

Straw man, just making things up again.

[jillian]

[QUOTE=jillian;313130]

Still a mess.



No the topic is: "you asserted that "the left" (whatever that is) wants to suppress free speech." as you clearly indicate.



Well if you and others on the left want to suppress corporate free speech, and you have implied you do, then are you OK with suppressing free speech for all corporations: As asked three times now, “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?



Straw man.



Ad hom.

You're one not answering the question.



Straw man, just making things up again.

feel free not to respond to me. you don't say anything anyway.

there ya go, mr ad hom.

lol

[Chris]

awww... what does "what a mess" refer to?

how about you try responding to posts instead of trying to derail every thread when you don't agree with the person posting, mr ad hom

The messy quotes. An end quote tag got deleted by you earlier. That's all it refers to despite your making things up that aren't there.


how about you try responding to posts instead of trying to derail every thread when you don't agree with the person posting, mr ad hom

You the one derailing the thread by not addressing the topic or answering a simple question. That was done before I pointed it out. You're arguing an anachronism misordering events.


So, 4th time: So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Chris;313133]

feel free not to respond to me. you don't say anything anyway.

there ya go, mr ad hom.

lol

So now you're trying to suppress my free speech?


For the 5th time: So you're OK with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."?

Have you nothing to say on the topic or to answer the question?

[Private Pickle]

yeah, i know you don't.

chris pretended he couldn't understand it b/c the quotemark was off... very amusing..

how about you try reading it again with the typo corrected:
that would be incorrect. corporations are not people (or weren't til the perversion of law that is citizen's united) for purposes of the first amendment. they are (were) considered *people* (though not really) for purposes of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court whether in being sued or in bringing suit.

and then, you cited a case... but don't know what it held:

have you read that particular case? because again, corporations are not considered "people" for purposes
of the first amendment in that case. all the court determined was that corporations can be bound by contracts.

Yeah...still don't. But I'll take a stab at what I think you're trying to say.

Corporations are not people. Correct. Does that sum it up?

[Chris]

Yeah...still don't. But I'll take a stab at what I think you're trying to say.

Corporations are not people. Correct. Does that sum it up?

And it follows logically from that, back to the topic, then the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church.... are not people and and should not have free speech.

Thus the question, are you on the left ok with that.

[lynn]

Churches that are tax exempt definitely do not have freedom of speech as this was the trade off for them to stay out of politics.

[Peter1469]

It would be helpful to separate the left from the modern leadership of the left in America. For whatever reason, the rank and file don't understand what their leaders are doing.

[roadmaster]

Churches that are tax exempt definitely do not have freedom of speech as this was the trade off for them to stay out of politics.
Except the members can and we don't have to stay out of politics. Yes the building can't.

[Private Pickle]

Churches that are tax exempt definitely do not have freedom of speech as this was the trade off for them to stay out of politics.

Ummmm....no....

[Chris]

Churches that are tax exempt definitely do not have freedom of speech as this was the trade off for them to stay out of politics.


Except the members can and we don't have to stay out of politics. Yes the building can't.

I think this is where the law gets tangled up. The government attaches strings to tax breaks and subsidies and contracts and etc. But should it?

As pickle cited earlier: "Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution." And I added "Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group."

If a corporation, be it a company, newspaper, or church, is seen as an entity representing a group of people, then shouldn't their rights carry over to the corporation? It is a right of the people, is it not?

[Cigar]

Should have never been changed back in the 1950's

[Chris]

Should have never been changed back in the 1950's

Unclear: What changed regarding corporate free speech in the 1950s?

[Cigar]

Unclear: What changed regarding corporate free speech in the 1950s?

"tax exempt" eligibility

[Chris]

"tax exempt" eligibility

Ah, 501cs.

[patrickt]

Corporations can't have sex, therefore they are not people. Biggest piece of 1984ism ever foisted on the American public is that corporations have personhood.

Does this mean liberals are in favor of disenfranchising millions of married men because they can't have sex?

[Chris]

Corporations have sex all the time. For example, one comes out with a touchpad and before you know it others are copying like rabbits.

[nic34]

So you're ok with “So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church...."
Read what I posted.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14015-Why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech?p=313006&viewfull=1#post313006


No "artificial entities" - non human beings - should have rights spelled out under the Constitution. This includes unions and non-profit corporations.

Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.

Money is not free speech either. We are all weakened when corporations possess inalienable constitutional rights to influence public opinion, shape public laws, mold public officials and intimidate communities.

Non-profits do serve a different function than that for-profit corporations, as do unions. But these powers and privileges need to be spelled out legislatively - through a democratic process.... not granted by the legal system under the Constitution.

[Peter1469]

Read what I posted.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14015-Why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech?p=313006&viewfull=1#post313006



Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.

Money is not free speech either. We are all weakened when corporations possess inalienable constitutional rights to influence public opinion, shape public laws, mold public officials and intimidate communities.

Non-profits do serve a different function than that for-profit corporations, as do unions. But these powers and privileges need to be spelled out legislatively - through a democratic process.... not granted by the legal system under the Constitution.

In general I agree. IBM did not incorporate to affect politics. Its owners, board, and employees are likely all over the political spectrum. But if a group of people incorporate for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda, even if they are for profit, I don't have a problem with them being political.

[nic34]

As long as that group of people are transparent as to who they are and who they financially support, I would agree.

[Chris]

Read what I posted.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14015-Why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech?p=313006&viewfull=1#post313006



Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.

Money is not free speech either. We are all weakened when corporations possess inalienable constitutional rights to influence public opinion, shape public laws, mold public officials and intimidate communities.

Non-profits do serve a different function than that for-profit corporations, as do unions. But these powers and privileges need to be spelled out legislatively - through a democratic process.... not granted by the legal system under the Constitution.

So by your arguments newspapers, which are for-profits, should be suppressed the same as any other for-profit. Ditto ACLU, which takes in profits via court settlements, and churches, which take in profit via tithes etc. And so too unions as they represent for-profit workers no different than corporations might represent workers. Through lobbyists in for good measure.

All of them handle/control vast amounts of money.

So I don't think profit or money can be used as the basis for discrimination.



We are all weakened when corporations possess inalienable constitutional rights to influence public opinion, shape public laws, mold public officials and intimidate communities.

I would alter that thus: We are all individually weakened when any group possess legal rights to influence public opinion, shape public laws, mold public officials and intimidate communities.

I generalized. I also removed inalienable since these rights are given by government and not inherent or natural. I removed constitutional for the Constitution does not grant rights, but is based on the people's natural rights. These legal right are as Pickle argued, and I came to agree, legal fictions created by government.

So I think we sort of generally agree albeit for different reasons.

[Chris]

As long as that group of people are transparent as to who they are and who they financially support, I would agree.

Agree with this, not only should the groups be transparent but so too should politicians who receive contributions.

While we're straying some from topic, which is ok and natural, the following may well make you cringe but it says some of the same things:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=042xZQZPZjU

[Mainecoons]

Whether or not it is fully transparent, the amount of money spent on U.S. elections is obscene. You can be transparently owned by your donors and that doesn't change the fact that you are owned.

There seem to be plenty of models around for running elections without this vast corruption of money. Time to emulate one or a combination of them.

[Chris]

I'd certainly be open to any alternative that excludes money from all groups.

I'd also be open to rescinding personhood to all groups.

[KC]

I prefer campaign finance that is limited to individuals acting as such but who are only free to give a limited amount to any campaign or political party in any given year.

[jillian]

I prefer campaign finance that is limited to individuals acting as such but who are only free to give a limited amount to any campaign or political party in any given year.

501c4 corps have no reporting requirement.

[Chris]

Why not limit it to $0, zilch, zip, nada. Let the parties pay for it. --Oh, wait, they don't produce any good or service people want to consume.

[KC]

501c4 corps have no reporting requirement.

They should be barred from giving money to political campaigns.