A test for libertarians

[Kulindahr]

New York Times, NBC, MSNBC, etc are going to be heart broken to learn Kulindahr has taken away their freedom of speech. Libertarian firing squads will be next.

Those organizations don't have freedom of speech.

Have you ever read the Constitution? It might help straighten out your understanding.

 

[Benvolio]

Those organizations don't have freedom of speech.

Have you ever read the Constitution? It might help straighten out your understanding.

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Should be handled and Constitution. I hate that ten minute rule.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

"Fire!!!!!!"

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Those organizations don't have freedom of speech.

Have you ever read the Constitution? It might help straighten out your understanding.

So we have finally gotten you to say the the media,being corporations, have no right to free speech, and under your proposed libertarian laws, may not say or publish anything political or critical of the government, or policies or candidates, or parties, or officials. The news will be limited to heart warming stories without political implications. Are cats rescued from trees OK, or does that seem like an approval of the city officials? Certainly no business or investor programs since they often speak favorably of corporations, capitalism and free enterprise-- and thus by implication, about government policies. Will scripts need to be submitted to libertarian censors in advance or merely face the libertarian speech police later?

 

[Sausy]

Of the world's nations the United States Constitution is the broadest in terms of protecting individual liberties... Kuli's extreme restrictive view of what constitutes free speech is utter pretzel twisting illogic. No.. corporations, unions, media... any organization CANNOT vote but common interests can be fought for and the overall impact on speech is NOT limited merely to individuals. I'm no supporter of big corporations but limiting their power through dishonest intellectual means is no solution.... through the baby out with the bathwater by denying that ALL interests have the right under the First Amendment to have their voices heard. Undue control of the political process by corporate interests is one thing, denying that corporations and other associations have no free speech rights in and of themselves just is wrongheaded thinking ...misguided at best, dangerous at worst.


I wish I had the intellect of many here but as I said such innate gifts don't necessarily... certainly not in this case I would say... stand the ultimate sense of being grounded in common sense and prudent thinking.

 

[frankfrank]

"Fire!!!!!!"

CORRECTION: "FIRE!!!"

 

[Kulindahr]

Of the world's nations the United States Constitution is the broadest in terms of protecting individual liberties... Kuli's extreme restrictive view of what constitutes free speech is utter pretzel twisting illogic. No.. corporations, unions, media... any organization CANNOT vote but common interests can be fought for and the overall impact on speech is NOT limited merely to individuals. I'm no supporter of big corporations but limiting their power through dishonest intellectual means is no solution.... through the baby out with the bathwater by denying that ALL interests have the right under the First Amendment to have their voices heard. Undue control of the political process by corporate interests is one thing, denying that corporations and other associations have no free speech rights in and of themselves just is wrongheaded thinking ...misguided at best, dangerous at worst.


I wish I had the intellect of many here but as I said such innate gifts don't necessarily... certainly not in this case I would say... stand the ultimate sense of being grounded in common sense and prudent thinking.

The Constitution cannot grant free speech, nor protect a right to free speech, of an entity incapable of it. Corporations have neither brains nor mouths, so they cannot speak. People have free speech, because they have speech in the first place. People have interests; entities which exist only on paper do not, any more than books or magazines do.

The courts have been treating money as speech. If that's so, then corporations most certainly have no free speech, unless all the shareholders agree -- unanimously -- on what is to be said, because otherwise a very few are stealing the speech of any who do not disagree.

And those who claim that the media thus cannot publish anything criticize the government need to read the Constitution.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

CORRECTION: "FIRE!!!"

There is no law against shouting fire in a theater as such. There are laws against various acts and they are not excused simply because speech is used. So, you cannot rob a bank. Free speech does not give you a free ride when you say " This is a stick up". Likewise, the law proscribes disturbing the peace etc, which may involve shouting fire. But it is the act, not the speech that is punished.

 

[xbuzzerx]

There is no law against shouting fire in a theater as such. There are laws against various acts and they are not excused simply because speech is used. So, you cannot rob a bank. Free speech does not give you a free ride when you say " This is a stick up". Likewise, the law proscribes disturbing the peace etc, which may involve shouting fire. But it is the act, not the speech that is punished.

Good. Then the "act" of funnelling millions of dollars to unduly influence political outcomes should also be banned, regardless of any role the expenditure of money may have as a form of "speech."

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Good. Then the "act" of funnelling millions of dollars to unduly influence political outcomes should also be banned, regardless of any role the expenditure of money may have as a form of "speech."

The trick is wording the law that so you and liberals and fellow socialists get to advertise, but not those bad guys who favor capitalism. The democrats have been working for decades to find a way to silence the opposition. Democrats have media corporations campaigning for them, so if they can silence other corporations they will have the one party Marxist state thy have worked for.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The trick is wording the law that so you and liberals and fellow socialists get to advertise, but not those bad guys who favor capitalism. The democrats have been working for decades to find a way to silence the opposition. Democrats have media corporations campaigning for them, so if they can silence other corporations they will have the one party Marxist state thy have worked for.

I'm perfectly fine with letting "the capitalists", corporations, operate as individual citizens. Make them eligible for imprisonment and the death penalty too for the same crimes.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

I'm perfectly fine with letting "the capitalists", corporations, operate as individual citizens. Make them eligible for imprisonment and the death penalty too for the same crimes.

And the unions too? Of course Corporations can be criminally liable and their officers, directors and personnel sent to jail or the death penalty.

 

[xbuzzerx]

And the unions too? Of course Corporations can be criminally liable and their officers, directors and personnel sent to jail or the death penalty.

Sure, why not? Throw them in. I'm not worried that it'll be the Unions getting caught pumping byproducts of chlorox into rivers.

It'll be a glorious day when you have the balls to simply flat out admit that you believe corporations should have special power and special preference and special legal status over everyone else (including, but not limited to, their employees) and stop this crap of pretending like corporations are forced to behave unethically or without regard for the consequences that fall on workers or taxpayers because of "unions" or "immigrants" or whatever other right-wing talking point boogeyman you're on about at the moment.

I have absolutely no fear of holding workers, citizens, unions and corporations all to exactly the same standards, because I know full well who would routinely fail any such standard were it consistently enforced on everyone equally.

 

[Sausy]

The ACLU is an organization dedicated to protecting the individual liberties of all... free speech rights is among the cornerstones of their being. They are an advocacy group... there are many different kinds of advocacy groups who all have the constitutionally protected right to speak up for what they believe in. Groups get far more accomplished than any individual can.... the trick is to make sure groups don't accumulate the power to hurt individuals or other groups. You don't do that by telling corporations they have no right to advocate their positions...we are ALL fucking interest groups in the end, for good or ill. In the old days it was just the rulers and feudal lords who had any say... not anymore. Abuse of influence is one thing, but just pulling out nonsensical theories out of the air about the only speech permissible is individual... well just proves liberal leaners are very capable of thinking out of their asses as the conservatives they correctly rip on for asinine comments.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Sure, why not? Throw them in. I'm not worried that it'll be the Unions getting caught pumping byproducts of chlorox into rivers.

It'll be a glorious day when you have the balls to simply flat out admit that you believe corporations should have special power and special preference and special legal status over everyone else (including, but not limited to, their employees) and stop this crap of pretending like corporations are forced to behave unethically or without regard for the consequences that fall on workers or taxpayers because of "unions" or "immigrants" or whatever other right-wing talking point boogeyman you're on about at the moment.

I have absolutely no fear of holding workers, citizens, unions and corporations all to exactly the same standards, because I know full well who would routinely fail any such standard were it consistently enforced on everyone equally.

I have never said anything approaching that.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You don't do that by telling corporations they have no right to advocate their positions...we are ALL fucking interest groups in the end

Tell you what Saucy, when my money all goes to the Cayman Islands, my house is in the UAE and my workers are in India, I'll give up my right to throw millions of dollars into affecting the political process for people who live and work in the U.S. too.

- - - Updated - - -

I have never said anything approaching that.

And the unions too? Of course Corporations can be criminally liable and their officers, directors and personnel sent to jail or the death penalty.

Yes, you did.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm perfectly fine with letting "the capitalists", corporations, operate as individual citizens. Make them eligible for imprisonment and the death penalty too for the same crimes.

Everyone should be limited to operating as individual citizens -- or legal residents --because only they can have rights.

Though any individuals who wish to do so may band together and form a media entity and exercise freedom of the press, or join together in an advocacy group and exercise freedom of speech.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sure, why not? Throw them in. I'm not worried that it'll be the Unions getting caught pumping byproducts of chlorox into rivers.

It'll be a glorious day when you have the balls to simply flat out admit that you believe corporations should have special power and special preference and special legal status over everyone else (including, but not limited to, their employees) and stop this crap of pretending like corporations are forced to behave unethically or without regard for the consequences that fall on workers or taxpayers because of "unions" or "immigrants" or whatever other right-wing talking point boogeyman you're on about at the moment.

I have absolutely no fear of holding workers, citizens, unions and corporations all to exactly the same standards, because I know full well who would routinely fail any such standard were it consistently enforced on everyone equally.

Unions do not exist for the purpose of engaging in free speech, so they also do not belong in the political process.

Especially in the internet age, it's simple for citizens to band together completely in agreement on a topic and advocate for it, so this should be a no-brainer. Oh -- internet sites would, in my view, come under freedom of the press.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Everyone should be limited to operating as individual citizens -- or legal residents --because only they can have rights.

Though any individuals who wish to do so may band together and form a media entity and exercise freedom of the press, or join together in an advocacy group and exercise freedom of speech.

I agree. I'm merely trying to illustrate to our friends here the ridiculousness of the idea that denying "free speech" in the form of unlimited financial leverage on the political process on the notion that doing so "denies them" the rights citizens have is ridiculous. The drawbacks and degree of accountability are nowhere near equal. Nor is a corporation an entity which can go hungry or suffer because of the fallout of policies passed.