Senator Jon Tester of Montana has just introduced our People’s Rights Amendment in the U.S Senate

[Kulindahr]

The critical point is that inanimate entities do not have free speech, only individuals do -- thinking, living individuals.

If you want to believe the novel doctrine the Court invented for Citizens United, then robots will have free speech when they're among us, and computer programs already should -- because ANYTHING can have free speech. But the fact remains that without a brain and without a capacity to communicate words, there is no free speech.

 

[Benvolio]

Even if all that were true, Congress lacks the power to limit corporations, robots, computers. Congress shall pass no law..... The founders realized that bad people like you would come along and try to silence dissent. They foreclosed such attempts with a literally absolute denial of power.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even if all that were true, Congress lacks the power to limit corporations, robots, computers. Congress shall pass no law..... The founders realized that bad people like you would come along and try to silence dissent. They foreclosed such attempts with a literally absolute denial of power.

By telling us all that corporations don't have free speech, Congress isn't "limiting" anything -- they're just stating a fact.

If the Framers had known there would be people like you and Romney, they would have written the First in appropriate language, i.e. for those not smarter than a fifth grader. But they expected the document to be read by educated people who could understand the context and see that free speech belongs to "We, the People".

Remember that most of the Founding Fathers regarded giant corporations the same as giant government. Were we to impose their understanding of corporations, you'd scream, because corporations would have a single purpose a set numbers of years to accomplish it in, and then be dissolved.

 

[Benvolio]

By telling us all that corporations don't have free speech, Congress isn't "limiting" anything -- they're just stating a fact.

If the Framers had known there would be people like you and Romney, they would have written the First in appropriate language, i.e. for those not smarter than a fifth grader. But they expected the document to be read by educated people who could understand the context and see that free speech belongs to "We, the People".

Remember that most of the Founding Fathers regarded giant corporations the same as giant government. Were we to impose their understanding of corporations, you'd scream, because corporations would have a single purpose a set numbers of years to accomplish it in, and then be dissolved.

Congress does not get to decide who or what has or does not have free speech. It shall pass no law. The founders would be appalled at you suggestion that churches, universities and newspapers have no right to free speech. They would have thrown the entire Bill of Rights in the trash.

 

[cm98059]

Not educated in economics, are you?

Fill in the blank: Milton __________.





You don't actually read this forum, do you?

You really ought to go back to Stormfront, where talking points are considered wisdom and ideology is regarded as revelation.

I know that the answer to this question is Milton Freewater, where a family can subscribe to Ambulance Service for one year for $55.00. Did you know that the entire Milton Freewater Rural Fire Department was started by the local farmers who banded together to start Fire Service because They did not have adequate Fire Protection? Yes, the fire department was initially a private subscription service.

 

[Kulindahr]

Congress does not get to decide who or what has or does not have free speech. It shall pass no law. The founders would be appalled at you suggestion that churches, universities and newspapers have no right to free speech. They would have thrown the entire Bill of Rights in the trash.

Did you go to a school to learn to resort to lies about other people as an argument tactic, or does it comes naturally?

You keep making the same false claim about my position. If you're going to make a claim, substantiate it. But if you can't -- and in this case, since you can't, and since you've not only been told it's false before but to stop repeating it, you're nothing more than a liar.


Oh -- as to your first claim: SCOTUS can't go awarding "free speech" to entities which aren't capable of it, which is what they did with the novel concepts in Citizens United.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that the answer to this question is Milton Freewater, where a family can subscribe to Ambulance Service for one year for $55.00. Did you know that the entire Milton Freewater Rural Fire Department was started by the local farmers who banded together to start Fire Service because They did not have adequate Fire Protection? Yes, the fire department was initially a private subscription service.

LOL

Not the Milton I had in mind -- but educational.

 

[Benvolio]

Did you go to a school to learn to resort to lies about other people as an argument tactic, or does it comes naturally?

You keep making the same false claim about my position. If you're going to make a claim, substantiate it. But if you can't -- and in this case, since you can't, and since you've not only been told it's false before but to stop repeating it, you're nothing more than a liar.


Oh -- as to your first claim: SCOTUS can't go awarding "free speech" to entities which aren't capable of it, which is what they did with the novel concepts in Citizens United.

- - - Updated - - -

You lie. I have repeatedly asked you about freedom pf speech for newspapers, universities, churches and media. You only answer has been that only individuals have freedom of speech--and by necessary result, newspapers, media, churches and universities do not have freedom of speech. There has never been a time when the Americans people or the drafters would have accepted that result. That is why they said " no law".

 

[chrisrobin]

.
Where do I sign? After the Watergate debacle, campaign finance reform was a priority. We've come a long way since 1974...backwards. Citizens United made it possible to circumvent what laws we've had, but have allowed for unlimited contributions - anonymously. The SCOTUS was not intended to make new legislation, only to interpret what is already there. Marbury v. Madison gave the SCOTUS way too much power. Anyone that claims that money is speech is full of crap.

 

[Benvolio]

Let me ask you this. ABC newspapers spends money to print and distribute its paper which contains news and editorials slanted toward a party or candidate or an issue. Congress passes a law to prohibit it.
XYZ business corporation agrees with the party or candidate or issue position and pays for ads in the newspaper. Congress prohibits it as well.
Does either corporation have freedom of speech to continue?

 

[frankfrank]

Not the Milton I had in mind -- but educational.

And I was going to say something like "Milton Bradley makes some really cool games, and SCRABBLE is my all time lifelong favorite of any."

Citizens United made it possible to circumvent what laws we've had, but have allowed for unlimited contributions - anonymously.

Even for those who agree entirely with the Citizens United decision (I consider it the worst decision of any courtroom in the world in my long lifetime), I ask, PLEASE, tell me why it is considered "unconstitutional" to ASK THAT THE DONORS LIST CANNOT BE HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC? If an entity is given the right to finance a campaign to elect people whose offices and tenures are paid out of public funds, that right should in turn give us all the right to find out who is making the contributions.

 

[Benvolio]

And I was going to say something like "Milton Bradley makes some really cool games, and SCRABBLE is my all time lifelong favorite of any."


Even for those who agree entirely with the Citizens United decision (I consider it the worst decision of any courtroom in the world in my long lifetime), I ask, PLEASE, tell me why it is considered "unconstitutional" to ASK THAT THE DONORS LIST CANNOT BE HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC? If an entity is given the right to finance a campaign to elect people whose offices and tenures are paid out of public funds, that right should in turn give us all the right to find out who is making the contributions.

If you answer my question #69, I will answer yours.