Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Sure, but is anyone saying that a corporation should have a right to vote? That's a new one on me. I thought we were talking about people having the right to say whatever they want, which is something that Congress is constitutionally forbidden from making any laws against.
If one does accept the premise that there should be a limit to the political speech of corporations, how can the existence of a Fox News or a New York Times be at all justified? "Freedom of the press" doesn't only apply to self-important assholes who call themselves journalists. It also extends to the lowliest blogger and, indeed, the biggest corporation.
|
Then how would one address the clear problems that stem from these corporations being able to buy candidates? It'd be much easier to simply ban all campaign donations rather than the vast legal quagmire that would be needed to make it such that it's not worth it for corporations to buy candidates
|
Right, and the President could get stuff done quicker if he abolished congress, the Supreme Court and voting.
The reason we have a bill of rights is so that peoples rights aren't infringed on... sometimes that means doing things the hard way.
Though you could get rid of a lot of the problem by just making it illegal to give different industries any benefits like subsidies or tax breaks or the like./
|
Yes, but would such a law curtail freedom of expression, if it infringed upon everyone's rights uniformly? The intent of the first amendment is such that the government cannot impugn upon an opinion, no matter how unpopular, but was not designed to fight regulations on one specific mode of speech altogether.
I wonder if i could go out and take a shit on a public sidewalk to make a statement against the city of Philadelphia. Could I then sue after i was arrested? Where does speech end and action begin?
Bear in mind that i understand that judicial precedent has established this as protected speech, but still...
|
So, it's ok to rob people of freedom of speech and expression.... so long as you do it individually.
So squashing all freedom of speech is wrong....
but squashing each instance in a different law is fine... espiecally if you leave one form... such as private letters to the government open.
