| Kasz216 said: Right... except that's NOT what corproate personhood is in this case. It's completely unrelated. You never actually read the citizens united ruling? It was based on some pretty simple and logical assumptions that pretty much everybody would agree with despite disliking the outcome.
1) Political speech is the most important form of free speech as all other free speech essentially flows from it. 2) People are free to assemble in groups... shutting down a groups free speech is just like shutting down an individuals right to free speech. (IE you can't stop what the ACLU or NRA say.) 3) Corporations are groups of people. Pretty easy 1-2-3 logic that you can't really rebut... a ruling otherwise, while convienent would be negligent.
Not to mention 4) There is no legal difference between Corproations and New Corporations, and a number of New corporations tv shows could essentially be considered "Campain contributions." I mean, MSNBCS and Fox News are practically 24/hour campaign add stations. |
Actually I do recall that. However one must be aware that there is precedent for speech, if sufficiently damaging to the nation, to be curbed.
Although that could be that i've always interpreted the first amendment's "speech" as being "opinion," and not the actual act of expression, so I would be in support of legislation that regulated the activity of speech so long as it was undiscriminating in the opinions covered (e.g., i'd be for a total ban on certain types of campaign contributions, but against legislation against "professions of atheism" or something like that)
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
