[at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking

giniajim jplynch at crosslink.net
Sun Jan 24 19:30:56 CST 2010

I think the outcry is about political contributions.  I would be very upset if my local paper gave money to support a candidate.  Endorse him/her in editorials; fine.  But money is something else.  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim and_or Ginny Owen 
  To: at-l 
  Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:24 PM
  Subject: [at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking

  I won't be answering any particular post here - and in fact, I'm of two minds about this 
  subject. But I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about WHY the decision was made.  
  So I'm gonna drop a few selected quotes from a legal blog and let you think about them.  
  Which is what I'm doing - thinking about them.  
  These quotes are not an expression of "my" opinion.  Nor are they an argument in favor 
  of the decision.  They ARE something that I've not heard argued by anybody here or on 
  any other hiking forum yet. And they NEED to be considered before too many people 
  shoot from the lip here. So....
  >One of the standard arguments put forward by critics of the Supreme Court’s decision 
  >protecting corporate political speech in Citizens United is that people aren’t entitled to 
  >constitutional rights when they use corporate resources because corporations are 
  >“state-created entities.” 
  >On this view, the government would be free to censor the New York Times, Fox News, 
  >the Nation, National Review, and so on. Nearly every newspaper and political journal in 
  >the country is a corporation.
  >If people using state-created entities don’t have free speech rights, they don’t have 
  >any other constitutional rights either. After all, the supposed power to define the rights 
  >of state-created entities isn’t limited to free speech rights. Thus, government would not 
  >be bound by the Fourth Amendment in searching corporate property (including employee 
  >offices). It could take corporate property for private use without paying compensation 
  >because the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply. It could forbid religious services on 
  >corporate property (including that owned by churches, most of which are after all nonprofit 
  >corporations). If the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporate 
  >property, neither does the Free Exercise Clause. And so on.
  >So government could enact laws requiring citizens to limit their political speech in exactly 
  >the same ways in which corporate speech can be limited (or at least condition their continued 
  >status as citizens on obedience to the government’s censorship rules). 
  Read the whole thing - 
  Finally - regardless of your agreement or disagreement, the decision was made.  Regardless of 
  the rhetoric from Obama, Senators, Congressmen, governors, whatever -  the decision was made.  
  And like Roe vs Wade, regardless of agreement or opposition, it's now the law of the land and we 
  all get to live with it.  There is no legislative "fix".  There is no administrative "fix".  Anyone who 
  tells you there is - is simply lying.  At least until this country becomes a dictatorship.  

  Walk softly,



  at-l mailing list
  at-l at backcountry.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://patsy.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20100124/6a7aecab/attachment.html 

More information about the at-l mailing list