[at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking
Jim and_or Ginny Owen
spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 24 19:46:38 CST 2010
The outcry can be about anything anybody wants. But it doesn't change the decision.
Nor does it change the logic on which the decision was made. Nor does it change the
potential political consequences of a different Court decision.
In fact, the decision does nothing more than to return the "money" situation to what it
was prior to McCain-Feingold. Which, frankly, was better than the situation during the
last several elections. I wonder if anyone here has any idea, for example, how much
foreign money (read terrorist funds among others) was funneled into those elections
via the 527's? I wonder how many people would rather have their elections influenced
by Hamas and al Quaeda than General Electric? That, after all, is what is being argued for.
From: jplynch at crosslink.net
To: spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com; at-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:30:56 -0500
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
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
>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.
at-l mailing list
at-l at backcountry.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the at-l