Print

[LetsGoWings]

Why do you continue to argue incorrectly?  For basically contract purposes, yes, corporations are entities similar to human beings, or a person in legal reference.  However, Citizens United vs. FEC was about something far larger than free speech.  Corporation did have the right to spend on campaigns with limits on spending and disclosure.

SCOTUS said that money is speech and cannot be restricted... THAT is the new part that you continually ignore over and over.  SCOTUS said there can be NO restrictions on corporate money “free speech”.  Yes, they used personhood and the first Amendment cases you refer to, but this is a whole big barrel full of new worms.

Your argument that money is simply a tool to get a message out is the same justification SCOTUS used to remove any restrictions to money free speech.  You again argue that unlimited money free speech is good and limiting real humans to time and place restrictions of any small amount is fine.

 Why is an unthinking, unfeeling, non human accorded more rights as a citizen than a living breathing human?

See, here’s the thing.  A corp. is supposed to be an entity of people and those people - humans - have exactly the same rights as anyone else for money contributions or speaking.

But then, who knows... I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Why should they not retain their rights to anonymity?

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are two different things. If the corporate shareholders were protesting something at 2am I would agree that they should be stopped. Also, what you are arguing are two completely different scenarios. If the OWS groups want to spend a lot of money on ads, then they are more than welcome to.

How exactly are they given more rights than humans? Can they plead the fifth? Can they get married?

Why should they not be able to use their money to buy TV ads?

Nice use of the personal attack with the Holiday Inn part. Sounds like you are losing the argument when you need to result to personal attacks.

[ducksoup]

Why should they not retain their rights to anonymity?

Where did I say that?  I said unlimited spending and did not mention the anonymity part.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are two different things.

 
LOL nice try.  Assembly can be free speech, but I sure do want to hear how you figure that some corporations could meet in a park.

If the corporate shareholders were protesting something at 2am I would agree that they should be stopped.

Well, dah, you have said that over and over.  PEOPLE (shareholders) free speech IS (and according to you - should be) limited.  But, that doesn’t answer why you feel restricting humans is fine and having no restrictions for corporations is also fine.  So, how does a corporation assemble?  Does comingling funds in a bank meet the criteria? 
 

Also, what you are arguing are two completely different scenarios. If the OWS groups want to spend a lot of money on ads, then they are more than welcome to.

See, that’s the thing.  You seem to think that some free speech is different from another and ranked or compartmentalized or something.  Okay, fine, you are correct.  Occupy can collect and spend all that they want, but why does that exclude them from plain old human voices?  Why do you say that a corporate voice (money) should be unlimited but the born with human voice should be restricted?  Money is not the only free speech and until Citizens United it was a limited speech too.  Oh, but that’s okay with you.  By asking why can't OWS spend money instead you try to say that money should be the only free speech.  I say plain old human voices are far preferable, and maybe should be exclusive.

How exactly are they given more rights than humans? Can they plead the fifth? Can they get married?

  No. Those are clearly human affectations such as running a government and deciding issues about human beings that a non feeling, non caring, non moral, THING should have no say about... especially because it frikking can’t even think.

Why should they not be able to use their money to buy TV ads?

Can a toaster vote?  Can a refrigerator compare worth of one thing or person over another?  Should I let my bath tub decide the next President of the U.S.  And if my microwave can think and decide and feel emotions and be moral, then why can’t I let my dog vote too, at least it is alive...  Hey, why not let your corporations speak real loud and vote IT as President Microsoft, and Speaker of the House IBM, Senators Apple, News Corp. and Disney...   Why not, if they know enough to speak, then they can lead too... right?

Nice use of the personal attack with the Holiday Inn part. Sounds like you are losing the argument when you need to result to personal attacks.
« Last Edit: Today at 10:07:00 PM by LetsGoWings »

Not my fault.  Holiday Inn spent a lot of money creating the idea that someone can become an expert by staying at their hotel.  You should be happy with it since it was money talking.

However, when I read

But then, who knows... I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I see a reference to myself, not you.  Did you notice the pronoun "I" that signifies it refers to me.  I did not... I see no reference to it saying LGW did not stay...

[LetsGoWings]

Where did I say that?  I said unlimited spending and did not mention the anonymity part. 
LOL nice try.  Assembly can be free speech, but I sure do want to hear how you figure that some corporations could meet in a park.Well, dah, you have said that over and over.  PEOPLE (shareholders) free speech IS (and according to you - should be) limited.  But, that doesn’t answer why you feel restricting humans is fine and having no restrictions for corporations is also fine.  So, how does a corporation assemble?  Does comingling funds in a bank meet the criteria? 
 See, that’s the thing.  You seem to think that some free speech is different from another and ranked or compartmentalized or something.  Okay, fine, you are correct.  Occupy can collect and spend all that they want, but why does that exclude them from plain old human voices?  Why do you say that a corporate voice (money) should be unlimited but the born with human voice should be restricted?  Money is not the only free speech and until Citizens United it was a limited speech too.  Oh, but that’s okay with you.  By asking why can't OWS spend money instead you try to say that money should be the only free speech.  I say plain old human voices are far preferable, and maybe should be exclusive.
  No. Those are clearly human affectations such as running a government and deciding issues about human beings that a non feeling, non caring, non moral, THING should have no say about... especially because it frikking can’t even think.

Can a toaster vote?  Can a refrigerator compare worth of one thing or person over another?  Should I let my bath tub decide the next President of the U.S.  And if my microwave can think and decide and feel emotions and be moral, then why can’t I let my dog vote too, at least it is alive...  Hey, why not let your corporations speak real loud and vote IT as President Microsoft, and Speaker of the House IBM, Senators Apple, News Corp. and Disney...   Why not, if they know enough to speak, then they can lead too... right?


Not my fault.  Holiday Inn spent a lot of money creating the idea that someone can become an expert by staying at their hotel.  You should be happy with it since it was money talking.

However, when I read  I see a reference to myself, not you.  Did you notice the pronoun "I" that signifies it refers to me.  I did not... I see no reference to it saying LGW did not stay...

You mentioned Holiday Inn in a previous post, and were clearly going off that.

If the corporate voice is in a park at 2am protesting then yes they should be limited. If OWS want to distribute fliers and buy TV ads, then by all means allow them to do it. OWS has their right to free speech. However, they do not have the right to protest at 2am. Whether you want to admit it or not protesting at 2am and donating money are two entirely different examples of speech.

Can a corporation vote? No, but the shareholders can.

How is the fifth amendment a human affection?

Money is not the only free speech. You have yet to make a decent argument why money should be restricted.

Again, can you make violent descriptive threats to President Obama? Why is that not considered free speech? There are different 'ranks' of speech.

You do know there is a Freedom of Assembly clause in the first amendment? A corporation should be restricted by the time, place, and manner as well. Why should it matter how I think a corporation would assemble, I am not arguing that. Also, corporations do not have unlimited free speech either.

Would you be happy if the corporation created a new class of stock only available to the CEO, and have the corporation pay a huge dividend just to that class and put it towards politics?

Why should they, corporations, unions, and people, not be able to do what they want with their money as long as it is legal?

[Baggins]

I see FF can't refute anything I posted.

Corporate personhood was started in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The case was in 1886.

Common sense vs. Corporate money

[ussoccer26]

Money is not the only free speech. You have yet to make a decent argument why money should be restricted.

Things are pretty even as far as having one's voice heard by a representative until you bring money into the equation. Money is the game changer. It can buy you favors. The problem is the average person does not have an abundant amount of wealth, such as a corporation would. It tips the scales in favor of the rich. See the problem?

[ducksoup]

You mentioned Holiday Inn in a previous post, and were clearly going off that.

If the corporate voice is in a park at 2am protesting then yes they should be limited.

How does that work?  Is it like Tolkien’s walking trees?  Does IBM headquarters take a plane and march around with signs?

If OWS want to distribute fliers and buy TV ads, then by all means allow them to do it. OWS has their right to free speech. However, they do not have the right to protest at 2am. Whether you want to admit it or not protesting at 2am and donating money are two entirely different examples of speech.

What you are setting up is a double standard.  Unlimited money for those with tons of it to throw around is peachy and conversely still fine for those with little or none.  But, the real voices must have limits, because gosh, anyone (even those dastardly poor people) can do that!  As far as you claiming that real people with voices should be banned at 2am I say that in this 24 hour world if there is an audience to hear then they should be able to.  If your argument is that it is a possible disruption to sleep then all stores and roads should be closed at night too.  Oh, and manufacturers too, since those machines are very loud too.

I do admit it and told you the same, which I guess you didn’t read.  Real people protesting is very different as any poor person can petition his government for redress of grievances, but only the rich have a real voice with money.

Can a corporation vote? No, but the shareholders can.

BINGO!  The people speaking for the corp. already have a voice.  Why do they deserve two?

How is the fifth amendment a human affection?

Hmmm?  IDK, when the IBM headquarters walks over and visits Microsoft headquarters at 2am?

Money is not the only free speech. You have yet to make a decent argument why money should be restricted.

 Yes, I have said many times they are not the same.  Why should one form of speech that favors only one group be unrestricted, but any other form be restricted.  THAT what you argue and have not made any case for.  Why do YOU feel one should be restricted and not the other? 

Again, can you make violent descriptive threats to President Obama? Why is that not considered free speech? There are different 'ranks' of speech. 

 
Actually, you can.  People do quite often, unfortunately.  I personally think it very wrong, but it is still done.  I personally do not see a threat to an individual as free speech as it is not addressing the government,, but rather a person as a symbol of the government. But, that is how people get away with it is saying the President is a symbol, and equal to burning the flag, which is a symbol. 

Free speech covers a lot of area, but is really only one single thing.  The citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance.  How does that affect a corporation?  Do they get their feelings hurt?  Corporations can have no more grievance against the government than my toaster.

You do know there is a Freedom of Assembly clause in the first amendment? A corporation should be restricted by the time, place, and manner as well. Why should it matter how I think a corporation would assemble, I am not arguing that. Also, corporations do not have unlimited free speech either.

Wow, that’s big of you to agree to the concession that big corporate buildings should not be able to assemble and parade at two am.  Especially not in my park!

[LetsGoWings]

How does that work?  Is it like Tolkien’s walking trees?  Does IBM headquarters take a plane and march around with signs?

What you are setting up is a double standard.  Unlimited money for those with tons of it to throw around is peachy and conversely still fine for those with little or none.  But, the real voices must have limits, because gosh, anyone (even those dastardly poor people) can do that!  As far as you claiming that real people with voices should be banned at 2am I say that in this 24 hour world if there is an audience to hear then they should be able to.  If your argument is that it is a possible disruption to sleep then all stores and roads should be closed at night too.  Oh, and manufacturers too, since those machines are very loud too.

I do admit it and told you the same, which I guess you didn’t read.  Real people protesting is very different as any poor person can petition his government for redress of grievances, but only the rich have a real voice with money.

BINGO!  The people speaking for the corp. already have a voice.  Why do they deserve two?

Hmmm?  IDK, when the IBM headquarters walks over and visits Microsoft headquarters at 2am?

 

 Yes, I have said many times they are not the same.  Why should one form of speech that favors only one group be unrestricted, but any other form be restricted.  THAT what you argue and have not made any case for.  Why do YOU feel one should be restricted and not the other? 
 
Actually, you can.  People do quite often, unfortunately.  I personally think it very wrong, but it is still done.  I personally do not see a threat to an individual as free speech as it is not addressing the government,, but rather a person as a symbol of the government. But, that is how people get away with it is saying the President is a symbol, and equal to burning the flag, which is a symbol. 

Free speech covers a lot of area, but is really only one single thing.  The citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance.  How does that affect a corporation?  Do they get their feelings hurt?  Corporations can have no more grievance against the government than my toaster.
Wow, that’s big of you to agree to the concession that big corporate buildings should not be able to assemble and parade at two am.  Especially not in my park!

You are obviously running around now with not a whole lot constructive things to say, so you come up with the IBM headquarters.

So, since you mentioned signs, a corporation should not be able to purchase a huge sign in a park with flashing lights and bells and whistles that can be heard from miles away.

Why can't the poor people voice their opinion through the voting booth? That is the ultimate way to determine politics, you know one person one vote. Bill Gates has one vote in an election just like a poor person has one vote.

Again, compare apples to apples. OWS, or any other movement can buy ad time, just like the corporations can. You are comparing apples to oranges when you talk about money and demonstrations. I have multiple Supreme Court cases to back this up.

You can't explain how corporations not being able to use the fifth amendment is a human affection.

People do not make violent descriptive threats to the president. They may make threat, but it certainly is not descriptive.

Actually if you would do your research the first amendment goes way past that. Maybe you should do some research of your own. Unless you believe that Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a case of petitioning the government.

The owners of the corporation have a fiduciary trust to the shareholder. What may be good for an individual might not be good for the corporation, so this allows executives to fulfill their fiduciary duty.

Amazing you did not answer my question if you would be ok with a corporation setting up a new class of preferred stock. Selling the preferred stock for 1 millions dollars to a select group of people. Then declaring one huge dividend to that stock, and having the dividend go to a PAC. Or better yet, the corporation unveils a new series of bonds that pay interest every presidential election, then the corporation can deduct the interest expense, and save money on taxes.

Why are you for limiting one kind of free speech, but having no restrictions on a different kind of speech?

[LetsGoWings]

Why are you trying to restrict the freedom of the press as well?

[LetsGoWings]

The citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance.

Duck please explain how these cases, all involving the freedom of speech, fall under this:

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, United States v. Williams, Gertz v. Robert Welch, inc., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., Miller v. California, Stanley v. Georgia, Morse v. Fredrick.

Those are just a few, I can continue to post more if you would like, but I think I have proven that freedom of speech cover a much broader topic than the citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance.

[ducksoup]

You are obviously running around now with not a whole lot constructive things to say, so you come up with the IBM headquarters.

Not so.  You contend that they are equal and fair because corporations cannot assemble at 2 am.  My use is just to show how stupid your comparison is.

So, since you mentioned signs, a corporation should not be able to purchase a huge sign in a park with flashing lights and bells and whistles that can be heard from miles away.

Signs, even political ones are regulated under local and county zoning.  Bad choice.

Why can't the poor people voice their opinion through the voting booth? That is the ultimate way to determine politics, you know one person one vote. Bill Gates has one vote in an election just like a poor person has one vote.

One person; one vote is core to your problem.   People can vote, but unless you can get Microsoft into a voting booth, even if they are people, they can’t vote; at least so far.  Here is where you mess it all up.  I do not have Bill Gates’ wealth, or that of Microsoft.  While Bill Gates and I are equal in that we both have one vote, and both can express free speech with our mouths, we are far from alike with regards to monetary free speech. Not to mention that Bill Gates can monetarily free speak millions more than me, he also can direct Microsoft to free speak millions more too.

Your devotion to money just shows that you believe that money is more important than people, that it has more of a right to speak than real genuine humans.

Again, compare apples to apples. OWS, or any other movement can buy ad time, just like the corporations can. You are comparing apples to oranges when you talk about money and demonstrations. I have multiple Supreme Court cases to back this up.

So, by your argument you believe that only money is free speech?  Why can’t you see that two forms or maybe even more forms of free speech can all be free speech?  Why is monetary free speech okay with you to be unlimited, yet actually speaking should be restricted?  By your laughable argument a group of people with no money and no residence (therefore unable to vote, especially if they don’t have a drivers license) have no right to free speech except in limited time and place and only if the government doesn’t want them shut up and make up cause to curtail speech even more.  Yet, you are fine with Bill Gates spending 100 billion dollars to speak his mind, and another 100 billion from Microsoft to say the same thing.

In one way you are correct that they are apples and oranges but only in relation to the volume of the voice, they are both fruit and likewise, monetary free speech and real human free speech are identical and should both be limited or both unlimited.  But, for you to say that a corporation is limited by not being able to protest at 2am like a real human is so hilarious a comparison.  It is just as ludicrous to compare the average working person’s available “monetary voice” as being anywhere even close to Bill Gates or Microsoft.

You can't explain how corporations not being able to use the fifth amendment is a human affection.

I guess I don’t get the idea of IBM and Microsoft in bed....

People do not make violent descriptive threats to the president. They may make threat, but it certainly is not descriptive.

Prove it.  I think I read that Obama gets something like 30 a day, every day.  Odds say that many are descriptive.

Yes, there are acknowledged exceptions to free speech, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  That is a carved out exception for a very good reason.  A group peacefully protesting does not fit that exception.

But, it still comes to... Why do you feel that unlimited money is fine as free speech, yet any other kind of free speech should be limited?  Why do you want humans to have impaired free speech rights? 

Actually if you would do your research the first amendment goes way past that. Maybe you should do some research of your own. Unless you believe that Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a case of petitioning the government.

Not sure what that is supposed to be about.  Hustler V Falwell... Falwell, a person sued Hustler and Larry Flint for libel and hurt feeling.  Falwell lost on libel, but won on having his feelings hurt. 

The owners of the corporation have a fiduciary trust to the shareholder. What may be good for an individual might not be good for the corporation, so this allows executives to fulfill their fiduciary duty.

LMAO

Amazing you did not answer my question if you would be ok with a corporation setting up a new class of preferred stock. Selling the preferred stock for 1 millions dollars to a select group of people. Then declaring one huge dividend to that stock, and having the dividend go to a PAC. Or better yet, the corporation unveils a new series of bonds that pay interest every presidential election, then the corporation can deduct the interest expense, and save money on taxes.

Even more amazing that I never saw your convoluted mess.  Whatever your intent it still comes back to you believing that money is a far superior voice of free speech and should not be limited while advocating that real humans must be restricted.

Why are you for limiting one kind of free speech, but having no restrictions on a different kind of speech?

I have argued two ways.  You feel unlimited for one and limited for another is fair, and I disagree.  I also do not believe that money should be free speech.  I believe that the implicit unfairness places an unfair burden on the common citizens.  How can there be fairness when all poor and middle class took every cent they made and pooled it together and it still would not equal up to just one corporate monetary voice.  Then if that corporation was “affectionate” with another it could double that amount, and then one more and triple it.  But, even more unfair is the one or few making the decisions for the corporate person still have their one vote to equal mine.






"Well, the banks aren't bad people. They're just overwhelmed right now."

-- Mitt Romney, quoted by Fox News, continuing his habit of comparing companies to people.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/25/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

Poor babies, guess they need a vacation, or more truthfully a nice long prison stay.  How does one put Bank of America in prison? 

[ducksoup]

Why are you trying to restrict the freedom of the press as well?

Wow, going far astray to try to argue your lame point. 

[ducksoup]

Duck please explain how these cases, all involving the freedom of speech, fall under this:

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, United States v. Williams, Gertz v. Robert Welch, inc., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., Miller v. California, Stanley v. Georgia, Morse v. Fredrick.

Those are just a few, I can continue to post more if you would like, but I think I have proven that freedom of speech cover a much broader topic than the citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance.

Well, being as you are a Constitutional expert I would have guessed you knew the difference from political speech and the freedom of press.  Guess you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[ducksoup]

Some rich dude just paid Gingrich 5 million for South Carolina and another 7 million for Florida.  That one rich dude is buying votes with his monetary voice that far outweighs his one vote to my one vote. 

Second, do you really honestly even remotely believe that Gingrich owes NOTHING in return for 12 million bucks (so far)?  And that is just one single person’s monetary voice.  He got heard by Gingrich; did I?

[LetsGoWings]

Well, being as you are a Constitutional expert I would have guessed you knew the difference from political speech and the freedom of press.  Guess you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Actually if you bothered to look the cases up you would see they involved freedom of speech, but I guess you just want to stick your head in the sand instead of admitting you were wrong. Nice jab in there again about the Holiday Inn, I guess that is what you have to do when I show multiple cases that show that freedom of speech is more than "the citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance."

You know what is funny, you commented on BigMike in another thread about getting insults in. However, you continue to throw out the Holiday Inn part, and I would be willing to bet you are trying to put it in there as an insult. Why do you feel the need to insult, why can we not have a normal discussion with all the extra BS?

[LetsGoWings]

Wow, going far astray to try to argue your lame point.

Not really, why are you trying to restrict freedom of the press. You should probably research some cases to find out what is considered press.