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.
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?