Roberts Court Overturns Yet Another Precedent in Favor of Corporate Campaign Cash

but code pink could do the same thing?

 

It would be immoral for NBC to air such an infomercial, but it would be their right.

Words are nothing to fear.

 

Whatever restictions have been tolerated are unconstitutional. Segregation was tolerated until it was deemed unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Help me figure out how any restriction on political speech is compliant with that statement.

 

Well Hitler wouldn't have that right, he is not protected by the US constitution, but an American airing Hitler's words would.

You seem to think that you can come up with speech that is objectionable enough to warrant censorship, but the whole point of the 1st Amendment is that all speech, no matter how objectionable, is protected.

 

So you believe that if a person starts screaming about bombs while on an airplane, there should be no legal penalty at all, right? Or if a person makes a threat against a President (or any other government official)?

 

I'm saying whether that right is protected depends on the speaker.

We are under no obligation as Americans to protect Hitler's free speech rights, but he does have them, as all humans do by virtue of their existence.

 

I think you can be responsible for the effects of your speech, but not the speech itself.

Yelling fire in my shower or in a theater is the same speech, but the effects are different. The crime would be causing a disturbance, not the means used to achieve it.

 

What is currently criminalized, however, is the speech. If I yell about a bomb in an airport, I am in trouble no matter whether it actually causes a disturbance or not. Do you think that's wrong?

Similarly, I'm in far more trouble if I am yelling and screaming about a bomb as opposed to if I'm yelling and screaming about a ghost - even if the disturbance caused is the same. Do you think the penalty should be the same?

 

Liberal public radio already airs those programs, saving bin
laden some money.

 

That's what we have judges and juries for, to make those kinds of judgements. Was there intent to cause a disturbance, how significant was the disturbance, all would be considered when deciding guilt and punishment.

But it's a huge leap to use that type of situation to justify censoring political speech.

 

as Shovel's linked article states, government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits.

 

But your argument is that the right to free speech is absolute and with no conditions at all. If so, then it's not a huge leap at all - political speech would be no different than any other type of speech. So if I yell about a bomb in an airport but it doesn't cause any real damage, should it be protected just like any other speech?

 

The terrorists of logic, practicality and democracy have won if you let this decision's discussion live in the realm of "free speech."

Again, someone please tell me why corporations, including multi-national corporations, won't spend at least a fraction of 1% of their profits to swamp existing funding and totally transform the political and policy landscape of the US.

So far, we've heard that shareholders would oppose this, but: (1) we established most shareholders have no voice in corporate governance, and (2) the largest share-holders, if they have any greed combined with intelligence, will be begging their executives to pursue political funding post haste.