 
|
Haven’t heard about this on the nightly news, have you?
On one hand, she was just doing her job as Solicitor General and this may not reflect her personal feelings or how she might rule when on the Court. On the other hand, what’s up with Obama promoting crapola like this?
According to an explosive special report on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s views on the First Amendment right to free speech, in September of 2009 Kagan encouraged the Court to adhere to a new philosophy on the First Amendment that would allow the government to censor posters, pamphlets, and TV and radio content–and the Internet.
In a stunning news report issued today by CNS, the following information was disclosed:
“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Even liberal Justice Ginsberg questioned Kagan about the policy, inquiring as to whether or not the same principle could be used to ban books.
That’s right. Kagan and Obama are against Free Speech.
So there. It’s out there. The deed is done.
Bush and friends were against free speech. It was alright back then. No one counterDICKS the decider and his associates.
Ok, this is misleading bullshit. This was in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and they were talking about limiting corporations not individuals.
Let me see, you have a moonbat president, and a moonbat congress (for now). Did you really think you were not going to get a moonbat nomination?
Elections have consequences.
Yep, misleading BS. The issue was about letting corporations spend as much as they wanted, without limits, to influence elections.
The same old BS, corporations wanting to be treated like people under the Constitution.
How much free speech can you afford? How would you feel if your Senator or Congressman won election because of millions of dollars poured into his campaign fund by big corporations? Who do you think he’d be representing? (Hint: not you.)
“The Chair recognizes the Senator from Exxon.”
Free speech is for individuals, not corporations. Prohibiting corporations from using their billions to influence elections is the right thing to do.
Or to put it another way: Are you comfortable with the idea of Exxon spending millions for ads supporting a particular candidate for office? Do you really think a candidate elected because a corporation spends millions on his campaign is really going to be able to effective represent the people in his district?
Think about it before you start wetting your pants and crying censorship.
In my mind, corporations get the right to free speech the very moment they get the right to vote.
“On the other hand, what’s up with Obama promoting crapola like this?” /// What crapola are you thinking of.
The details are missing but this sounds like a move to restrict big coroporate spending close to an election “that mentions a candidates name.” Seems to me that anyone interested in “free” speech would want much greater restrictions than these.
We could start by Corps actually paying the taxes they owe? That would give them less money to buy results with than they already have.
The real corruption will not be politicians being bought directly but rather politicians not wanting the same pile of money going to their opponents.
Looks like “No Political Speech” for Corporations should be the rule.
Phydeau: “Free speech is for individuals, not corporations. Prohibiting corporations from using their billions to influence elections is the right thing to do.”
Sure. So the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting could be censored if they choose not to endorse the next Dem candidate?
How about that little free advertising weekly your town publishes? Do they not get to publish an editorial that is not nice to Obama?
You’re naive if you think corps haven’t been spending millions (billions) on political campaigns already.
Saying that pamphlets do not meet the test for protected speech just makes me wonder what would have happened if these people had been around when the Federalist Papers were published.
Please excuse me if I give little credence to an article that has a photo caption stating “Liberal elitist minions at Harvard applaud Kagan’s nomination.”
(I’d give just as much respect to an article that showed applauding republicans with a caption “The Neo-Nazi’s applaud W, their Fuhrer.”)
Liberals are all for free speech as long as they agree with the message.
This is from the Supreme Court case that so many on this site hated. This was the key factor in swinging the Court in this direction. The government held that they could ban books.
Free speech should apply to individuals even if they choose to join together in groups called corporations. I do not surrender my 1st amendment rights, my 2nd amendment rights, or any other rights when I choose to form a corporation.
Kagan and Obama were wrong on this.
#13–Benji==what a wildly misinformed notion you have of what a corporation, an individual, or yourself actually is.
But, at least you are consistent.
#9–Animby==again, the details are missing in the linked article, but restrictions on corporations are warranted. Why are you so gung ho to give Money, and the corportions that have it, so much power over actual people?
I don’t like it, but looks like public funding of elections should be the next move. It will have its own issues and challenges, but we are well down the totally wrong road here.
Quote the Kagan: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
That is NOT just against Corporations. No mention of them. That is for everyone and definitely not free speech as in Constitution (where no social cos were mentioned).
Alex, I’ll take Corporate Speech as a given category of speech for $500.
I’m confused. A few months ago, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were united across the board (at around 80%) in opposition to the supreme court ruling on the issue of corporate campaign financing.
http://tinyurl.com/yd5eyw3
Now, repugnicans who just want to oppose Obama on whatever he does and whoever he picks suddenly don’t like a supreme court justice nominee who also opposes the same decision that we all hated just a few months ago.
Do I have that correct?
As several people have already pointed out, this question is not about human free speech, it’s about corporations having the rights that humans have for free speech.
The governmental structure is on the verge of a total breakdown. I myself am interested in how all of this is going to work out.
On topic: Corporations in my opinion are NOT entitled to free speech. They are not citizens, many are multinational and do not have inherent interests in rights or the welfare of the country or the citizens. Maybe some very limited form of free speech, but definitely not First Amendment style.
#9 Yes, it’s bad enough already. This recent Supreme Court decision just makes it worse.
So, answer the questions, if you dare: Are you happy with Exxon spending millions of dollars to elect a particular candidate? Do you think such a candidate, if elected primarily because Exxon paid for tons of advertising, would be able to serve his constituents without being unduly influenced by Exxon?
A great quote from Anatole France:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Likewise, our Supreme Court, in its majestic equality, has given anyone with millions of dollars, Joe Sixpack or Exxon alike, the freedom to buy elections. How much more equal and free can we be, folks???
(Psst, that was sarcasm…)
#19 You make an excellent point Hmeyers… most big corporations are multinationals and don’t give a sh*t about America.
So how’s that sit with you right-wingers? Shall we give big corporations who don’t give a sh*t about America the right to buy elections? Or should I say, even more of a right than they have now…
Whatever happened to America first, rah rah rah? Why are you wingnuts so obsequious to the big money boys? Weird.
#6 Phydeau – you should consider this equally plausible scenario:
Are you comfortable with the idea of George Soros, the billionaire financier, or Michael Moore spending millions for ads and movies supporting a particular left-wing candidate for office?
Do you really think a candidate elected because a few Hollywood elite insiders spend millions on his campaign is really going to be able to effective represent the people in his district?
#23 jbenson2, you obviously don’t get the difference between individual American citizens spending big bucks vs corporations spending big bucks. I’m OK with individual American citizens spending big bucks on elections, even right-wing billionaire individuals. What I’m not OK with is big corporations spending big bucks on elections, especially ones that don’t have the interest of America first.
Which is all of them, really… even if they’re 100% American companies, their only reason for existing is to maximize shareholder value, regardless of how it might harm America. That’s the way the corporate system is set up.
Actually, I’m not that OK with individual American citizens spending millions or billions to influence elections, but that has more of a foundation in the Constitution than allowing corporations to influence elections.
In order to protect their newly-recognized right of free speech, corporations will also now have the right to keep and bear arms.
A better title is Are Democrats and George Bush against Free Speech, since they passed the campaign finance law that the Supremes threw out.
Why is this guy wearing pearl earrings?
New Rules:
• Corporations only gain Free Speech rights after they turn 21 and register to vote.
• All corporations older than 110 years of age will be deemed senile.
• All corporations must register with the Selective Service.
• No corporation under the age of 18 may drink or vote.
• All corporations over the age of 18 may be fucked.
While we’re on the topic of corporate free speech, can we recognize that mainstream media is also largely major corporations? Any possibility of ever getting the Fairness Doctrine back?
http://tinyurl.com/6pnta
Nah. That would be way too much to hope for.