Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[Xiahou]

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns,

No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail.

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The SCOTUS noted that the first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The important bits for this case:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress did make a law abridging the freedom of speech - specifically banning certain speech near an election. Therefore it got struck down.

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

CR

[HoreTore]

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

[Subotan]

Money != Speech

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, CR and the right on here doesn't recognize the legal precedent of restricting rights given in the constitution for the safety and well being for the public. He seems to think he is still allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one and have no responsibility for the 82 year old trampled to death because it was his right to free speech.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Again, CR and the right on here doesn't recognize the legal precedent of restricting rights given in the constitution for the safety and well being for the public. He seems to think he is still allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one and have no responsibility for the 82 year old trampled to death because it was his right to free speech.

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

Was it now? Fanatical you may be, but more fanatical than me? I think not.

Also, I was speaking about American 'progressives', like the people mentioned in the story.

Money != Speech

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

You fail at recognizing reality. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says and the Constitution was left purposely vague for a reason. The creators behind the Constitution did not think the document would be around for a long time and did not see it as a static document with a set of definitive instructions.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are allowed because the purpose of the free speech clause of the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court was not to provide a legal loophole for people to incite violence and danger with their language, but to protect the ability of the public to criticism and complain. As such, the free speech clause of the first amendment was not created with the idea that a company should be able to spend as much money as they want on the candidate that will suit them best. Just as shouting fire in a crowded theater poses a threat to the public, so does rampant unchecked money contributions from powerful companies. Therefor, the ability of private contributions toward candidates should be eliminated completely from both companies and actual American citizens (following the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment) and a set amount of public funding should be handed out to all candidates with no more to be spent.

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?CR

I wouldn't complain. The purpose of a news corporation is to provide news. I don't see how Fox News telling me to vote for Palin counts as news. If individuals on the news channels being interviewed talk about who they support, then that is their right.

[HoreTore]

Was it now? Fanatical you may be, but more fanatical than me? I think not.

If I rememver correctly, you support banning incitements to hatred, calls for violence and stuff like that, which I believe is fully within the bounds of free speech and not something we should punish people for...

Sorry if I got that mixed up with someone else though.

[KukriKhan]

Money != Speech

Isn't that the crux: Corporations = Other People's Money = louder speech?

[Xiahou]

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.

Gee, let's see. The ruling did nothing about the prohibition on corporate donations to political campaigns. So, therefore, corporations do not have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding campaigns. I, as an individual, can directly fund a politician's campaign. A corporation cannot. The Post's story is factually false- it's really that simple.

I think it's kinda sad that a reputable paper can't even get the basic facts straight before it runs with a story like that....