Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens

Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.

GunGeek: By serendipity, I was not far off base as to what some of our "leaders" have in store for us.

Senator Ed Markey has current proposed legislation pending which would allow government to oversee "hate speech" on various media because of its effect on hate crime...things like the recent Kansas shootings are the result of such hate speech,he thinks.

So the government gets to be the judge of what kind of 1st Amendment expression constitutes "hate speech" and can curtail it....or punish it.....Mmmm.

On the Constitution....Justice Scalia recently said in a speech that the Constitution is not a "living document" that can be twisted around at will.As he said, it's THE LAW....even if it's inconvenient at times.

I agree with him.

Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.

That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.

Unions are corporations.

Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:

When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.

What was your point in typing that if not to advocate for restraining their speech? That they would restrain their own speech? If so you may want to consider leading by example.

All of that's beside the point, of course, that it's not your place to decide who gets to say what.

You seem to lack discernment. There's a world of difference between restraining and eliminating. I'm advocating placing some monetary limits on corporations. I am NOT advocating taking away all free speech or all political monetary donation. All I'm advocating is leveling the playing field.

Why are you so willing to give up the political process to corporations?

The First Amendment prevents restraining free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition government. Why are you so willing to pull the teeth of the First Amendment?

You seem to lack discernment. There's a world of difference between restraining and eliminating. I'm advocating placing some monetary limits on corporations. I am NOT advocating taking away all free speech or all political monetary donation. All I'm advocating is leveling the playing field.

Why are you so willing to give up the political process to corporations?

No it doesn't and you know it. ALL rights have some limitations.

So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?

I think you�re trying to direct this conversation the way YOU want it to go. So let�s clarify.

First ConradCA said: �Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.�

I clarified with:� Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.�

YOU jumped in and said that I was saying corporations shouldn�t have free speech - � Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:

When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.�


So when you said that, I take it you�re saying I�m calling for corporations to lose their right to free speech altogether; that is NOT what I�m calling for and never have. I have on more occasions caveated my comments by saying that corporations must have a seat at the table�in order for them to have a seat at the table, they must have free speech; I thought that was intuitively obvious.



So next you jump in with: �You seem to lack the ability to be ingenuous. You�re caught red handed but won�t acknowledge it and you speak in vague terms such as, �leveling the playing field�, which is code for restricting speech.

Who are you to tell others what they can�t say? Even if they�re evil corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings doing corporationy things?�

Let�s start with the first part: I�m not caught red handed (or maybe I am) because I have CLEARLY been calling for restrictions on free speech for corporations from the get go; I don�t deny that. Leveling the playing field is a vague term since I haven�t gotten into specific details about how I would craft such legislation; I�m merely pointing out the problem at this point.

Now to your second point: Again, I�m pointing out the problem�Who am I to tell others what they can�t say? I haven�t told anyone anything; try to keep up. This is about recognizing a very serious problem with our legislative and elective system.

In case you missed it, please read this and don�t read INTO it.

Since the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, corporations now have unlimited free speech in relation to the political process. This is a problem, since corporations can ALWAYS out-spend the individual, and therefore always get their way.

If we had a system where corporations had absolutely NO say, and people could just take whatever they want from corporations; wouldn�t that be horrible? So why is it okay when it�s the other way around?

If one sector (whichever that sector is) completely owns the legislative process; how on earth can that be good for America � Just answer that one question if you will.

Way too much "who struck John". Condense it please. Better yet, restrict your speech.

Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.

The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.

Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.

The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.