Posted on 01/22/2010 3:17:59 AM PST by Scanian
The Supreme Court yesterday confronted a fact in constitutional law that has been hard to justify: How is it that the First Amendment protects obscene speech, nude dancing and talk radio -- but permits Congress to shut down independent political messages from corporations and labor unions? Why do those groups get second-class status when politics, rather than, say, simulated child porn, is the topic?
In the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, couldn't be clearer: The federal ban on such independent expenditures is unconstitutional on its face: "Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I wonder how the Wise Latina voted /s
BS.
Corporations are fictions. They are not living, breathing flesh and blood humans.
They are made up of flesh and blood human beings. I also liken to this to the right of “peaceable assembly”
The First Amendment provides, 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.
Corporations are groups of people coming together for various purposes. In otherwords, a corporation is an assembly of living, breathing flesh and blood humans.
The First Amendment, without qualification, prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," and Congress shouldn't be allowed to prohibit a group of people from saying something that it could never prohibit any members of the group from saying individually. Especially where that speech is critical of the government.
oops...... “peaceful assembly” also covered in the First Amendment.
The wise latina was one of the four who voted against the decision.
Otherwise?
Yet not a single corporation has even so much as one vote on the ballot come election day.
Nobody can walk into the polling place and say “I’m casting the vote for corporation XYZ”
Boy Scouts of America can’t do it.
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers can’t do it.
The Red Cross can’t do it.
If they don;t have the right to cast a ballot, then we are not talking about freedom of choice or representative government.
We are talking about somebody (or someTHING) flat out buying what they want.
I’m going to have to read what the dissenters wrote. To me, this one should have been 9-zip. Maybe I have some old-fashioned concept of freedom of speech. I’m old enough.
4 liberals/marxists/statists/democrats on the court not suprisingly voted against freedom of speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.