- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/1/18 at 8:48 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
The Citizens United campaign finance ruling that said corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to political organizations based on the first amendment.
yeah, why wouldn't they be able to?
quote:
The first amendment shouldn’t have anything to do with free speech.
quote:
We need campaign finance reform in this country in the worst way.
Citizens United didn't allow money to be given to campaigns, bro
Posted on 7/1/18 at 8:48 am to Lsupimp
the failing NYT times is against free speech
Posted on 7/1/18 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The first amendment shouldn’t have anything to do with free speech
Typo. I edited.
quote:
yeah, why wouldn't they be able to?
Please tell me what part of the constitution discusses campaign finance? And how you justify a union being considered an individual?
quote:
Citizens United didn't allow money to be given to campaigns, bro
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.“
Posted on 7/1/18 at 8:56 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Please tell me what part of the constitution discusses campaign finance?
Citizens United doesn't deal with campaign finance
quote:
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.“
yes. not a campaign finance issue
Citizens United is about individuals and associations of individuals being able to promote their own political views through their own groups or groups they wish to donate to, not including campaigns. the case was about the FEC limiting the airing of a documentary on cable TV (not subject to FCC regulation) b/c it was too close to an election and was seen as being too political/slanted towards one side. you really want to make the government able to censor political content on cable and the internet if a business organization is behind the creation/distribution of that content? really?
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Citizens United is about individuals and associations of individuals being able to promote their own political views through their own groups or groups they wish to donate to, not including campaigns. the case was about the FEC limiting the airing of a documentary on cable TV (not subject to FCC regulation) b/c it was too close to an election and was seen as being too political/slanted towards one side. you really want to make the government able to censor political content on cable and the internet if a business organization is behind the creation/distribution of that content? really?
I've come to a conclusion about people who think Citizen United is a bad decision:
1) They've never actually read the decision and rely on lazy on journalism for its sibstance; or
2) They're authoritarians.
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Citizens United is about individuals and associations of individuals being able to promote their own political views through their own groups or groups they wish to donate to, not including campaigns. the case was about the FEC limiting the airing of a documentary on cable TV (not subject to FCC regulation) b/c it was too close to an election and was seen as being too political/slanted towards one side. you really want to make the government able to censor political content on cable and the internet if a business organization is behind the creation/distribution of that content? really?
You are right. I was wrong.
After looking into it more I do agree with the ruling. They misrepresented the ruling in that article. Thanks for pointing that out to me
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:02 am to Lsupimp
This is a perfect example of the massive problems with identity politics.
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:03 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
1) They've never actually read the decision and rely on lazy on journalism for its sibstance; or
the culprit
see above: people think it's about donating to campaigns when it's not
at last tax treatment of 501 organizations has some legitimate merit to discuss, but nope...it's about "campaign finance"
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:04 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
fter looking into it more I do agree with the ruling. They misrepresented the ruling in that article. Thanks for pointing that out to me
nbd. that view is common and i basically have that post copied in my head ready to paste
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:04 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
I've come to a conclusion about people who think Citizen United is a bad decision: 1) They've never actually read the decision and rely on lazy on journalism for its sibstance; or
That’s exactly what I did (something I usually don’t do). Shame on me, but that’s why I come here to be educated
quote:
This is a perfect example of the massive problems with identity politics.
It’s not solely identity politics. I’m as conservative as they come. I think misleading journalism is the culprit here.
This post was edited on 7/1/18 at 9:06 am
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:05 am to WaWaWeeWa
You aren't the only one. General rule of thumb, journalist make terrible lawyers.
This post was edited on 7/1/18 at 9:07 am
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:06 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
This is a perfect example of the massive problems with identity politics.
it really does flow with my "capitalism is freedom. freedom breeds inequality" argument about socialism these days
those with more resources have "more" freedom, so freedom is bad because output is not equal
and these morons fear fascism
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
The problem is that everything is viewed through a result-oriented lens of how it affects the group. It is a building block to authoritarianism.
Is freedom of speech good?
How does it affect my subgroup and which group is speaking? Oh, it can negatively effect my subgroup, then the speaking group shall not have that right.
When you step back, it's disgusting that anyone would actually think like this.
Is freedom of speech good?
How does it affect my subgroup and which group is speaking? Oh, it can negatively effect my subgroup, then the speaking group shall not have that right.
When you step back, it's disgusting that anyone would actually think like this.
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:14 am to CrimsonTideMD
quote:Which means this belief is being taught and their students and legal colleagues that accept this belief could easily wind up as fed judges if we let the prog filth ever regain power.
But coming from instructors at 2 of the best law schools in the country
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:14 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
The problem is that everything is viewed through a result-oriented lens of how it affects the group. It is a building block to authoritarianism.
not just this, they view everything as a group so the differences in "power structures" are everything
quote:
Is freedom of speech good?
that depends. how much power (ironing) are we given to redefine terms (Sometimes decades after popular use) to attack our political enemies?
because if we can't do this, then Free Speech is not good at all
quote:
When you step back, it's disgusting that anyone would actually think like this.
oh i agree
hell just look at the part i quoted on page 1 or so where the professor is like we used to think this was good when our ideals were being protected but now after that's settled and another group gets a shot, we realize this was a bad plan". it's just downright evil
*ETA: and like i said later, applicable to other parts of the 1A like the protections of the press
This post was edited on 7/1/18 at 9:15 am
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
While I do agree you were right about the ruling. I don’t agree that corporations should be considered individuals, or atleast have every right of an individual. Corporations by definition are saying they are different from an individual when they have certain protections such as limited liability. So it seems inconsistent to also say they should have every right an individual has. Do you disagree? Maybe you can change my mind
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:26 am to WaWaWeeWa
well the starter is that legal liability doesn't really have a nexus with protections of rights
i understand that a juridical entity has some legal differences with an individual, but do those differences create a distinction that should strip rights away, too?
i understand that a juridical entity has some legal differences with an individual, but do those differences create a distinction that should strip rights away, too?
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:43 am to Kriegschwein
quote:
In a democracy, the more speech the better. How is this not understood?
The academics making these statements were nursed on Mao, Castro, Sandinistas, and any other form of communism you can think of. They were raised on a democracy deficit diet. They've also focused their entire lives on proving to themselves just how smart they are to such a degree that they can not see how stupid they have become.
Posted on 7/1/18 at 9:50 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I don’t agree that corporations should be considered individuals, or atleast have every right of an individual.
They aren't consider individuals; they are juridical entities separate and apart from their owners. This isn't a new thing. It's been this way since Justinian.
And, as it concerns rights, the right of freedom of speech is a limitation on government action not a positive right for use by entities, individual or juridical. Thus, we view this right in terms of government, rather than private, action. The question is - is the government using its power to prohibit or freeze the expression of political opinion? If the answer is yes, then, outside some very narrow circumstances, it is a First Amendment violation. The political expression and who expresses it are somewhat irrelevant.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News