re: The New York Times, a former newspaper, makes an impassioned case against Free Speech

quote:

---

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

---

Thanks for posting that - I was not in favor of the ruling even though it seemed to benefit my side.

I was totally unaware it did not apply to campaigns, but only to individuals.

I am still not comfortable with it, but that small clarification makes the bulk of my concern go away.

Why has this not been the rebuttal argument in all the TV panels? not even on FNC have I seen this expounded on.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ahhhh that makes sense. I understand your reasoning now

That makes perfect sense

It’s almost embarrassing that I didn’t understand that, and I have a graduate level education. Just makes you wonder how many people just don’t understand our right and laws. It also makes you wonder what if they did?

Learn something new everyday

quote:

---

We need campaign finance reform in this country in the worst way.

---

You got a little of that in the recent union decision by the USSC.

You're welcome.

(no message)

quote:

---

I just think that if a corporation is going to be considered different from an individual in some arenas (legal, taxation, etc.) then the conversation about its other rights should be fair game.

---

i said that

the issue is what differences in the entities (juridical v natural) justify removing the protections these rights offer

for example, is there a legitimate nexus between free speech and limited liability?

(no message)

(no message)

Klavan nailed it right off the bat on his podcast. Killed it.