Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections

[The Good Reverend Roger]

FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT

A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.

That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.

That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.

Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.

If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.

It would remain the most effective recourse, to stop buying Nike products and to burn down the estates of the people at Nike who are responsible.  A populace not prepared to make this happen will continue to get shat on.

Sure, and I think that anarchy would be far better than democracy in some fantasy world where humans behaved like self-regulated, responsible individuals with some modicum of self-control, altruism and an understanding of how some short term decisions affect long term goals.

Sadly, we live in a nation where we not only buy Nike shoes, we pay insane sums of money for Nike shoes and sometimes people kill each other for Nike shoes.

Now, if you're arguing that 2/3rds of Americans deserve it because they wear short skirts, low cut tops, have a tramp stamp and a cardboard sign that says "Will suck your dick for another episode of 'American Idol'"

Well, then ok I agree.

I'm kinda looking forward to the next few years.

[Captain Utopia]

FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT

A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.

That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.

That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.

Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS.  Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is.  I have the freedom to cherry-pick.

To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other.  But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm.  Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT

A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.

That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.

That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.

Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS.  Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is.  I have the freedom to cherry-pick.

To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other.  But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm.  Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.

Yeah.  Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.

[Payne]

Also, Payne is a GOD.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.

When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.

[Iason Ouabache]

Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.


The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings.  If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it.  But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.

That's what I'm pissed about.

Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.

[Iason Ouabache]

By the way, anytime you want to judge what you should be "happy" about in government, take a look at what Fox News is celebrating.  You don't want to be toasting with them, just saying.

The Religious Right is cheering this on too, which scares the fuck out of me.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/citizens-united-win-regular-guy

[Eater of Clowns]

Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.


The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings.  If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it.  But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.

That's what I'm pissed about.

Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.

Yeah, they really should have stayed more true to their mora-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.


The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings.  If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it.  But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.

That's what I'm pissed about.

Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.

I told you fuckers this decade would be even funnier than the last one. 

[Captain Utopia]

Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS.  Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is.  I have the freedom to cherry-pick.

To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other.  But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm.  Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.

Yeah.  Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.

That would be problematic.  But they've tried before and they'll try again.  At least in the short-term they have everything to gain, and little to lose by trying.

If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.

When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.

I am undecided on the second point, but even if I did agree completely, I don't know of a satisfactory way to precisely determine the flow of money in a very short time-frame, given that reality is never as clear-cut, and there isn't time to perform a complete investigation.  If a bank gives some banker a stupidly large multi-million dollar bonus this year, and that banker makes a film for the 2012 elections - how can you say absolutely whether that was or wasn't part of some backroom deal?

[Iason Ouabache]

Oh fuck, the Glibertarians are dancing in the streets about this too:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS.  Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is.  I have the freedom to cherry-pick.

To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other.  But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm.  Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.

Yeah.  Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.

That would be problematic.  But they've tried before and they'll try again.  At least in the short-term they have everything to gain, and little to lose by trying.

If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.

When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.

I am undecided on the second point, but even if I did agree completely, I don't know of a satisfactory way to precisely determine the flow of money in a very short time-frame, given that reality is never as clear-cut, and there isn't time to perform a complete investigation.  If a bank gives some banker a stupidly large multi-million dollar bonus this year, and that banker makes a film for the 2012 elections - how can you say absolutely whether that was or wasn't part of some backroom deal?

You can't.

I'm not saying that you can keep this from happening... but there's a big difference between saying that the horse might be able to kick out the back wall of his stall and just leaving the barn doors wide open. The Courts just opened the barn doors.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm not saying that you can keep this from happening... but there's a big difference between saying that the horse might be able to kick out the back wall of his stall and just leaving the barn doors wide open. The Courts just opened the barn doors.

Okay - so you don't grant freedom of speech to corporations and instead craft a DMCA type law, where citizen enforcers can "flag" content as being from a paid shill of George Soros' corporation or Nike.. so the content gets removed "pending review" on a case-by-case basis.  Except, like the DMCA  as it currently plays out on YouTube, actually fighting it takes time and/or money.  By which time the election is over anyway - the people with the most money still win and the people with none are effectively censored.

Isn't it simpler to deal with the negative consequences of allowing individuals within corporations collectively expressing their freedom of speech?

[Baron Von Stevenstein]

THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER.  YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON.  THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.

That's different from how the government treated citizens already?

Always assumed I was just another asset to the State.

[Triple Zero]

THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER.  YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON.  THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.

THIS.

everybody, please to note: MONEY SUCKING LEECH is not a MONKEY but worse

no matter how retarded monkeys can be.

not our species and get this, above us in the food chain.

if you ever wondered it's about time some "natural" predator enters the scene and starts eating humans, look no further. it's the corporations, it's the Machine.

what did you think?

you can't really prey on humans with tooth and claw anymore. and hell, humans probably don't really taste good anymore either, with all that smoking and eating chemicals going on.

so instead they prey on our ideas, opinions and spirit.

and the weird trick they are playing on us, is that They seem to be Made of Us. and this boggles our minds to no end, because we can't be our own enemy can we?

usually it's always one group that is eating, killing, conquering, enslaving or domesticating the other group. and this is a good thing for the one group and a bad thing for the other.

so if we end up domesticating and enslaving ourselves, is this good or bad? that is hella confusing.

at least, it seems to be, until you see how the other group is made up of the one group, but they are not the same Thing. what we call Machine is enslaving the Free Man. and that is why we are Discordia, to remain unfertile soil for the Machine.