Jon Stewart doesn't understand the Constitution or Bill of Rights

The thing about those documents, those words can mean anything they want.

Its nonsense, giving rights to corporations, like people, or is jordan maxwell right, lol?

reply to post by andy1033


See that's my thinking. That it's utterly ridiculous to grant "rights" to corporations. Rights are established as precedent, usually irrevocable. We should never have this type of mentality in law on something so vague and over reaching in favor of corporations.

reply to post by mryanbrown


ID check at film theaters isn't law, it's corporate practice.

Please, be informed about laws before you comment on them.

Children may be able to buy certain games at certain outlets, but I remember I couldn't buy GTA III when it first came out with my own money, I had to give my parents the money to buy it for me. This was at a Best Buy. Best Buy doesn't have to do this, but they do it anyway.

Now, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, many times, under the strict power they were given under the Constitution. Congress can make a law, but the Supreme Court can rule it to be unConstitutional, it is their sole power to interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution is a secular document, that much is clear from both Supreme Court rulings and Jefferson's writings on it and the text itself. It's a document that makes no reference to an established religion for the nation....and what does that have to do with speech regulations?

The Constitution is a liberal document as well, in that it guarantees liberties.

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.

Back then there were only two ways to get your message heard, either you spoke it or you published it. These days we have methods that we would be at a loss to explain to our founders. It is a necessary and proper extrapolation of the rights in the first amendment to protect the rights to expression in the arts. Painting, photography, films, television shows, etc. As long as they aren't broadcast, they're not subject to much in terms of regulation.

Are video games being broadcast? No, you have to consciously pay money to experience them.

Video game regulations are just as unConstitutional as regulations on the film industry. The MPAA self-regulates, it doesn't require the government to do so.

Show me a single law on the books preventing children from seeing an R-rated movie. Just one.
...seeing as film is a personal calling of mine, I can tell you that you won't even find one. The theaters, in an effort to protect their business interests, don't allow people under certain ages into movies that have ratings that they impose upon themselves.

Leave the video games to the same system.

I hate it when the short bus drops off tourists.
I tell you what scares me even more is that Stewart and Cobert are even viewed as viable news sources.
Can we please hit the reset button now.

Just about everyone is ignorant of the Constitution, including almost all Americans, especially anyone in politics or media.

The Constitution does not authorize the U.S. government to nanny video game content in any way. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Please read the 9th and 10th Amendments.

@madness - I never said it was, but thanks for putting words in my mouth to aid your post.

I'm absolutely astonished at some of the replies. That you honestly think corporations are deserving of person-hood or even more that you can't "nanny-state" i.e. regulate commerce.

I don't even know where to begin in pointing out how flawed I believe that is. If you accept something "just because" and ignore the historical evolution of law then there's really nothing that can be said.

Originally posted by Beevowiz
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

The supreme court has recently ruled, that corporations are "people" allowing them to donate without restriction to political campaigns.

and that is the most rediculous ruling that's been made. a corporation is a business entity, the bill of rights pertains to human beings. to associate the two as being alike, is the most insane thing i have ever heard of.
critical-thinking has left the building of the supreme court. the very word "judge" implies reason and critical-thinking...this ruling is nonsense

reply to post by jimmyx


jimmy, the argument is that the 14th Amendment (*cough* longer debate *cough*) granted corporations this person-hood! So they are equal! Apparently that had something to do with freeing the slaves and the civil war?

When in reality the 14th Amendment was essentially earmarked I guess you could say to establish corporate supremacy deserving of rights and thus owed a voice of sorts in government leading to lobbyists Amazing!

What exactly is the point of this thread?
Jon Stewart?
I watch the Daily Show regularly and have never once heard him make light of rape or incest. Even comedians I can think of that *do* bring up rape in their routines (Louis CK and Bill Hicks come to mind) do so in an arch manner... the point is never 'isn't rape hilarious?', it's 'isn't it sad/horrible that there are people who act/think this way'. Furthermore, Stewart has always been quick to point out that his show is political satire and not news. I have no doubt the idea that people 'get their news' from the Daily Show doesn't sit well with him.

First Amendment Issues?
All forms of speech and expression, creative (books, film, videogames, music) or otherwise, *need* to be protected so long as they don't exist specifically to incite violence. It doesn't matter how distasteful you find the work in question. If I wanted to write a novel about Jesus returning to earth as a heavy-handed and abusive pimp who goes on to become a misogynist serial killer... I have every right to do that. If a publisher feels they can make money off it, they have every right to publish said book. If a book store feels like they can sell the book, they have every right to carry it. And if a private citizen wishes to read the book, they have every right to purchase it. To quote Phil Pullman: 'No one has a right to go through life without being offended."

Video Games?
Why is it incumbent on game publishers to ensure their product doesn't get into the hands of children (if the product in question is geared for a mature audience)? The ESRB makes ratings for games *far* more visible than film ratings on dvd's/bd's. It's right there on the front cover. 4 times the size that movie ratings appear on their packaging.
The responsibility falls:
1) On the retailer. We don't force film studios to ensure their adult oriented products aren't sold to children, we leave that responsibility with the retailer/theatre/rental store. Games should be handled the same way.
2) On the parent. Seriously, if you have kids, it's not society's place to parent them for you. If your 7 year old is demanding you buy them Shoot People in the Face 2: The Re-Shootening, you have the power to say 'no'. You also have the responsibility to research the game and decide whether or not you feel it's appropriate for your child. Don't buy Axe-Murder 5: Back in Axetion for your toddler and then get all all indignant after the fact because it's a game about axe murdering people.

my 0.02

reply to post by mryanbrown


I totally agree, and I am a fan of Jon Stewart but, sometimes he and Colbert just make me feel a little awkward. (This is still far better than nauseous which is how I feel listening to Hannity, Beck and Greg Gutfeld )
I get what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are trying to say, but I can also understand why people are offended by the failed attempts at tongue in cheek humor.
Sometimes they remind me of PETA.
A great idea. Who can be against the ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS?
A perfectly wonderful position and concept that loses an awful lot of VALUABLE people (i.e.SUPPORT) because so many individuals are offended, and turned off, by the "packaging of the message."

It is not a perfect world however - I have to appreciate at least "they try" to improve it.

reply to post by FuzzyDunlop


I can almost completely agree with all of that. I think the only issue I see, and apparently fail at conveying is that for instance in your example. Writing a book.

I'm not suggesting denying you as a person from writing a book, or creating a movie, or a video game, etc.
I'm saying that denying a corporation the ability still allows YOU as a person to create.

People only really have an issue with the profit motive when it's for commercial gain. You can get paid for writing a book, making a movie or creating a video game by a self employed artist selling to other private individuals.

You don't need corporations to have rights to guarantee yours. They are mutually exclusive.

reply to post by mryanbrown


I agree that you don't need corporate patronage to create, *however* the goal of most creatives is to share their creations with as many people as possible, and the corporations that distribute creative work have a stranglehold on the market. Self publishing is easy (provided you have the financial resources to do so), it's the distribution end where you'll get stonewalled. Play in an independent band? good luck getting your songs on anything other than college radio stations (payola is back, only now it's called 'clear channel' and is a corporation. yay). Just completed an independent movie? good luck getting it into more than a handful of art-house theatres when the studios control the distribution and the profit margins for ticket sales at theatres is basically non-existent (hence the 20$ popcorn) which means a theatre isn't going to set aside a screen for something that won't continually fill the seats (which is due to studios wielding advertising like a blunt instrument, not an intrinsic lack of quality in indie films). Books? good luck getting your self-published novel into a large book chain without being part of the publishing industry.
Now.. of course there are always indie, mom and pop book stores and record stores that would be happy to stock your self-published work... except, wait, a new big box store just opened up in the community and put the mom and pop operations out of business.
And videogames.... well, I've never seen an independently published game for a console, so that's strictly the realm of PC gaming.

As for your statements regarding big business having the rights of a private citizen - I agree completely with you. It's ridiculous. A business, big or small isn't a person, and shouldn't be granted the rights given to private citizens. Although, I feel they should still be given first amendment protection, as limiting a companies ability for free speech would in turn limit the free speech of those creating for them (in the case of the entertainment/creative industries).

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by StinkFist

 

That's a good point you brought up. Even I wasn't aware it included expression. As expressing ones self is not the same as speech. But I suppose that's a much longer discussion.

But I assert that being unable to play a game does not hinder a humans right to self expression OR speech. But as the previous poster mentioned. Our supreme court doesn't recognize that corporations don't have rights, they have privileges which can be revoked or granted at any time. As profit is not essential to life (it only appears so now as we've allowed it to go this far).

The game is written by human beings whom are being censored for their expression.

I think you have a problem with J. Stewart in some respects and now your trying to make him into a total devil.
Just admit he made comments you did not agree with and move on. Not everything he does is bad because of that one comment you disliked.

Also, your original point was proven wrong so you go on to say the supreme court is illegal (maybe thats not exactly the correct term but its close) then you go onto argue how stupid it is they recognize corporations as individuals. You were wrong originally, the law is what it is...let's just bury this topic and move on already. Arguing why a law is enacted does nothing unless your a politician who can change it.

Why is it when people have on disagreement on one topic they become bitter enemies? Its stupid and a waste of valuable time. This post didn't prove anything except people have a different argument for this debate and all could be considered a valid legal point and that J. Stewart does know his stuff even though the title of this thread says he doesn't that has since been proven wrong. Period the end.

Maybe changing the thread title or adding a question mark to it is more truthful.

I’d like to address the question of “corporations are persons.” I know my post, most likely, won’t be popular but bear with me as I share my opinion on this from a legal and constitutional perspective.

To put things in context let me first address some points about the Constitution. Contrary to what many, erroneously, believe the Constitution doesn’t ‘grant’ anyone, including American citizens, any rights. The Constitution, in fact, doesn’t even ‘apply’ to people per se — it applies to the federal government.

People’s rights don’t come from the government or from documents that create governments, the rights exist independently of government. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish what the federal government may do to act out it’s governmental duties and prohibit it from infringing upon or interfering with people’s preexisting rights. The body of the Constitution says what the government can do and the Bill of Rights says what the government can’t do.

Knowing this, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that corporations are persons, what it has decided is that the government’s constraints established in the Constitution apply, as well, when the government deals, or attempts to deal, with private organizations of any kind.

Because, if it didn’t, the government could, arguendo, send the FBI to the offices of any private organization without any reason or legal justification and seize documents and property. After all, if the Constitution only applied to people, the government didn’t have to respect the Fourth Amendment in regards to a private organization.

It’s quite obvious we can’t honestly believe that when it comes to private organizations, the constitutional government constraints don’t apply, as that would be, in my opinion, opposed to the very spirit of the Constitution.

When it comes to First Amendment questions, to me, the answer is straightforward. The Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...” It doesn’t say the freedom of speech of ‘persons’ or ‘citizens.’

I know people are outraged at the outcome of the decisions of the Supreme Court on this, but it’s not the Court’s job to legislate, only to interpret the law and make sure the Constitution is being followed. I’m right up there with the people who think that corporate influence of our political process is harmful to our democracy, but the solution to the problem can’t be to contradict the Constitution.

And let’s not forget that if we say that private organizations, as entities, can’t contribute to political campaigns, although we practically always think of military/oil/industrial interests, it would mean all private organizations can’t, and that includes organizations that, for example, fight for civil liberties and consumer protections. We can’t pick and choose the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ organizations, that would be even more egregious.

The solution to this problem must be either to pass a Constitutional amendment banning such contributions — which I’m opposed to as it would be, in my opinion, against the spirit of the Constitution — or to create a public system of campaign finance.

One thing is for sure — and this doesn’t require us from doing any of the things I mentioned above and we can do it right now — we have to make the disclosure of donors mandatory for everyone participating in the political process be it through campaigns or ads. I don’t think there is any constitutional grounds to limit the amount of support anyone, individuals or organizations, can give to campaigns but there is no impediment for making those donors known.

Of course we know that only a very few, if any, of our political actors are interested in passing legislation that would make the playing field more even and possibly decrease the amount of contributions they receive by disclosing every donor because, let’s not kid ourselves, some interests benefit from the outright subversion of the process and much of it depends on them staying anonymous.

If anyone has an objection with disclosing the people or organizations who are contributing to, and in effect shaping, our political process, then maybe these people aren’t necessarily interested in a transparent and well-functioning democracy. But this is the sad reality and realization we come to, be it on the Democratic or Republican side, the political actors aren’t interested in what’s good for the country and the people, insomuch as what’s good for them and their team.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I'm surprise anyone watches John Stewart or Stephen colbert. To me the programs are all the same. Mock a news or political personally sarcastically. Then have the young crowd who knows nothing about politics cheer and laugh......These shows target audience is intelligent people, you're not part of the demographicso to you it isn't understandable.