99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

Originally posted by Americanist
Halfway there? Let me take you alongside memory lane. The US (its full inhabitants) is collateral on massive bailouts deemed necessary the World over. As ill advised as this was I don't believe Congress authorized funds piped abroad to prop up foreign banks nor backstop a bunch of worthless derivatives.

And not to mince words any longer... We are home to Corporate Fascism. You don't pour a glass of wine, kindle a fire, and cozy up to the cartels do you? I'd cut you some slack, if your sexual preference is taking it up the rear, but here we are at a time when... All of us are being forced to bend over.

I am so glad you take note of my sexual identity. Your ability to put together a crude witless remark is duly noted. What is funny is I asked you a simple question and you complicated the matter...now let me see; where did I see something about this. That is right, your signature.

"Anyone can complicate a given subject, but true genius is in simplifying to its basic form... "

Of course, anyone willing to quote themselves obviously has an overt narcissistic streak in them. I don't blame you though; I too have one, just show it through other means.

Since you're lacking fortitude and prefer to skirmish with pseudo cause, we'll take that as the go ahead to circumvent you in order to get the job done.

Not only do you try to tie me in to whatever fantasy you have about my sexual identity, you seem to want to "circumvent" me. Who is this "we" and by what manner are you going to "circumvent" me? Keep your fantasies to yourself.

reply to post by Americanist


HAHA that is precious. You think you are beyond the programming? Truth you say?? That is a matter of conjecture, it may be your truth but it does not make it the truth. From your tone I'll guess that you are on the young side. I could not help but notice you grasped at one solitary side note and not anything else I said. The truth is ideals fall to the way side when some one figures they can profit with little effort on their part. Egypt for all it's protesting what has happened as a result? The future of Egypt has been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood and all their aspirations for a bright new future falls back into old methods of societal control. It is naive to think that ows won't get hijacked and turn the hope of a new future into a nightmare. The Egyptian protests started out unorganized and after all was said and done the group with a actual organization to it i.e. [goals that were stated, actual leadership] started to gain control. The results? How about the Coptics? They pre-date the incursion of Islam into Egypt. Yet now they are being harassed and scapegoated. Protesting it got them attacked. I can very easily see that happening with ows. You see age gives some perspective on things. You see somethings happen over and over. And each time the general public acts as if its new. I have wasted my time by trying and showing people facts that escape their notice. Spare me your righteous indignation and remember "clever words don't mean a clever mind!"

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by Americanist

 

HAHA that is precious. You think you are beyond the programming? Truth you say?? That is a matter of conjecture, it may be your truth but it does not make it the truth. From your tone I'll guess that you are on the young side. I could not help but notice you grasped at one solitary side note and not anything else I said. The truth is ideals fall to the way side when some one figures they can profit with little effort on their part. Egypt for all it's protesting what has happened as a result? The future of Egypt has been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood and all their aspirations for a bright new future falls back into old methods of societal control. It is naive to think that ows won't get hijacked and turn the hope of a new future into a nightmare. The Egyptian protests started out unorganized and after all was said and done the group with a actual organization to it i.e. [goals that were stated, actual leadership] started to gain control. The results? How about the Coptics? They pre-date the incursion of Islam into Egypt. Yet now they are being harassed and scapegoated. Protesting it got them attacked. I can very easily see that happening with ows. You see age gives some perspective on things. You see somethings happen over and over. And each time the general public acts as if its new. I have wasted my time by trying and showing people facts that escape their notice. Spare me your righteous indignation and remember "clever words don't mean a clever mind!"

You can "easily see" the US is not adjacent to Egypt on the map, nor will this Country assimilate Sharia law regardless of the disarray. Your perspective faces further shortcomings thereupon. At least I have the clever words down... Wait until you research the rest of my findings.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Americanist
Halfway there? Let me take you alongside memory lane. The US (its full inhabitants) is collateral on massive bailouts deemed necessary the World over. As ill advised as this was I don't believe Congress authorized funds piped abroad to prop up foreign banks nor backstop a bunch of worthless derivatives.

And not to mince words any longer... We are home to Corporate Fascism. You don't pour a glass of wine, kindle a fire, and cozy up to the cartels do you? I'd cut you some slack, if your sexual preference is taking it up the rear, but here we are at a time when... All of us are being forced to bend over.

I am so glad you take note of my sexual identity. Your ability to put together a crude witless remark is duly noted. What is funny is I asked you a simple question and you complicated the matter...now let me see; where did I see something about this. That is right, your signature.

"Anyone can complicate a given subject, but true genius is in simplifying to its basic form... "

Of course, anyone willing to quote themselves obviously has an overt narcissistic streak in them. I don't blame you though; I too have one, just show it through other means.

Since you're lacking fortitude and prefer to skirmish with pseudo cause, we'll take that as the go ahead to circumvent you in order to get the job done.

Not only do you try to tie me in to whatever fantasy you have about my sexual identity, you seem to want to "circumvent" me. Who is this "we" and by what manner are you going to "circumvent" me? Keep your fantasies to yourself.

First, you attempt to mock our Constitution... The second, mashing receivership with fascism. That's interesting because the main issues are insolvency and fraud. Your oversight was DOA, so I made light of the comment and forged ahead. It's really a shame you show signs of sore sportsmanship because it's possible you'll find sexual innuendo towards the end.


GAO Report: Federal Reserve Is Riddled With Corruption

Thread

Originally posted by Americanist
First, you attempt to mock our Constitution... The second, mashing receivership with fascism. That's interesting because the main issues are insolvency and fraud. Your oversight was DOA, so I made light of the comment and forged ahead. It's really a shame you show signs of sore sportsmanship because it's possible you'll find sexual innuendo towards the end.

Cute...really. When have I ever mocked the Constitution? I asked you explicitly where are the powers given by the People to Congress to assume receivership. You retorted with a slight against my sexuality. As you have continued to.

If this is what OWS has to offer then I will pass. I also ask you who would be the receiver. In light, you made a sexuality comment; knowing very well what I meant, you resorted to some childish game of name calling. Trust me, I deal with this daily from my oldest son. Even he has more wit and knowledge than your idiotic brain will ever hold.

Second, you continue with your comments regarding sexuality. Are you that insecure? What is funny is you are fighting with your beloved "99%"....but because we don't hold the same twisted and misguided values as you do, you chose to attack.

That is the highlight of JPZ's post. That WHAT THE HELL IS THE 99%?

Overall though, with my day of rest from work (you do know what that is right?) I was able to come here for some real comedy. Thank you "Americanist".....

Quick question: Would you or would you not, be opposed to dragging the "corporate heads" out into the streets to behead them via guillotine?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Americanist
First, you attempt to mock our Constitution... The second, mashing receivership with fascism. That's interesting because the main issues are insolvency and fraud. Your oversight was DOA, so I made light of the comment and forged ahead. It's really a shame you show signs of sore sportsmanship because it's possible you'll find sexual innuendo towards the end.

Cute...really. When have I ever mocked the Constitution? I asked you explicitly where are the powers given by the People to Congress to assume receivership. You retorted with a slight against my sexuality. As you have continued to.

If this is what OWS has to offer then I will pass. I also ask you who would be the receiver. In light, you made a sexuality comment; knowing very well what I meant, you resorted to some childish game of name calling. Trust me, I deal with this daily from my oldest son. Even he has more wit and knowledge than your idiotic brain will ever hold.

Second, you continue with your comments regarding sexuality. Are you that insecure? What is funny is you are fighting with your beloved "99%"....but because we don't hold the same twisted and misguided values as you do, you chose to attack.

That is the highlight of JPZ's post. That WHAT THE HELL IS THE 99%?

Overall though, with my day of rest from work (you do know what that is right?) I was able to come here for some real comedy. Thank you "Americanist".....

Quick question: Would you or would you not, be opposed to dragging the "corporate heads" out into the streets to behead them via guillotine?

I must admit... I do take a slight bit of pleasure in knowing you've lived fully, achieved a family, and reached a point in life where the majority of matters roll off your shoulders. It's likely I'm half your age, achieved passive wisdom, and reached a point in life where rising up has become essential.

In summary... I'm half your age, but you're half the person. If I'm able to get under you skin so effortlessly, your ego is inflated to the level any wisdom you've managed has effectively been extruded. Try to deny it all you want. The "I" only gets worse.

Cute...really. Even he has more wit and knowledge than your idiotic brain will ever hold. You resorted to some childish game of name calling.

Did I ever call you a name? If you say yes, you're wholly mistaken...

You mock the Constitution by insinuating it may serve as a whipping post instead of genuine corrective measure. What you should have searched for is the Declaration of Independence. Fraud in business, banking, and politics adversely effects Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Highlights of receivership saturate the web. Check into it... State and/or Federal.

I might show a little more compassion than our Founding Fathers, but as the old form of expression goes:

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Note, if we ban political speech of a corporation, we are banning speech of a person because of their association. You don't find that chilling and scary? How do you separate the two?

The only thing that is chilling and scary in this context is that people with power to represent this nation are incapable of discerning freedom of SPEECH with freedom of money. Two whole different concepts for any at least half-way intelligent person.

Next troubling is that corporations(as ARTIFICIAL person) are given rights that match or worst supercede natural person.

Lastely, campaign financing should be paid primarily through a poll tax and allow contributions up to a specified limit. if those limits are exceeded, covertly or overtly, then criminal prosecution should follow punishing those deemed repsonsible.

We cannot have a respectable constitutional republic with such moral corruption. This should be a top priority for both the tea party and OWS. It cannot be over-emphasised!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

That is the highlight of JPZ's post. That WHAT THE HELL IS THE 99%?

Either JPZ is not a bright individual or he is part of the 1% that will go to any length to discredit OWS.

Quick question: Would you or would you not, be opposed to dragging the "corporate heads" out into the streets to behead them via guillotine?

Spare me your pathetic generalisations that try to paint a french revolution picture on our pathetic everday reality. People need a job to exist, a retirement to retire, an education to succeed, and a government they can trust.

No I do NOT support guillotine executions. TWO WRONGS do not correct one enormous wrong. I prefer they rot in prison in some maximum security facility with other low-life inmates accused of rape and murder. I hope they become victims of a sex crime too.

Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

Indulge me briefly and please cite specifically where congress defined corporations as having "personhood" in the context of the 1st amendment?

Why would I indulge such lunacy? What priest class lawyer sect of mystical incantations are up to?

That is precisely my question...which you have repeatedly dodged to finally pretend you did not claim exactly that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
nor did the SCOTUS magically turn corporations into "persons"...Congress had all ready done this in both the U.S.C. and the U.C.C.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

~First Amendment of the Bill of Rights~

The point of pointing to the Eisner ruling is to make clear that Congress cannot redefine any word written in the Constitution that would allow them an end run around Constitutional restraint. Of course, semantically speaking, Congress did not redefine "people" and instead redefined "person", but it remains moot, since regardless of how they define person, they have no lawfully or Constitutional authority to abridge speech.

Which is it? Did Congress define "person" in the context of free speech or didn't they?

And if Congress is unable to define speech as the authors of the constitution intended it, then "speech" certainly would not be defined as a corporation spending general treasury funds to produce a pay-per-view movie available on sattlelite telivision. You seem to want it both ways?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The dis-ingenuousness

You seem to be fond of this word, have you heard it often amidst other debates you have engaged in?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The most profoundly disturbing aspect of your dis-ingenuousness is in regards to rights. There are no "limitations" on any right. Either people have a right, or they don't.

So it is your position that shouting fire in a crowded theater is a protected right?

Or that military officer announcing "secret" operational plans to the public is also protected?

Or that a corporation's executive officers may send out memo's or notices encouraging it's employees to vote one way or another?

Are you aware that Justice Roberts of the Majority ruling banned exactly that communication in an earlier ruling?
Or more to the point, may spend general treasury funds that belong to it's shareholders on political expenditures and advertising?

Or more specifically as the dissenting 4 Justices of the Supreme Court noted..

Our jurisprudence over the past 216 years has rejected an absolutist interpretation" of the First Amendment. WRTL, 551 U. S., at 482 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Apart perhaps from measures designed to protect the press, that text might seem to permit no distinctions of any kind. Yet in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker's identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms. The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students,41 prisoners,42 members of the Armed Forces,43 foreigners,44 and its own employees

If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions.

Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by"Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.

More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could "‘enhance the relative voice'" of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49).51 Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

I guess they could drop a vote in the ballot box if they wanted to, although even that would be overkill, but allowing artificial persons the right to influence elections and more importantly buy favors, is a huge stretch of the first amendment.

You can do just about anything and claim "freedom of speech". It needs amending to include restrictions I think, although the literal meaning would have served everyone well if congress was not constantly looking for loopholes to please their business partners.

reply to post by Indigo5

And if Congress is unable to define speech as the authors of the constitution intended it, then "speech" certainly would not be defined as a corporation spending general treasury funds to produce a pay-per-view movie available on satellite television.

Right on. You're good!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Spare me your pathetic generalizations that try to paint a french revolution picture on our pathetic everyday reality. People need a job to exist, a retirement to retire, an education to succeed, and a government they can trust.

And this too!

When something is true it just hits you like a rocket to the gut. OW.
So sick of the french revolution references .

An earlier thread here says something like the war between the classes has begun.
Maybe - but this is 2012 (almost) going to look a lot different than uprisings of the past and key here is we have a friendly President. RE:JPZ guessing the latter or a "writer" hired by the latter.

reply to post by Indigo5

Which is it? Did Congress define "person" in the context of free speech or didn't they?

You falsely claim I am dodging your question, and you continue to falsely present the First Amendment in a certain light with the full on intent of distorting the meaning of the First Amendment. It doesn't matter how many times, and no matter how many times you attempt to phrase this question in different ways, Congress has no authority to determine who gets what rights. Congress cannot Constitutionally legislate acts that establish religion, prevent people from exercising their right to religious beliefs, abridge speech, or freedom of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and seek a redress of grievances. Any act of legislation that defies this express prohibition is unconstitutional. It really is just that simple.

Definitions of "person" has nothing at all to do with it. It is an absurd deflection from the reality of law. It is a bad magicians trick, and you are the bad magician, stumbling and fumbling with your magic wand and rabbit in the hat, desperately attempting to get people to look away long enough so that you can declare: "Presto! It's magic!"

What you are necessarily doing is insisting that there are certain people that do not deserve to have rights. What I am doing is saying you are wrong, and deserve has nothing to do with it, people have rights, whether you like it or not.

You can come back with a reply and desperately claim that you mean "corporations" and that this legal fiction does not have any rights, but you and I have no disagreement regarding this, corporations are not people regardless of how Congress defined them, (which was not "people" but "person", a typical game of the priest class lawyer sect), it was not some legal fiction that made the documentary about Hillary Clinton and then aired it inside the time frame nearing an election that Congress had attempted to "chill". When the very real flesh and blood people who made the documentary exhausted all legal measures by which to challenge this unconstitutional abuse of power, they sued the FEC. The law suit is called Citizen's United because this is the non profit organization that funded the documentary made by very real flesh and blood people.

Under the auspices of Citizens United, these very real flesh and blood people sued for the damages done to them, not some legal fiction. It was their right to speech that was being abridged, not some legal fiction.

And if Congress is unable to define speech as the authors of the constitution intended it, then "speech" certainly would not be defined as a corporation spending general treasury funds to produce a pay-per-view movie available on sattlelite telivision. You seem to want it both ways?

Again, here is another fine example of your bad magic that only amazes and astounds the simple minded. Speech was never defined, as you deceptively put it, as a corporation spending general treasury funds to produce a pay-per-view movie available on sattelite television. This is just a bald face lie you are telling.

It matters not how the documentary was financed, as long as it was financed through lawful means. Citizens United was never even accused of any impropriety in this regard. The issue had absolutely nothing to do with how the documentary was financed, the issue was when the documentary was aired. Since you are claiming that you have read the ruling twice, and if we are to take this as truth, then you are most assuredly lying now.

So it is your position that shouting fire in a crowded theater is a protected right?

Of course it is a right! How moronic are you going to be with this? If I am in a crowded theater and there is a fire, it is not only my right to shout fire, it is my lawful responsibility and moral obligation to do so.

What would you do? See the fire and quietly walk out and leave the crowd to either figure it out on their own or perish? Is that your idea of what is lawful?

What I, or you, do not have a right to do is lie and shout there is a fire in crowded theater when there is none. If my, or your, actions resulted in a panic that caused injury, that act was criminal.

That you seem to need this explained to you is the real problem here. Why should anyone have to explain to you that if you are in a crowded theater and you see a fire that you should let the others know the theater is on fire?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Spare me your pathetic generalisations that try to paint a french revolution picture on our pathetic everday reality. People need a job to exist, a retirement to retire, an education to succeed, and a government they can trust.

No I do NOT support guillotine executions. TWO WRONGS do not correct one enormous wrong. I prefer they rot in prison in some maximum security facility with other low-life inmates accused of rape and murder. I hope they become victims of a sex crime too.

Does that answer your question?

One, it was not a generalization. I was drawing from experience from others I have talked to. I aimed the question at one person only that had the same sentiments.

I for one do not believe that the "core" and truly sincere protesters are for such actions. Although, I am slightly disturbed by your desires to have them sexually assaulted. Seems a fascination with such actions between you and Americanist; to each their own though.

As for corporations and "personhood"....if you would follow I have severe problems with the definition legislated via Congress concerning this. As I was speaking in regards to corporate expenditures in a specific case, that being Citizen United v. FEC.

I pointed out that in Buckley, such expenditures were made valid. That Congress had no governmental interest to limit corporate expenditures towards elections. I am fully aware of the two sides of the argument of money equal speech and money does not equal speech.

That isn't what was ruled on though. What was ruled on was that speech, regardless of who or what produces is protected via the First Amendment. Just because a person that is identified via a corporation does not negate their protected Right to political speech.

To put it this way; If the OWS movement were to incorporate and utilize the association protection of the First Amendment, I would stand side by side in fighting to maintain their ability to speak collectively via that association freely about the political system.

If it were your way, as I read it; NAACP, Nearly every chruch (or other religious institution), Planned Parenthood, ACORN, Cities, The United States of America, and on and on would be banned from producing political speech because of the association of a corporation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Congress cannot Constitutionally legislate acts that establish religion, prevent people from exercising their right to religious beliefs, abridge speech, or freedom of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and seek a redress of grievances. Any act of legislation that defies this express prohibition is unconstitutional. It really is just that simple.

Good enough. A corporate generated political piece is not speech and is not protected under the first amendment. It may be restricted by Congress in order to prevent electioneering.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What you are necessarily doing is insisting that there are certain people that do not deserve to have rights. What I am doing is saying you are wrong, and deserve has nothing to do with it, people have rights, whether you like it or not.

Corporations are legal entities with pure economic interests, not people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You can come back with a reply and desperately claim that you mean "corporations" and that this legal fiction does not have any rights, but you and I have no disagreement regarding this,

Terrific then. We agree that the SCOTUS ruling failed to recognize this fact. People create speech as the constitution intended the definition of speech, lest you supose there was AI at the time? Obviously the founders were specific as to what "entities" they wanted to protect as they afforded the "press" equal mention...I did not see "corporations" or "enterprises of business" specified in the passage we both love.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
it was not some legal fiction that made the documentary about Hillary Clinton and then aired it inside the time frame nearing an election that Congress had attempted to "chill".

Strange, because I am certain you are familiar with the particulars of the case. The film was made soup to nuts and publicized using general treasury funds of a corproation, "Citizens United".

Acknowledged that actual people made the film, but at the express employment of an entity and in that regard were but well paid mechanisms of that entity.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Under the auspices of Citizens United, these very real flesh and blood people sued for the damages done to them, not some legal fiction. It was their right to speech that was being abridged, not some legal fiction.

The people were niether liable nor sued. The entity Citizens United did. Do you know the hearts and motivations of those attornies representing Citizens United? All of that companies members? The employees that made the film? Compensation played no role for these "people"? They were employees of an entity first and foremost.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The issue had absolutely nothing to do with how the documentary was financed, the issue was when the documentary was aired. Since you are claiming that you have read the ruling twice, and if we are to take this as truth, then you are most assuredly lying now.

Congress never looked to restrict the speech of citizens in the 30 or 60 days prior to election, only corporations or entities. It had everything to do with whether the documentary was produced by a "what" or "who".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

So it is your position that shouting fire in a crowded theater is a protected right?

Of course it is a right! How moronic are you going to be with this? If I am in a crowded theater and there is a fire, it is not only my right to shout fire, it is my lawful responsibility and moral obligation to do so.

What would you do? See the fire and quietly walk out and leave the crowd to either figure it out on their own or perish? Is that your idea of what is lawful?

What I, or you, do not have a right to do is lie and shout there is a fire in crowded theater when there is none. If my, or your, actions resulted in a panic that caused injury, that act was criminal.

So your right to free speech free of prosecution is dependant on honesty? or outcome?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh the irony is strong in this one

Another nonsense thread where you simply plan on repeating the same nonsense...at least this time we got spared

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


A person is the singular form of people. People is the plural form of person.

Even if we assume a corporation is a legal person and as such has first amendment rights, it is a long stretch to associate money with speech.

This is the core issue which should be addressed. There is no sense in beating around the bushes waiting for the snake to appear so someone can clobber it. It is not magical or priestly either!

The first amendment should be taken as literal as "start the car and drive away".

reply to post by Indigo5

Good enough. A corporate generated political piece is not speech and is not protected under the first amendment. It may be restricted by Congress in order to prevent electioneering.

If what you said were true, then every single movie made by a major studio has no protection of free speech by the First Amendment. Every single book published by a major publisher would have no protection of freedom of press, as well as virtually every major newspaper. Corporate news would not have any protection either. This is not the case, or do you actually want to argue that point?

Corporations are legal entities with pure economic interests, not people.

Why do you keep posting this crap as if I am disagreeing with that remark? Do you honestly believe most people are so stupid that they cannot see through this, or are you just posting sentences like that to appease the stupid?

Terrific then. We agree that the SCOTUS ruling failed to recognize this fact.

Nope, we cannot, and if you knew anything about law and how the court systems work, you would know that this was just not an issue in Citizen's United. It really didn't matter what sort of status Citizens United had in terms of legality, all that mattered is that Congress had written legislation "chilling" speech, and the SCOTUS took up the case because of the horrifyingly arrogant remarks made by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart:

JUSTICE ALITO: "You Think That If - If A Book Was Published, A Campaign Biography That Was The Functional Equivalent Of Express Advocacy, That Could Be Banned?"

MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: "If The Book Contained The Functional Equivalent Of Express Advocacy."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "If It's A 500-Page Book, And At The End It Says, And So Vote For X, The Government Could Ban That?"

MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: "We Could Prohibit The Publication Of The Book."

JUSTICE SOUTER: "To Point Out How Far Your Argument Would Go, What If A Labor Union Paid An Author To Write A Book Advocating The Election Of A Or The Defeat Of B? And After The Manuscript Was Prepared, They Then Went To A Commercial Publisher, And They Go To Random House. Random House Says, Yes, We Will Publish That. . . . We're Talking About How Far The Constitutional Ban Could Go, and We're Talking About Books."

MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: "The Labor Union's Conduct Would Be Prohibited. . . .And I Think It Would Be Constitutional To Forbid The Labor Union To Do That."

This was heard from oral arguments by the Deputy Solicitor General and the Supreme Court on March 24th of 2009. Then, headed by Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General's office revised their position claiming they had never applied the statute to a book, but that a pamphlet would be different. So, on September 9th of that year:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: "May I Ask You One Question That Was Highlighted In The Prior Argument, And That Was If Congress Could Say No TV And Radio Ads, Could It Also Say No Newspaper Ads, No Campaign Biographies? Last Time The Answer Was, Yes, Congress Could, But It Didn't. Is That - Is That Still The Government's Answer?"

ELENA KAGAN, Solicitor General: "The Government's Answer Has Changed, Justice Ginsburg. . . .The government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books . . . the FEC has never applied 441b in that context."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "We Don't Put Our First Amendment Rights In The Hands Of FEC Bureaucrats; And If You Say That You Are Not Going To Apply It To A Book, What About A Pamphlet?"

GENERAL KAGAN: "I think a - a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441b only applies to video and not to print."

The Federalist Papers were precisely what Kagan described. Pamphlets that were classic electioneering, and in regards to the very federal Constitution that authorized Congress to legislate. The Anti-Federalist Papers were classic electioneering pamphlets arguing against federalism. Since so many in this thread are compelled to point to irony, why not let's acknowledge this irony?

People create speech as the constitution intended the definition of speech, lest you supose there was AI at the time?
[/quote

Are you suggesting a sentient artificial intelligence would not have the same right to speech you and I have?

Obviously the founders were specific as to what "entities" they wanted to protect as they afforded the "press" equal mention...I did not see "corporations" or "enterprises of business" specified in the passage we both love.

The Press at that time was an "enterprise of business" and Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac is just one example of that. Sigh.

reply to post by Indigo5

The people were niether liable nor sued. The entity Citizens United did. Do you know the hearts and motivations of those attornies representing Citizens United? All of that companies members? The employees that made the film? Compensation played no role for these "people"? They were employees of an entity first and foremost.

Every single official of the FEC, their attorneys, and the four Supreme Court Justices that dissented were compensated. Or, do you imagine they all volunteered their time? What the hell does compensation for time have to do with this?

Congress never looked to restrict the speech of citizens in the 30 or 60 days prior to election, only corporations or entities. It had everything to do with whether the documentary was produced by a "what" or "who".

The government is both a corporation and an entity, but Congress has no qualms about this corporation and entity exercising their freedom of speech, and all the electioneering they do. Nope, this was simply an issue of whether or not Congress had the Constitutional authority to chill speech, and what or who was not at all the issue.

So your right to free speech free of prosecution is dependant on honesty? or outcome?

Ex ante, or ex post? It is a matter of ex ante, not ex post. If you attempt to warn others of a fire in a crowded theater, and this warning results in a panic, I have no doubt there would be overzealous prosecutors who would love to prosecute this action, but they would be hard pressed to show mens rea. On the other hand, if you falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater and the outcome was panic, it can be clearly shown the action on your part was a lie and malicious, so yes, just as it is with slander or libel, it is in the honesty of the speech that matters, not the outcome.

If Joe calls Bob an asshole and this accusation leads to clients lost for Bob, so Bob sues Joe for slander, and if Joe can prove that Bob is an asshole, then there is no slander, and if Bob wants to stop losing clients he should stop being an asshole. He has a right to be an asshole, he just doesn't have the right to expect everyone cowtow to him for this.

More importantly, you answered my question with a question, avoiding answering my pointed question. If you were in a crowded theater and there was a fire, would you determine you had no right to warn others because of a ruling made by the Supreme Court? Would you?

Corporations are legal entities with pure economic interests, not people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Why do you keep posting this crap as if I am disagreeing with that remark? Do you honestly believe most people are so stupid that they cannot see through this, or are you just posting sentences like that to appease the stupid?

My guess, as in any contentious debate; moderation and logic hold no bearing. How can you be for X if you are not for Y. While I tend to think in black and white terms; as the world does operate on such; many believe that if you are fighting against them on one subject, it must mean you are an enemy through and through.