Yes, corporations are just like a person
No, corporations are not just like a person
Wrong.The freedoms belong to the PEOPLE ... NOT THE ORGANIZATIONS.
Churches and other religious groups have freedom of religion. Newspapers (most of them corporations too!) have freedom of the press. Not just the individuals involved in those groups, the groups themselves. To say otherwise is absurd. And corporations also have rights, the courts have said so over and over for 100+ years.
Clearly groups can have constitutional rights. If you want to argue that speech is only an individual right, you have to do more than just say it loudly over and over. You need an actual argument.
The argument basically says that people are too stupid to handle advertising. We can't be trusted with it. We need the government to protect us from it.
Why couldn't the government turn around and then say we should keep certain political groups, or parties, from advertising? What's the difference?
In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.Yes. So the founding fathers clearly saw that freedom was no conditional on acting only as an individual.
So it is possible for a group to have rights.In THOSE cases. That's why they are listed, they are exceptions.
So you can't just assume that a right is only for an individual, since the constitution does recognize group rights too. Groups were contemplated as having rights right there in the same amendment, and there is no reason to think they can't have the right of speech. Groups even have rights to written speech (the press).
The First Amendment clearly states that there will be no laws restricting speech.
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overrule Buckley v. Valeo. Money Does Not Equal Speech
Oh, I get it, I simply disagree based on the Constitution. You agree based on judicial activism. But I notice you did not quote me as I asked. See, I don't believe the government is or was restricting free speech because corporations don't qualify as persons.Of course it's the government - who else is going to restrict speech? This decision overturned a law passed by the government that restricted corporate speech. You don't get that?
And the problem with this really comes down to equating money with speech. As I see it, the whole point of the First Amendment is to create greater equality among the people in terms of political power by making sure that one powerful group cannot make another less-powerful group shut up. This ruling allows some people to magnify their power to speak out of all proportion with others. And they'll do this not to further the commonweal but to enhance their own profitability.But there are no conditions whatsoever on political speech.
Monied interests have always been able to buy politicians. This ruling furthers the ability to fool others into voting for those purchased pols.Obviously, I disagree. Fortunately, we're allowed to criticize the SCOTUS and suggest they got it wrong.Doesn't matter if you think it's a bad idea. It's not for you to decide. The Constitution says no.
Actually, it's an arguement for restricting the speech of those rich and powerful enough to drown out everyone else, regardless of the issue.That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
This is a good point but, the government already does limit political speech from said groups and parties. BTW, political groups are simply people who are politically minded the same. I don't think they should have any additional free speech rights than they already possess as citizens. Political parties are, well, political parties. We the people make an exception for them so that we can understand their candidates and platform so that we can make an educated choice on where to place our vote. This is dealing with the body politic directly as opposed to a corporation that wants to run a political ad.Why couldn't the government turn around and then say we should keep certain political groups, or parties, from advertising? What's the difference?