Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for "media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights. 2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st Amendment rights. Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no law..." But don't take my word for it. Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times: "And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president is criminal in America?" "I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for corporations. . . . "A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht ml cjf, recovering journalist Christopher J. Feola President, nextPression Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. merle lefkoff wrote: Sarbajit misses the boat completely. The reason that the government "may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law corporations have the same rights as people. This is the problem, because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a person. Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for democracy. What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation." sarbajit roy wrote: > Dear Group, > > As a non-US member I also find this interesting. > > As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases > before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues > (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television > broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in > the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be > frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in > "*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got > from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that > citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information > is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is > spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate > political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but > it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. > has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the > Georges Bush, > > I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and > incorrect understanding of the judgement, and is designed on the > premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to > sign anything if you word the question properly*". > > It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual > majority opinion summarised here > http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html > > Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional > democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one > of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts. > http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm > > Sarbajit > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley > <rob...@cirrillian.com <mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com>> wrote: > > Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of > interest: > http://movetoamend.org/ > Perhaps a chance to actually do something? > Thanks > Robert > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
