SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (129911)2/1/2010 9:01:42 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 542218
 
Funny.

OK, it was more joke than argument. But it seems obvious to me that when a dog barks it is speaking. It's saying "get away from me" or "feed me" or "I want attention." It thinks it's speaking. And whoever feeds him or runs away from him think it's speaking.

The amendment as written is a limitation of congress, only indirectly a protection of rights for those with standing.

Now, that's funny! <g>

Like the framers wanted to constrain congress so it drew straws to find some context for doing so. Don't think so. More likely the framers so valued free speech that they assured it in the absolutely strongest way possible.

The people in the brook are not part of the brook and don't operate collectively as a brook.

The people that inhabit the corporation aren't part of the corporation, either. The corporation is an independent entity. If you sue a corporation, the receptionist isn't liable. If you want the receptionist to be liable, you have to sue her, as well. Two different entities.

I originally stated that the question of whether corporations have free speech rights under the constitution is a function of whether you want that outcome or not. Either answer can be rationalized. I still haven't seen anything to disabuse me of that opinion.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext