Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/21/2010 9:46:59 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576288

>> And the right wingers do not even understand they just crippled the foundations of freedom in this country. This argument has been bandied about all day by the left wing nutjobs. I listened to them all day as I drove. You know what was NEVER mentioned? The law. I heard about how it is the end of democracy, how it is what the rightwingers wanted, how it will give "corporations" (which most leftwingers cannot even define) all this power. But I never heard one discuss the opinion that resulted in this change. Not once did I hear them mention shutting down the "free speech" of George Soros and his "organization". Free speech is free speech. I absolutely cannot see why a corporation's right to free speech should be impeded simply because corporations have a lot of money. It hasn't stopped Soros. I can't see any reason that any person's (that includes a corporation, which is simply a legal stand-in for a person) free speech should be censored by the government and I've yet to hear any liberal make a cogent argument, other than "they have too much money" -- yet, they don't want to apply it to George Soros, George Lucas, or Steven Speilberg.

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/21/2010 10:40:27 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576288

it also allows unions to campaign, like they have always done

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/21/2010 10:41:31 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Respond to of 1576288

you are insane

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 12:58:26 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 1576288

"If a congressperson does not do exactly what the corporations wants they know the corporation will spend millions/billions to investigate and tell outright lies to attack them and defeat them and ruin their reputations." Anyone concerned with their reputation would not be in politics in the first place. "...but it is necessary that he who in reality contends for the just, if he wishes even but for a little time to be safe, should live privately and not engage in public affairs." socrates

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 7:09:07 AM
From: steve harris	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576288

If a congressperson does not do exactly what the corporations wants they know the corporation will spend millions/billions to investigate and tell outright lies to attack them and defeat them and ruin their reputations. So all honest and good political people will, from now on, live in constant fear of the very rich and corporations. As compared to George Soros and MediaMatters, pMSNbc, and other funded left wings nutplaces of the left who are already doing what you "fear"? Maybe you should tell us again how you singlehandedly saved Alaska?

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 7:59:49 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576288

"Forgive them father ..." - Imagine an atheist talking like that ... oh don't have to imagine, there's koan. What this court just did is akin to electing Hitler! Give me a break. Free speech is free speech ... no matter who is doing the speaking. You know .... freedom won several victories this week .... family/party ownership of a Senate seat was ended in MA, Obamacare died, and finally campaign finance laws were struck down.

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 10:53:07 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576288

Tell it to Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and now Scott Brown

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 12:16:31 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576288

Political speech is the most important speech. You think the fathers gave us free speech in the first amendment to protect people who wanted to make porno movies ? No it was because no one could talk about the king and what he was doing to the citizens.

To: koan who wrote (545477)	1/22/2010 12:24:31 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1576288

BOSSIE: 'Congress shall make no law . . . By David N. Bossie Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak." Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence. In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office. I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government? From Thomas Paine's publication of "Common Sense" before the American Revolution, to the ratification debate featuring John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison memorialized in the Federalist Papers, to the editorial writers of today, advocacy of political causes through popular media is inextricably intertwined with the fabric of this country. It is no coincidence that in the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is both first and absolute. Over the last hundred years, however, Congress and the courts have decided that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" does not mean what any citizen reading those words for the first time would reasonably think. For the last hundred years, progressively more restrictive laws have been passed encroaching on our right to free speech. Each time a new law is passed, it is done incrementally and under the guise of "good government" so as not to frighten us. But as soon as we have grown accustomed to the previous law, another is passed that takes away just a little more of our freedom. This process came to a head last March, when the deputy solicitor general of the United States, representing the official position of the government in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, declared that the government had the constitutional authority to ban the publication of a book if Congress passed such a law. That comment crystallizes the dangers of a hundred years of campaign-finance "reform." It is inconceivable that a learned man like the deputy solicitor general in such august company as the justices of the Supreme Court would have made that comment a hundred years ago. It is only because Congress and the courts have quietly stolen away small pieces of our First Amendment rights over the course of a century that such a position could be taken. There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke. This is not an issue that is easily categorized as "conservative" or "liberal." In our case, the ACLU joined with the NRA, and the AFL-CIO joined with the Chamber of Commerce in support of Citizens United and the First Amendment. We were fighting as much for the rights of filmmakers like Michael Moore as we were for our own right to produce, advertise and distribute films. Thankfully, the Roberts Court has put the brakes on a slide down a very slippery and very dangerous slope. With yesterday's ruling, so-called "reformers" have been put on notice that, as Justice Kennedy said in the opinion of the court, "when Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy." David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring the government to citizen control.