Comments on: Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

By: pentale

pentale — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:46:15 +0000

JanBrown. From Pen Tale: Finally, someone who makes sense and stands for righteousness. We need righteous Indignation back in America. I, too, am a Christian patriot and have been looking for someone who is interested in “truth,” not opinions (gan) for the sake of gab. The 14th Amendment is our problem, and 13th also. Stop the “gab” and start learning about the problem. Go to apenstale.wordpress.com for info.

By: gypsynovus

gypsynovus — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:10:45 +0000

@JanBrown Christian constitutionalism is a theocracy and another formulation of palingenetic ultranationalism. Get that worked out first, then move on to the Bill of Rights.

Colonial America was an amalgam of protestant fundamentalism, many of whom were Presbyterian. Forget reading Catholicism, Baptists and the Mormon church into this. They are occult and made a presence for the Vatican and monarchy only, which is the same role the Nazarenes are in today – to further derail protestantism.

We are talking the negative core of the progressive movement here. In all honesty, you are statedly a progressive, and so the bill of Rights is going to be difficult for you to process. Rationality falls deaf on the ears of neopolitics is the only way I know how to say this.

This is not a criticism, but in an other way progressives seem to possess a schizoid state of mind. They are all over the map figuring things out which is why they can not dial into the Bill of Rights.

It’s the same impact confinement has on schizophrenic individuals. They don’t like to be surrounded by walls, and yet they long to be understood. Get close, and they go off. They are a paradox, which is why progressivism work for people like them. Humanitarianism, democratic process, throw in a little BDSM occult rendition and they love it.

That make sense? What I am saying is the progressive movement is a mental attitude inhibitive of constraint on human behavior in competition with the self-mastery feature of our constitutional republic.

Progressives are not about self-mastery. They are about a kaleidoscopic daily agenda that one task to the next they have the flexibility to stop and conduct a snake ball luncheon it it occurs to them to do so, and they are notorious for their preoccupation with BDSM and pedophilia.

By: JanBrown

JanBrown — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:11:19 +0000

I am a Christian Constitutionalist. I apologize for being a little late in posting on this subject, but it is very important to me. I would love it if someone could help me understand if I am wrong about this. I believe “Corporate First Amendment rights” is an oxymoron. Everything underlying our Constitution is about the INDIVIDUAL…individual rights, individual liberties, individual freedoms. A “corporation” is an entity created by the State (paperwork is usually filed with the Secretary of State) for the legal protections of its Officers, among other reasons. Its purpose is to make a profit or achieve certain objectives (non-profits), and it therefore contracts with INDIVIDUALS who on corporate property become “employees” of the corporation (whether paid or not). Employees do not have First Amendment rights while on the job, unless you want to risk losing it. For example, I am not permitted to talk about politics, ask people if they would like to sign a petition, or even talk politics on the phone, lest someone hear me and be offended. Furthermore, I am subjected to “diversity training” every year which offends me; I wrote my CEO about this, he rejected my position and demanded that I do the training or face consequences.

For the life of me, I do not understand how it makes any kind of sense that Corporations have the same rights as Individuals. However, I do know the Supreme Court over the years through case law has changed the definition of “Person” to where it includes a Corporation. But I think that is nonsense, and besides…the Supreme Court does not make law; they only provide opinion. (Hence, for example, Roe v. Wade did not make abortion the law of the land in 1973 because Congress, who creates laws, never followed up with legislation to that effect.)

Regarding whether the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate campaign contributions, etc., we wouldn’t have to be concerned about that if only INDIVIDUALS were permitted to contribute to campaigns. It is the corporations that distort this process by using their profits or PACS and lobbyists to inundate candidates’ campaign chests with money, making INDIVIDUAL donations of practically no consequence and also NO INFLUENCE in helping candidates of their choice to win elections. Hence, it is corporate America who is choosing our elected officials (and doing their bidding) instead of the INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN CITIZENS. That is NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The People effectively elect NO ONE any more, not only because of the huge and most powerful corporate donations, but the improper POWER of the two-party system.

You stated the First Amendment doesn’t discriminate according to who is speaking, and that is correct. “Who” means an individual, not a state-created corporate entity, which is a “what”.

The First Amendment rights are to INDIVIDUALS no matter where they work. But the Founders obviously saw the importance of adding specifically the freedom of the “press” so that a government could not usurp power over what news is published or withheld. The other rights to personally choose a religion or not, peaceably assemble, and petition the Government are to INDIVIDUALS as well.

The severability issue of freedom of speech from spending money on a campaign is not the argument. INDIVIDUALS most definitely demonstrate freedom of speech through campaign contributions. Corporations, on the other hand, can communicate to their employees their preference of a candidate or issue, but individual employees may not agree and therefore financial contributions should come from INDIVIDUALS ONLY, not corporations.

By: gypsynovus

gypsynovus — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:57:13 +0000

@West Texan @JohnMohr Not the same, because they are overwhelmingly organized and very powerful is such a way that an individual could not stand against one in a public debate. This is why corporations have a tough time suing individuals who attack them with criticism, regardless of weather it’s deserved or not. For example, if I were to accuse you of eating children, you could sue me for defamation. On the other hand, I have accused McDonalds of formulating a value meal product manufactured from pureed human fetus, and they can’t touch me, because I have a natural interest in preserving humanity against the macabre practice of eating one’s own species. Be3side, it true, and they Wouldn’t touch this with a billion dollars in resources except to resource an assassin, which they do this, too.

By: gypsynovus

gypsynovus — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:49:39 +0000

@JamesKoss re “… how can natural rights be abridged under any conditions? “ Very simple answer: the debauchery pledge.

By: West Texan

West Texan — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:46:26 +0000

@onetenther Good response. I honestly don’t understand why some folks here fail to to grasp the fundamentals of a corporation. The inane commentary attacking corporate America is nothing more than mean spirited gossip directed toward a targeted boogeyman. Seeking the truth and/or knowing facts doesn’t matter to these self-described theoreticians and all knowing historians. Your thoughtful input is very much appreciated. Thank you, WT

By: gypsynovus

gypsynovus — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:52:16 +0000

@JamesKoss I think a lot of people would agree with that. Corporations are way to powerful, and they aren’t held the same standards of accountability as ordinary people. Here’s my remedy. Corporations have to give back 10% of the earnings (NOT PROFITS) to the people, which this can be in the form of employment to the under-privileged. Attorneys have to do this to licence. There. We just ended poverty in America. This really would work, but it would likewise loosen the elite’s grip on mankind, which is why they don’t force this policy. Corporations assure we will always have masters. I refer to this as feudal economics, which it is. Keynesian economics is predatory and consolidates independent systems to control wealth. We come from the sun, my friend. Know this ahead an everything else you have learned about this planet, and you will become a leader. Then you have to watch your back. This is what happened to the Cathers.

By: gypsynovus

gypsynovus — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:30:01 +0000

ME ME. Chose me! I know the answer! Because it’s a corporation owned by an ATTORNEY! VERY E-V-I-L!

By: onetenther

onetenther — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:14:25 +0000

@JohnMohr It is true that a corporation is not a person. That is obvious but the issue is how far does the first amendment extend to? Does it cover just persons or does it also cover specific legal chargers aka corporations. The first amendment is pretty clear that no laws can forbid freedom of speech. I assume that would mean corporate laws that govern the actions of corporations. Since corporations, by their charter and the laws that govern them, are governed by laws then congress can’t forbid a law that bans how corporations communicate with each other.

The second point is that if you believe that the first amendment doesn’t apply to corporations then what about news agencies? Those are corporations. Are they protected under the first amendment’s freedom of the press? Perhaps we can pass a corporate regulation that says news agencies can’t say anything negative about the government? THey can use the same logic you are saying in that news corps are not people therefore they are not covered by the first amendemnt.

By: onetenther

onetenther — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:45 +0000

@JamesKoss @West Texan Really? The last time I checked corporations had very little ability to make me do things involuntarily. Making people do things involuntarily is power since force is what is needed to get them to do things they don’t want to do. I’ve never experienced an involuntary relationship with a corporation until obamacare. What does it matter if a corporation is a person or not when the first amendment makes no exceptions over what is speaking. It does not say congress shall pass no law violating a person’s right of free-speech. It says any entities right to communicate. That would include corporatations and even if you said otherwise the actions that corporations do are dictated by the CEOs who are also people. I know you don’t consider them human beings but there is a lot of scientific evidence that suggest that CEOs descended from the same gene pool as poor and middle-class folk.