Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - First Amendment to the United States Constitution
I wish our President would read the Constitution.
Obama: Ruling 'strikes at our democracy'
If the Democrats want to limit the free speech of corporations, then they should propose a amendment to the Constitution.
And if you think corporations shouldn't have free speech rights, then tell me why "Media" corporations (i.e. the "Press") should have unlimited free speech rights while other corporations shouldn't have any.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
First of all you should read the constitution, the constitution protects people not corporations, if a corporation wants to have the same rights as a person then it needs to accept the same responsibilities as a person, to vote, pay taxes according income, go to jail when breaking the law, go to jail when polluting, etc....of course this does not happen because corporations control congress and congress passes laws to protect corporations, taking from the people to give to the corporations. Why you prefer corporations over people baffles me since you don't get paid by corporations, and most people who do get paid , the majority are poorly paid only the elite school execs get paid well...as for the news media there should be a law banning corporations from owning them or even advertising with them, news media should be financed with our tax dollars...there's plenty of entertainment media to advertise from.
How can you be so wrong. The Catholic Church started corporations to protect it's assets. In the First Amendment it references at least two possible corporations, religion and the press. (2) Taxes according to income was not part of the original constitution.
As I said, if you don't like, change the constitution.
You should go see the film Agora if you want to understand the Catholic Church and how it got started.
The corporate press is a corporation I grant you but I don't see why you consider the free press or religion a corporation?
We don't have to finance the free or independent press with income tax dollars we could fund them with corporate taxes or sales taxes.
? are you confusing "free" press with freedom of the press?
Corporations existed at the time of the Constitution and I would bet many of them were formed as "corporations". Unlike partnerships which dissolve when a member dies, corporation allows a business to survive. Religions used corporations to save the assets of abbeys when the abbey master died.
No the free press and freedom of the press is the same thing...the press is free because we have freedom of the press...yet that is not the issue, the issue is the corporate press is "free" under law, under our constitution, yet is it really free?...anyone who is not completely brainwashed would have to say NO with a capital N, they are not free because they have to make a profit to survive ie if the choice comes down to telling the truth or deliberately avoiding the truth and pleasing an advertiser like Exxon Mobil, the corporate press will choose their advertisers, the "truly free" press like Democracy Now can survive without advertising since they are funded by the people so you can count on them to tell the truth.
As for corporations I am not against their existence if they do more good for the society than harm yet I think they should not be allowed to exist if they do more harm than good, which is easy to measure and determine if we had transparency which we don't since the corporations control congress. If the people knew the truth about Exxon Mobil and Monsanto and similar they would have been shut down by law long ago.
(A) The press has never been "free" - i.e. without cost. You have to pay for your newspaper, books, etc.
The press is "free" to say what it wants, about the government, etc., without fear of censorship or retribution. It doesn't have to be "true" or "right" or "good".
You say "I think they should not be allowed to exist if they do more harm than good", who is to judge that? How do you add that up.
Exxon provides jobs, taxes, profits to shareholders, cheap oil for heating, gas for travel, etc.
You should like GEORGE BERNARD SHAW:
"If you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."
As for Shaw the purpose of life in my opinion is not to consume but seek the truth
The press costs but not that much, if we took just 0.01% of the money we give to the military in taxes and gave it to the press instead they wouldn't need advertising to survive, they could survive with only subscriptions.
As for judging companies like Exxon that's easy when they break our laws whether in our country or another they should be held accountable which is not the case today or since Reagan came to power.
f we took just 0.01% of the money we give to the military in taxes
- why should taxpayers support the press? Wouldn't it just become another arm of the government?
No we could make it illegal for the government to have any control of the press, that taxes went automatically to the press without conditions, no conditions whatsoever. Further any government or corporate for profit press would be forbidden, they could only do entertainment not news, news would be reserved only for the free and independent press...this way we would avoid corporate or government propaganda...the independent press would be wide and varied with opinions on both sides of every question so the people could decide for themselves what to believe.
that taxes went automatically to the press without conditions, no conditions whatsoever - since anyone and everyone can be the press, how would divide the money?
the rest of your statement is just nuts.
we could allocate the money according to journalistic credentials, to track records and results, we could have the people vote on allocation for example
What is sad is that you think you could actually implement your ideas.
watch this for a serious discussion of the question, then tell me what you think after you watched the segment linked below
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/4/robert_mcchesney_and_john_nichols_on
http://www.democracynow.org/2010
/2/4/robert_mcchesney_and_john_
nichols_on
LOL, the left can't get it supporters to pay for it's content. So they want the public to pay for what it doesn't want.
Why is it the left always want others to pay for what the left thinks we should watch, read, think, etc? LOL.
Good Journalism is neither left nor right it is neutral it goes after the truth only...like Democracy Now...the truth can support policies of the right and the left yet usually supports policies of the left cause the left is just naturally more in line with the truth, so the truth seems to be on the left...but its not, justice is blind, neither left nor right....for example during the Bush years the Corporate media was asked not to show coffins of our dead soldiers during the Bush years so as not to arouse antiwar sentiment with the people, the Corporate media obeyed, Democracy Now did not, Harpers and the Nation did not, FOX portrayed the Iraqi people as inferior to Americans, promulgating racism and profiling and glorifying our destruction of the Iraqi people...Democracy Now called the Invasion of Iraq a mistake from the beginning and constantly reported on the horrors...recently in Haiti only Democracy Now told the truth of how the soldiers were making it tougher for the people to get access to the food and medicine etc.
Since you don't watch Fox news, how would know what they did or did not do?
I just wonder what kind or world you think you are living in?
Does Democracy Now usually have people from the right commenting on what the leftists say? If so, who? All I've seen is leftist views going unchallenged.
as for the coffins, that policy was in effect before Bush came into office - I just wish you would check your facts
Post a Comment