Skip to main content

View Diary: The summer of our discontent: corporatism vs. populism (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your examples don't work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yella dawg, elwior

    My point is that the 1st Amendment right is inherently tied to personhood, period. In case you haven't noticed, movies and plays can be censored now (or at least punished afterwards or enjoined against prior, which amounts to the same thing) for a variety of speech-related issues (pornographic content, to start with.) Nor could an individual ever be barred from speaking regardless of who the work for, since their individual right remains uncompromised. It is only the corporations (yes, including unions) themselves (along with their corporate funds) who would have to remain silent. This in no way makes it impossible for people to band together to put out a political message, but they'd have to do so as a non-corporate association and forgo the legal advantages (in other areas) that corporations have in order to be political. It's also a forgone conclusion that the rich can get their voice heard better than the rest of us, though that is changing as communications changes and becomes more bi-directional on the mass scale.

    I still say that underneath this ruling is implicit reliance on corporate personhood to allow the application of the 1st Amendment at all. Just because Kennedy chose to gloss over that point and hide it in terms like "associations of citizens" doesn't make it any less true.

    Conservito delenda est pro is deleo orbis terrarum!

    by Stwriley on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site