I was recently over hearing a bunch of people arguing about this case at a coffee shop and I know in law school we discussed this briefly, but I wanted to refresh my recollection and that it would make for an interesting thread. My understanding of the case is as follows: A conservative group Citizens United wanted to air a documentary bashing Hilary Clinton before the Democratic Primary election. There was a Federal Statute that stood in the way of airing the documentary. Citizen United filed suit alleging the statute violated their free speech and the documentary should be allowed. The court then decided by a 5-4 funding the documentary was free speech and allowed, which in essence allowed corporations to provide more money to campaigns to protect freedom of speech. First I was wondering if my understanding is even correct and what people think. My two cents if my understanding is correct is that groups, corporations, people, etc should be able to say what they want to say, but I understand the argument that is creates an unfair playing field. Overhearing that conversation made me think of this board and I wanted to see if anyone had additional insight.
Ha! I don't know if we're going to do the Judge Dredd route, but we're definitely not too far away from corporations being full out people, complete with voting rights, rights to privacy, rights to reproduction and all other rights that people currently enjoy under the Constitution. Especially under the John Roberts Court. He seems to be very adamant about skewing the law in favor of all things corporate.
Quote from: Burning Sands, Esq. on June 15, 2014, 11:09:55 AMHa! I don't know if we're going to do the Judge Dredd route, but we're definitely not too far away from corporations being full out people, complete with voting rights, rights to privacy, rights to reproduction and all other rights that people currently enjoy under the Constitution. Especially under the John Roberts Court. He seems to be very adamant about skewing the law in favor of all things corporate.I wonder if someday antitrust merger laws could be overcome by "marriage" ? Seems crazy but I could see some lawyer taking a swing at itAs for reproductive rights, I guess firing all of its top heavy staff could be an "abortion" maybe???I don't know, that may be a stretch. But Judge Dred would be a cool job. Drone attacks on US citizens abroad without due process kind of feels like Dred meets Robocop a bit though.
Great responses Burning Sands. It is unfortunate money plays such a role in elections, but I still think people should be allowed to spend their money how they wish. It is up to the voters think for themselves and not be fooled by expensive campaign funds I don't think legislating the issue or blocking people is the right approach and the Supreme Court agrees for now, but I can definitely see the issue being revisited. It is an interesting debate and great summary of the issues in the case.
I think there are 2 separate ideas being conflated here. One is the right to spend your money however you want to, which I agree is fine. The other is whether whether spending money is a first amendment right to free speech. I think this stretches the meaning of free speech a bit too far.
Page created in 0.443 seconds with 19 queries.