Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ film and corporate cash in politics

[Razgovory]

What's the point of having an admendment to protect freedom of speech if it doesn't protect political speech?

Corporations don't have rights like freedom of speech. This is about freedom of the press.

Actually I thought this was an issue over advertising.  Still I'm not sure what rights corporations have in this country.  It's not something I understand well.

[Barrister]

What's the point of having an admendment to protect freedom of speech if it doesn't protect political speech?

Corporations don't have rights like freedom of speech. This is about freedom of the press.

Well the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about freedom of the press - it's merely part of the overall Freedom of Speech.

And since I'm not a US lawtalker I stand to be corrected, but corporations, being persons at law, I believe would have a guaranteed freedom of speech.

[Razgovory]

I believe "Press" is used specifically in the first amendment.

[DGuller]

Meh.  Freedom of speech has to have some common sense limitations.  Some of them have to do with safety, and some of them have to do with protecting against freedom of speech being used as a weapon against free society.  Restricting political contributions seems to clearly fall under the second category.

[Barrister]

Meh.  Freedom of speech has to have some common sense limitations.  Some of them have to do with safety, and some of them have to do with protecting against freedom of speech being used as a weapon against free society.  Restricting political contributions seems to clearly fall under the second category.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Oh, wait.

You guys don't have an equivalent to Section 1.

sorry.

[Faeelin]

And since I'm not a US lawtalker I stand to be corrected, but corporations, being persons at law, I believe would have a guaranteed freedom of speech.

Right, but they're persons at law because of a government fiction, not because they're actually persons. So can one restrict their First Amendment Rights in a more serious way?

Screw it, I don't have con law til next semester.

[Neil]

And since I'm not a US lawtalker I stand to be corrected, but corporations, being persons at law, I believe would have a guaranteed freedom of speech.

Right, but they're persons at law because of a government fiction, not because they're actually persons. So can one restrict their First Amendment Rights in a more serious way?

Screw it, I don't have con law til next semester.

I support the idea of creating different classes of personhood under the law.  Then, undesirables like fags and rabblerousers can be moved into the lower categories of personhood and disposed of.

[Maximus]

Well corporations cannot gain the right to vote, nor serve on juries. Without a great deal of thought, I would say most of the rights in the Bill of Rights do not apply to corporations.

[ulmont]

Well the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about freedom of the press - it's merely part of the overall Freedom of Speech.

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.

[ulmont]

Right, but they're persons at law because of a government fiction, not because they're actually persons. So can one restrict their First Amendment Rights in a more serious way?

So far, yes (commercial speech is less protected, and corporations have been more heavily regulated). How long this will last, who knows.

[KRonn]

Meh.  Freedom of speech has to have some common sense limitations.  Some of them have to do with safety, and some of them have to do with protecting against freedom of speech being used as a weapon against free society.  Restricting political contributions seems to clearly fall under the second category.

I tend to agree with this in general. All freedoms have some limits. Libel/slander laws on speech; limits on firearm ownership, etc.

This issue can get tricky though, as it seems that some campaign restrictions go too far. But keeping it all too unlimited would seem a problem also, as it would seem to corrupt the process. So this will be interesting, and important.

[Barrister]

Well the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about freedom of the press - it's merely part of the overall Freedom of Speech.

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.

I stand corrected then.

It turns out even our own Charter makes specific mention of of the press:

2.    Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)  freedom of conscience and religion; 
(b)  freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c)  freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
(d)  freedom of association. 

[Barrister]

How does the USSC justify what may or may not be 'reasonable' limits on a right, especially since the Bill of Rights doesn't have any kind of limiting section?

Here we have s. 1, which talks about "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".  Which the SCC has told us in R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 means that any such restriction must:

1. relate to a pressing and substantial concern; and
2. show that the means chosen reasonable and demonstrably justified

[Neil]

How does the USSC justify what may or may not be 'reasonable' limits on a right, especially since the Bill of Rights doesn't have any kind of limiting section?

They were 'read into the text' when people started to realize that the US Constitution, as written, was utterly incompatible with a modern, civilized state.

[alfred russel]

And since I'm not a US lawtalker I stand to be corrected, but corporations, being persons at law, I believe would have a guaranteed freedom of speech.

Right, but they're persons at law because of a government fiction, not because they're actually persons. So can one restrict their First Amendment Rights in a more serious way?

Screw it, I don't have con law til next semester.

The fiction that corporations are persons at law only obscures that they are ultimately ways for individuals to conduct their affairs in society.

For example, for tax reasons I may choose to conduct my mom and pop business through a corporation. Does that mean that if I transfer assets into the corporation I lose the right to use those assets to express certain opinions? Is it potentially an abuse of the first amendment to advantage certain types of corporations--incentivizing people to transfer assets to them--and then restricting the the speech of the corporations? Or is this a slippery slope argument and as silly as the UN black helicopters?