Citizens United v. FEC - Supreme Court Ruling

[2411Hellokitty]

Watch video AsJjlC3WaTY

Citizens united supporter wants those who disagree stripped of their right to vote and forced to take medication.

[sgpquek]

you're doing well until you pick the chinese as scapegoat to your worthwhile agenda. I suggest you be more educated universally as the word golbally will get you thinking in a bad way.

[kehvan]

Businesses, organizations and other groups are made of up people you dimwitted twit.

[AtibbsSPARTAN]

I think you are overhyping this case to the max. Companies already have commercials to try and spin our views. Are we really that stupid?

ACTUALLY READ MCCAIN FEINGOLD....it is a complete mess

[wespayne67]

This is shear propaganda, and blatantly dishonest at that.Watching this would make me feel sick... if I wasn't imagining this girl naked.

[mikerotcherson]

It's comically ironic that you call this "reel facts". Have a look at some real reel facts:

/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU

[patrykrebisz]

yes, but you are talking about some utopia while i'm talking about reality. Independent film company will never be able to scream their message because they have no way to pay to broadcast that message.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Why not? I see plenty of indies getting picked up by major distributors. That's the reality.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, no... there are some indies that get picked up while HUGE, HUGE, HUGE majority does not.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the vast majority of films are rubbish and therefore not picked up. Maybe they'll have to find alternative means of distribution. But that's not an excuse to ban films that DO happen to find a means of distribution. Ironic that filmmakers should be enemies of speech in that context.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger i can send you a whole list of films you never heard of that are fantastic films, won major wards at film festivals and never really found distribution. Some big corp never felt (and that's their right) like they can make money with those thus decided not to spend money on advertisement. So you don't know their message even though the message was pure and good.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz If they've won major awards at film festivals, then they've been broadcast, or distributed, by definition. You're declaring that incorporated film companies do not have a constitutional right to make such broadcasts -- which would make even limited screenings unprotected and censorable by the government.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz It's pretty shocking that filmmakers think that their fellow filmmakers should be censorable. Incorporated indie film company making political films: censorable with no 1st Amendment rights? Yes or no?

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, one again stop talking about some utopian indie company that can't say something because people like me are plastering their mouth with duck tape. Start talking about reality. It's not about you and your cousins Joe pulling together $100 to buy a camera and post a video on youtube but about big corps with millions of dollars to spend to walk over your $100 video because they can buy TV ad space, place posters, buy billboards, flood you with their message.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz And wealthy individuals with millions of dollars to spend can buy TV ad space, place posters, buy billboards, "flood you with" their message. So individuals should have their 1st Amendment rights curtailed because some individuals happen to be rich? Your notion of free speech rights is not supported by the law.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, you are the one who all the sudden wants to limit individual's speech based on their wealth.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Er, you're the one saying that the speech of corporations in general should be censorable because some corporations -- like some individuals -- happen to be rich.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, first of all not "happen" as corporations ARE way richer then most individuals. Second of all, you can't keep on using a blanket statement as there ARE huge differences between individuals and corporations.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz That's just another way of saying that a group of individuals are richer than any one individual. So what? Some individuals are also richer than other individuals. Why should individuals in general have their free speech rights curtailed just because some are richer than others? You're incoherent.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, i really feel like i'm banging my head against a wall here as you keep on repeating the same mantra you started the conversation with.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz In fact, the corporation at issue in this case -- Citizens United -- isn't a major corporation. It's a small, incorporated nonprofit advocacy group. Very analogous to an incorporated indie film company making political films. You underestimate the ability of small corporations to secure funding and/or pool their resources for expressive purposes.

[sklanger]

The New York Times corporation routinely supports or opposes individual candidates -- its editorial endorsements are "meant to influence" the voters. Its corporate voice is therefore amplified relative to other corporations. Is your solution to muzzle the corporate media?

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger so your solution is to give the corps that can't "routinely supports or opposes individual candidates" more voice to even out the field in the democracy of corporations? It's not perfect but your solution will take even more voices from individuals.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Indeed. The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. All you're doing now is concentrating the right to associational speech in the hands of a few corporations. By democratizing corporate speech, individuals will be more effectively able to pool their resources in the form they deem most effective for associational speech -- the corporate form. "Rich corporations" is really a misnomer -- most corporations aren't.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, video like the one above can cost tens of thousand in corporate culture and after 2 weeks of edits and revisions still be scraped because last minute someone decides to go another route. I see shit load of money being wasted every day by corporations. I don't know about you but i don't have spare 20-30 thousand around just to make a video and at the end of the day not even care that it doesn't get aired. But corporations do. That alone puts individual citizens at a HUGE disadvantage.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz What makes you think individual citizens don't form corporations precisely for that reason -- to pool their resources in order to speak more effectively, as a group? You seem to think that there is some sort of dichotomy between individuals and corporations, when in fact, that dichotomy is artificial, since corporations are comprised of individuals.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, clearly you are not aware about how crowds react, how individuals can hide in the crowd and by being part of the crowd shed the responsibility for crowd's acions. Same thing is happening when people operate within the corporate structure - somehow things that would be unthinkable to them as individuals are totally fine.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Or likeminded individuals may band together in corporate form to voice what they truly believe, opinions that they would not dare voice as individuals. You know, strength in numbers and all that. It cuts the other way too. But it's not an excuse for you to limit anyone's 1st Amendment rights.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, the corporations that you so dearly defend are not "anyone" as a person does have a conscience while a corporate instrument despite of being made up of people does not.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Corporations are comprised of individuals. Individuals who choose to speak in association with one another. "Anyone" may be that individual, and you're limiting that person's 1st Amendment right to speak in association with others through the instrument of the corporate form.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, it's beyond my comprehension how you can't see that morality of individual is vastly different then morality of a crow made up of 500 individuals.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz So a crowd of 500 protesting apartheid, or a crowd of 500 lynching a man, are neither morally virtuous nor as morally deficient as an individual doing the same? They should be judged by different moral standards? Yes, incomprehensible.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, would an individual lynch a man - lets' say no; would an individual stand up to the apartheid by himself - for the sake of the discussion let's say no. Thus is morality of the crowd = morality of the individual - again, no. Thus should those two be treated equally - no. And because of that should they have the same rights - NO.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz "Let's say no" -- you're simply assuming away the question?? If this is the standard of debate you're engaging in don't bother. And please. Systematic genocide is no less morally reprehensible whether engaged in by a "crowd" of people or by individuals. The law makes no distinction between the two.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, there is probably more than one issue where we disagree on but to keep this conversation focused i really don't need to bring in side conversations if we agree that there are individuals capable of lynchings (yes, there are) or people capable of incredible acts of bravery (again, yes there are). In general though the answers to the issues were NO thus there was no reason to digress.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz So you admit that morality does not differ, since there are individuals capable of great evil as well as great virtue -- whether in a group or outside of one. Don't try to bullshit your way out of this.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, between individuals morality does not differ, yes. Between an individual and an institution - there is no question that one has morality while other does not.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz A group of people have no morality? I didn't know that people suddenly lose their morality when they're in a crowd. That's a fine defense: "I was not aware of right and wrong because we happened to be in a crowd when we committed genocide." If you really believe that, then you're more confused than I thought.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, that's actually a common defense in war crimes courts.

On MUCH smaller scale you never noticed how different you act when with your loved one, or with your family, or in a crowd of people, or in a business meeting, or hanging out with friends in a bar?

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz A defense that has been rejected time and time again by international tribunals trying genocide. You're wrong. Just like you're wrong in asserting that corporations have no 1st Amendment rights and that indie filmmakers producing their films through the corporate form are censorable by the government.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger , not indie filmmakers but indie advertisers - watch at least the trailer for the film in questions and you will know that it's a 90 minute long negative ad against Hillary not a genuine document trying uncover or learn something.

besides, i'm not sure you realize how difficult it is (if possible at all) to argue with someone who simply says: "you are wrong and i'm right."

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Whether or not it's a "genuine document" is not for the government to decide -- certainly not as a basis for censorship -- and would be unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination under the Court's 1st Amendment case law. I'm not sure you realize how difficult it is to argue with someone who is as generally ignorant of the law as you are.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, yes, "you are right and i'm wrong"

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz And yet negative ads are protected by the 1st Amendment. The implication that such ads aren't a protected form of speech is merely another bit of nonsense from you. Worse, you imply that the government may censor films because of what you deem to be "negative" content -- classic content-based discrimination that is as a rule, unconstitutional as a basis for censorship.

[sklanger]

See, e.g., Reagan v. Time ("Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the 1st Amendment."). So yes, I'm right, and you're wrong.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Your position boils down to: "incorporated indie film companies have no 1st Amendment protection and their political films are censorable by the government." That's the long and short of it. Utterly deplorable, unconstitutional, and thankfully a position rejected by the Supreme Court.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz I think we can pretty much assume that, under your theory of the 1st Amendment, your answer to whether an incorporated indie film company can be censored for making political films is a resounding "YES." You're just too much of a pussy to come right out and say it. You must realize by now that your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is as wrong as it is asinine.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Imagine an incorporated film company. An indie. Helmed by independent producers and filmmakers who make political films. You'd think that such films are core political speech and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. But under the theory that corporations do not have free speech rights, the individuals who make up the corporation in order to collectively pool their resources to put out such a film wouldn't have such rights.

[sklanger]

Corporations like the New York Times already have the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech. How is that surprising?

[twochordcool]

You're bright and beautiful - keep plugging away and informing as many people as you can reach.

:)