Free Speech

[Opoponax]

Do "Free Speech Zones" still exist today like they did in the Bush era? Can you get a permit to protest whatever you want with whatever message you want, or will the state shut some groups down and promote others?

What you're referring to, maybe inadvertently, are time place and manner restrictions. First there are what's known as public forums and designated public forums. The former consists of things like public parks and sidewalks--places where people have traditionally held protests. Designated forums are those that aren't traditionally open for speech activities, such as a school gym, where e.g. the government decides to hold a town hall meeting or political debate.

In both instances, the regulation governing the speech activities must be content and viewpoint neutral. This means the government is 1) not allowed to regulate based on the message of the speech is, and 2) it cannot support or ban such messages.

Thus, when you get into "free speech zones" it depends on where the "zone" is and why. For example, a convention hall that's privately owned does not have to allow people onto any part of its property because that's private property, not government property. So even if the Republican party is holding a convention there, it is perfectly acceptable to not allow protesters onto the property. People can protest in the street (assuming they get a permit--will almost always be granted if applied for), or the government can open up an area nearby in which to hold the protest (the designated public forum), or people can go to a nearby park (traditional public forum).

In any event TPM restrictions are well established Constitutional law and the free speech zones, assuming they didn't keep people from gathering in a traditional public forum, were actually in keeping with the First Amendment.

Is Free Speech a liberal or conservative value now? Or is it both? I used to notice it almost entirely on the left (the right squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc), but now see it more and more on the right (the left also squealing "think of the children!" Demands for bans on everything from porn to violence in video games, etc).

History shows that the Constitution is independent of political values. For example, Alabama once tried to use the 10th Amendment to justify discrimination and segregation (a decidedly conservative value). Basically, the 10AM provides that the federal government cannot force states to legislate federal policy. Therefore, Alabama argued, the fed couldn't force it to create laws to prohibit discrimination/segregation (thankfully we have the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause). On the other hand, just last year when Trump said he was going to use the southwestern States' national guard to police the border, Jerry Brown, the governor of California was able to (more or less) tell Trump to get fucked because such an exercise of federal power over State assets would constitute what's known as "commandeering," which is unlawful under the 10AM.

As to the 1AM, the same thing applies. People get to write and make speeches that communicate the highest that humanity can aspire to, and they also get to hold rallies proclaiming the superiority of white people. IOW, the 1AM is utterly neutral.

Should free speech trump a person's "right not to be offended" (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)? Should there be restrictions on it other than immediate calls for violence? Myself, I see that as the only restriction I would put on it.

"Other than immediate calls for violence" isn't the only type of speech one can suffer consequences for, but the other types are so limited as to be irrelevant with respect to criminal prosecution... well, maybe except for obscenity laws, but those have become rare and the penalties, if any, almost always consist of an injunction rather than jail time. Also, defamation, speech which damages the reputation of the person the defamatory remarks are directed towards, and it's many possible forms is a civil wrong, not a criminal one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

 

[Trausti]

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

So if the NYT makes a political editorial - discussing policy or a candidate endorsement - there may be NYT employees who are against the editorial position. But if they are clocked in they'll nonetheless be advocating that political position.

 

[Bomb#20]

Citizens united said that unions and corporations have 1st amendment rights to free speech, especially political speech. But considering that these organizations are essentially legal constructs whose only means of public expression involve their expenditure of money, It kind of gives people the impression that as long as an entity in the US has money, regardless of it's status as an actual citizen or human, it can spend that money to influence an election. It deemphasizes the significance of humanity and instead insists that the only requirement for 1st amendment rights is a bank account.

If unions and corporations do not have 1st amendment rights to free speech, kiss the Pentagon Papers goodbye. The government lies to the people about the war, so somebody leaks that fact to the press, so Richard Nixon goes and finds a judge who gives him a court order telling the New York Times not to publish what they know, so they don't, so the people never find out they've been lied to. And that's a good thing, because the New York Times is after all a corporation, not a human, and we wouldn't want to deemphasize the significance of humanity. Is that really what you want?

There's a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer. I am not sure what it is but you're a smart guy so you should be able to figure it out.

Do you seriously believe that's a substantive argument?

There's a difference between every litigant who ever got an appellate court ruling in his favor and the litigant in the Supreme Court case that set the precedent that the appellate court based its decision on. If CU v FEC had gone down the way practically the entire left was screaming for it to go down and ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to "corporate speech", are you sincerely able to talk yourself into believing that when the next Daniel Ellsberg leaks the next Pentagon Papers to the next New York Times, and the next Richard Nixon gets the next court order to censor them, your ability to think of a difference between The New York Times and Pfizer or even ten thousand differences will somehow stop the next higher court the newspaper asks to squash the injunction from looking at alternate-universe CU v FEC and ruling "Sorry, our hands are tied. You're a corporation. The SCOTUS has made it clear the First Amendment doesn't protect corporations. The injunction against publishing is upheld."

 

[James Madison]

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

Both of your examples constitutes as collective speech. You have not made any rational distinction.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

So if the NYT makes a political editorial - discussing policy or a candidate endorsement - there may be NYT employees who are against the editorial position. But if they are clocked in they'll nonetheless be advocating that political position.

No, I doubt it. Pfizer on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

Both of your examples constitutes as collective speech. You have not made any rational distinction.

I have.

You have not given a substantive rebuttal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Unions and advocacy groups are based on what their human members believe and push for, or at least what the majority of their members believe and push for. Corporations can have policies that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the employees and/or shareholders actually believe, and this can be dictated by one CEO even against her/his own private interests as Don noted. Despite the laws cleverly built regarding corporations designed to shield human individuals from liability, corporations should NOT be seen as people with all of the rights that human individuals have, like nearly unlimited free speech.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unions and advocacy groups are based on what their human members believe and push for, or at least what the majority of their members believe and push for. Corporations can have policies that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the employees and/or shareholders actually believe, and this can be dictated by one CEO even against her/his own private interests as Don noted. Despite the laws cleverly built regarding corporations designed to shield human individuals from liability, corporations should NOT be seen as people with all of the rights that human individuals have, like nearly unlimited free speech.

Exactly.

 

[James Madison]

So if the NYT makes a political editorial - discussing policy or a candidate endorsement - there may be NYT employees who are against the editorial position. But if they are clocked in they'll nonetheless be advocating that political position.

No, I doubt it. Pfizer on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

Both of your examples constitutes as collective speech. You have not made any rational distinction.

I have.

You have not given a substantive rebuttal.

To the contrary, I have, there’s no textual basis for your distinction in the 1st Amendment speech clause or the historical evidence. None.

Both of your examples involved collective speech. You’ve made no rational distinction why one has free speech but the other cannot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Unions and advocacy groups are based on what their human members believe and push for, or at least what the majority of their members believe and push for. Corporations can have policies that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the employees and/or shareholders actually believe, and this can be dictated by one CEO even against her/his own private interests as Don noted. Despite the laws cleverly built regarding corporations designed to shield human individuals from liability, corporations should NOT be seen as people with all of the rights that human individuals have, like nearly unlimited free speech.

Unions and advocacy groups are based on what their human members believe and push for

This is also true for corporations, and was true for Citizens United.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is also true for corporations, and was true for Citizens United.

I am not familiar with Citizens United, but it isn't always true for corporations. Sometimes it is the directive from one human individual rather than any group of individuals. Sometimes it is done directly against the interest of the humans who enable or direct it, because of a policy of the corporation or corporate interest that clashes with their personal interests.

 

[James Madison]

This is also true for corporations, and was true for Citizens United.

I am not familiar with Citizens United, but it isn't always true for corporations. Sometimes it is the directive from one human individual rather than any group of individuals. Sometimes it is done directly against the interest of the humans who enable or direct it, because of a policy of the corporation or corporate interest that clashes with their personal interests.

That’s a rather tenuous basis for free speech rights. Everything you said above is equally possible for groups and organizations which aren’t corporations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That’s a rather tenuous basis for free speech rights. Everything you said above is equally possible for groups and organizations which aren’t corporations.

Not if those groups or organizations say what they do by adoption of policies and statements in a democratic basis. There would still be some minority members of those groups whose views wouldn't be heard in the statement, but at least the majority's would. That isn't necessarily true of a top down corporation run by a CEO or board of directors, with obligations to shareholders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anti trust laws came about because lagre comanies could wield too much individual ecommic influence.

No. Anti-trust laws are because monopolies can wield too much power. The problem comes when you don't have a choice to avoid a badly-behaved company.

 

[James Madison]

That’s a rather tenuous basis for free speech rights. Everything you said above is equally possible for groups and organizations which aren’t corporations.

Not if those groups or organizations say what they do by adoption of policies and statements in a democratic basis. There would still be some minority members of those groups whose views wouldn't be heard in the statement, but at least the majority's would. That isn't necessarily true of a top down corporation run by a CEO or board of directors, with obligations to shareholders.

Can't the NAACP, fraternities, sororities, unions, ABA, and the ACLU be as undemocratic in regards to some of its messages, some of its speech, as the corporation? Or are we to believe every single message, every instance of speech, by organizations are always done on a democratic basis and no message or speech is every uttered by those organizations unless it is democratically approved by its members?

This entity here has free speech rights because its messages are approved on a "democratic basis" by a vote of its members, but the speech of the other entity is not protected by the 1st Amendment since its speech was not democratically approved by its members. That is a tenuous approach to protecting free speech.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I doubt it. Pfizer on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

Both of your examples constitutes as collective speech. You have not made any rational distinction.

I have.

You have not given a substantive rebuttal.

To the contrary, I have, there’s no textual basis for your distinction in the 1st Amendment speech clause or the historical evidence. None.

Of course, there are. There is no contextual basis for interpretation of the 1st Amendment as applied to for-profit corporations. It is about individual citizens not legal entities that are incorporated in a State.

Both of your examples involved collective speech. You’ve made no rational distinction why one has free speech but the other cannot.

It isn't collective speech when it doesn't represent the opinions of any member or the collection of members, but some distinct opinion instead. Nice try.

 

[James Madison]

No, I doubt it. Pfizer on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -

You’ve made no rational distinction between the entities.

We cannot have a discussion unless you can understand what I wrote. I will rephrase. Person x, y, and z can be employed by for-profit corporation A. They can follow corporate policy. One can be in marketing and advertising. According to corporate policy bottom line is ultra-important. So corporate marketing may want to take position N on an issue. None of person x, y, or z may want position N. In fact, all x, y, and z may be against position N. However, when they are on the clock and it is their turn to make a commercial they may advocate for a political position, namely N, as the corporate position for for-profit corporation A.

This is very different from person x, y, and z joining a political organization because they all believe in position N. The latter is definitely collective speech. The former is something different or at a minimum can be different. At best, the former is superfluous and at worst it is incongruent to all of its employees political views, even theoretically its owners' views.

Both of your examples constitutes as collective speech. You have not made any rational distinction.

I have.

You have not given a substantive rebuttal.

To the contrary, I have, there’s no textual basis for your distinction in the 1st Amendment speech clause or the historical evidence. None.

Of course, there are. There is no contextual basis for interpretation of the 1st Amendment as applied to for-profit corporations. It is about individual citizens not legal entities that are incorporated in a State.

Both of your examples involved collective speech. You’ve made no rational distinction why one has free speech but the other cannot.

It isn't collective speech when it doesn't represent the opinions of any member or the collection of members, but some distinct opinion instead. Nice try.

Of course, there are. There is no contextual basis for interpretation of the 1st Amendment as applied to for-profit corporations. It is about individual citizens not legal entities that are incorporated in a State.

This logic has the result of muting every organization. The 1st Amendment free speech clause does not textually make any distinction between kinds of speakers.

It isn't collective speech when it doesn't represent the opinions of any member or the collection of members, but some distinct opinion instead. Nice try.

Utter nonsense.

When I was an active in the fraternity Lambda Chi, the fraternity would engage in speech, and they never consulted me or many of the brothers for our opinions. The fact the speech didn’t necessarily represent my particular view or the view of many of the brothers doesn’t change the fact it was a message by Lambda Chi, a message from the fraternity, a fraternity made up of people, hence collective speech.

Similarly, the ABA (American Bar Association) doesn’t and hasn’t consulted me or many other members when espousing some of its liberal and left leaning points of view. Yet, this doesn’t negate the notion the messages by the ABA, a group made up of people, is engaged in collective speech.

The fact the speech is “some distinct opinion” doesn’t change the fact the speech is of the entity, an entity made up of people, hence its collective.

Collective speech is not speech in which every person belonging to the group has input in the message. Collective speech is speech made by an organization of people, in which at least one person belonging to the organization and acting on behalf of the organization, engaged in speech through and by the organization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steve_bank]

Anti trust laws came about because lagre comanies could wield too much individual ecommic influence.

No. Anti-trust laws are because monopolies can wield too much power. The problem comes when you don't have a choice to avoid a badly-behaved company.

Hello! (knocking on your forehead) Anybody home? It was a simple analogy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Unions and advocacy groups are based on what their human members believe and push for, or at least what the majority of their members believe and push for. Corporations can have policies that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the employees and/or shareholders actually believe, and this can be dictated by one CEO even against her/his own private interests as Don noted. Despite the laws cleverly built regarding corporations designed to shield human individuals from liability, corporations should NOT be seen as people with all of the rights that human individuals have, like nearly unlimited free speech.

But corporations are not seen as people with all of the rights that human individuals have. The idea that the Supreme Court said they are is an entirely typical lie that went half way around the world before the truth got its boots on. There are a lot of ideologues out there making a lot of political hay misrepresenting what the Supreme Court said.

Corporations don't talk. People talk. Suppose you got your wish and the Supreme Court ruled that the government can censor what it chooses to define as "corporate speech". How do you imagine that would be enforced? How do you think it is possible for the government to punish a corporation for uttering "corporate speech" other than by punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered?

As far as "what the majority of their members believe and push for", why do you think that is, or should be, legally relevant? If the shareholders elect Joe Blow to run their company and Joe Blow uses corporate resources to hire somebody to speak politically, how the heck is that any of Congress's business? Joe Blow is a human and has the human right of free speech. So's the guy he hires. If the shareholders don't like what Joe Blow says they're free to fire him and hire somebody who'll say what they want. If their employment contract with him says they don't authorize him to use company money for that purpose, or if they think he acted in bad faith and spent their money promoting his own personal political ideology instead of in order to make more money for them, they're free to sue him for breach of contract. So what justifies Congress stepping in and acting in loco parentis to tell the shareholders how they have to delegate the spending of their money on political speech? The First Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of people provided they aren't being paid for their speech, and are agreed with by a majority, and aren't motivated by profit."

If you think it should have said that, or if you think the courts should read it as though it did say that, have you thought through the implications of that moral judgment? Suppose Congress is authorized to throw the CEO of Pfizer in jail because he hired somebody to advocate a government policy he thought would make money for Pfizer instead of the policy he or his employers philosophically believed was best for the country. Newsflash: newspapers get accused of printing stuff just in order to sell more papers all the time. If profit motive is one day construed as grounds for censorship, the editor of the Washington Post is going to find himself in the next jail cell to Pfizer's CEO. Do you think that would be a good thing?

 

[laughing dog]

Corporations don't talk.

Ads are taken out and/or sponsored under corporate aegis.

Suppose you got your wish and the Supreme Court ruled that the government can censor what it chooses to define as "corporate speech". How do you imagine that would be enforced? How do you think it is possible for the government to punish a corporation for uttering "corporate speech" other than by punishing one or more living breathing H. sapiens organisms for what some living breathing H. sapiens organism uttered?

I could imagine fines or the lose of some (if not all) of the corporate advantage