Subject:
|
Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:51:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
183 times
|
| |
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/scotus.free.speech.ap/index.html
I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know, but I don't
accept that corporations are citizens protected under the first amendment.
Ditto any corporate executive or agent speaking on behalf of the
corporation; the speech of *the person* is protected, but not when that
person is acting as an arm of the company.
To me it's very much the same as when Dubya invokes God in every speech.
George W. Bush is free to worship and believe as he sees fit, but as *the
president* his individual rights are subordinate to the limitations of his
office.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well, maybe not. (...) They don't themselves have to be citizens for their actions to be protected. Engage in this thought experiment with me. Suppose I take out an ad in the paper that says "Hop Frog sometimes posts mean things in (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) First, I'd say there's a difference b/w a corporation and a gov't institution--separation of church and state is gov't, not corporation. Dubya 'talking God' is irrelevant. Dubya supporting keeping "Under God" in the PoA is wrong. I also thing (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
