Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:08:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 that corporations can say whatever they want, as long as it's
the truth--Nike wasn't presenting the truth in these instances cited.
Much like it's illegal for me to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre when
there was none, for my speech is then not protected under the 1st, it is
also wrong for a corp. to misrepresent themselves--advertising or not.
I'd like to see someone take the beer companies to task for all their
glorified 'babes-on-beach' advertising--once I'd like to see some real truth
in advertising--guys with distended beer bellies belching and getting into
brawls at bars 'n such--I think my advertisement is closer to the norm than
the babes.
Anyway, free speech has to be protected for everyone--corporations included,
or it means nothing. Free speeh must also remain true-to-the-facts (or as
close as it can be) or it's akin to the fire in a theatre scenario.
My few coppers.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Free Speech, again
|
| (URL) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
