|
|
#11
06-30-2007, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Free speech - What entities have it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions). [/ QUOTE ] The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech for "individuals" or "some people" or anything like that. It's very non-specific. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, so there is no point in speculating to what sources it applies to. It doesn't exclude any sources, so clearly it applies to speech in general, regardless of source. 
|
|
#12
06-30-2007, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Free speech - What entities have it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions). [/ QUOTE ] The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech for "individuals" or "some people" or anything like that. It's very non-specific. [/ QUOTE ] Actually the amendment specifically offers freedom of speech to a particular subclass of "artificial legal entities" that is to the Memebers of the Press. Is it logical to conclude that other legal entities can have their speech regulated by the government. [/ QUOTE ] Is the bolded intended to be a question or a statement? The fact that the amendment offers specific protection to one source of speech should not, IMO, be construed to imply that it does not offer protection to other sources of speech as well. My guess is that the authors probably felt that freedom of the press was so vitally important, that it should also be enumerated as such, in order that people couldn't speciously somehow argue that freedom of the press can be restricted (as they now argue that corporate speech or union speech can be restricted). It was just a double-safeguard placed in the text regarding a matter of especially vital importance. Unfortunately, this and perhaps some other double-safeguards in the greater document have been construed by some to mean that that which is not double-safeguarded was not intended to be safeguarded at all in the first place. To me that's twisted reasoning which contains a logical hole. There are no logical holes if you just interpret it broadly. Focused secondary emphasis does not nullify broader primary emphasis. At least, that's the way I see it.
|
|
#13
06-30-2007, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Free speech - What entities have it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am curious why the First Amendment applies to these artificial legal constructs (corporations and unions). [/ QUOTE ] The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech for "individuals" or "some people" or anything like that. It's very non-specific. [/ QUOTE ] Actually the amendment specifically offers freedom of speech to a particular subclass of "artificial legal entities" that is to the Memebers of the Press. [/ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't. Freedom of the Press is a separate freedom from Freedom of Speech, even if it's listed in the same amendment. Same with Freedom of Religion.
|
|
#14
06-30-2007, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Free speech - What entities have it?
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the amendment specifically offers freedom of speech to a particular subclass of "artificial legal entities" that is to the Memebers of the Press. Is it logical to conclude that other legal entities can have their speech regulated by the government. [/ QUOTE ] The first amendment doesn't offer anyone anything. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights or freedoms. It is supposed to prevent the government from doing certain things. And, as has already been stated, you cannot deny the right for a group to "speak" without denying the right of the individual.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
