Whose First Amendment Rights? (edited)
Update: Ingrid has asked why a Corporation is treated as a person and I replied that it was decided by the Supreme Court many years ago. I went hunting online and found this for starters.
It's fairly comprehensive and includes a link to an ongoing debate on the subject and the intent of the 1844 Court. Bit by bit, corporations and the courts have expanded the original ruling so it's not too surprising that this happened.
Sometimes the law has very little to do with morality.
Ann
Here's the original post from yesterday:
This is reprinted, just as I received it a few minutes ago (except for the donation request) from Independent.Primary.Com. If you want to donate you may but I don't want to set a precedent here by having you think I'm promoting one cause over another. There are just too many.
======
It just goes to show you can never count on a corrupt political process.
Fifteen minutes before the NBC Las Vegas debate, the Nevada Supreme Court granted NBC's "emergency" appeal and barred Dennis Kucinich from the televised debate.
The court held that the "first amendment rights" of a "corporate media outlet" trumped the right of the American people to an open debate process.
What this ruling effectively says is that private, unelected media corporations can decide who can and cannot appear in an officially sanctioned presidential debate.
This ruling is an extremely dangerous precedent.
This is why we initiated IndependentPrimary.Com -- to fight to protect and expand small "d" democracy for us little "g" guys and gals.
We have an incredible opportunity to do something about this. The 2008 presidential election has an unprecedented level of competition. Everyone wants the independent vote. They know that our vote, in alliance with independent-minded Democrats or Republicans, is a winning combination.
We have sent a letter to all the presidential candidates asking them to come forward to admonish the Nevada's Supreme Court's decision, and to call for inclusionary debates.
And we'll be launching a new IndependentPrimary.Com vote very soon.
COMMENTS:
It's fairly comprehensive and includes a link to an ongoing debate on the subject and the intent of the 1844 Court. Bit by bit, corporations and the courts have expanded the original ruling so it's not too surprising that this happened.
Sometimes the law has very little to do with morality.
Ann
Here's the original post from yesterday:
This is reprinted, just as I received it a few minutes ago (except for the donation request) from Independent.Primary.Com. If you want to donate you may but I don't want to set a precedent here by having you think I'm promoting one cause over another. There are just too many.
======
It just goes to show you can never count on a corrupt political process.
Fifteen minutes before the NBC Las Vegas debate, the Nevada Supreme Court granted NBC's "emergency" appeal and barred Dennis Kucinich from the televised debate.
The court held that the "first amendment rights" of a "corporate media outlet" trumped the right of the American people to an open debate process.
What this ruling effectively says is that private, unelected media corporations can decide who can and cannot appear in an officially sanctioned presidential debate.
This ruling is an extremely dangerous precedent.
This is why we initiated IndependentPrimary.Com -- to fight to protect and expand small "d" democracy for us little "g" guys and gals.
We have an incredible opportunity to do something about this. The 2008 presidential election has an unprecedented level of competition. Everyone wants the independent vote. They know that our vote, in alliance with independent-minded Democrats or Republicans, is a winning combination.
We have sent a letter to all the presidential candidates asking them to come forward to admonish the Nevada's Supreme Court's decision, and to call for inclusionary debates.
And we'll be launching a new IndependentPrimary.Com vote very soon.
COMMENTS:
posted by Granny @ 1/16/2008 09:56:00 PM
I've got mixed feelings about this one.
NBC wasn't taking tax money to show this debate, so it doesn't seem quite right for the government to dictate their content.
On the other hand, Kucinich is the only candidate I give a rat's ass about, and I would have liked for his views to be heard.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:55:00 AM
But Thomas, Kucinich is not a "team player" so he and others of his ilk who won't play nicey-nice with the bully-boys can't join in on the playground. Ofcourse the media corp. claims that too many at the debate table will limit the discussion of issues. We know the media is very interested in issues - like the "breakdown" of Hilary when her eyes watered (probably from strain, exhaustion and nerves).
Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:53:00 AM
Oh girl, I work as a journalist and so don't get political in any public forum, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the heck out of this site! And thanks again for you help with my link problems.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:53:00 AM
I'm having flashes of Law and Order. Since when is an entity entitled to First Amendment Rights? It is the people the Constitution mostly applies to. Or is this non-American incorrect??
Ingrid
Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:50:00 PM
WA, "Bouncing" is one of my new found friends.
Ingrid, the courts decided long ago that a corporation is a "person" and therefore entitled to protection under the Constitution.
I bet someone out there knows the exact case and I can probably find it.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:57:00 PM
Just updated the post with a link from Wiki. It's a good starting place for anyone who wants to research it further.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:13:00 PM